Setting priorities for patient safety.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Runciman WB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1743639 | biostudies-literature | 2002 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Setting priorities for patient safety.
Runciman W B WB Edmonds M J MJ Pradhan M M
Quality & safety in health care 20020901 3
<h4>Background</h4>Current "flags" for adverse events (AEs) are biased towards those with serious outcomes, potentially leading to failure to address mundane common problems.<h4>Aim</h4>To provide a basis for setting priorities to improve patient safety by ranking adverse events by resource consumption as well as by outcome. This was done by classifying a set of AEs, according to how they may be prevented, into "Principal Natural Categories" (PNCs).<h4>Setting</h4>AEs associated with a represent ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify the top 10 unanswered research questions for primary care patient safety research. DESIGN:A modified nominal group technique. SETTING:UK. PARTICIPANTS:Anyone with experience of primary care including: patients, carers and healthcare professionals. 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals submitted questions. MAIN OUTCOMES:A top 10, and top 30, future research questions for primary care patient safety. RESULTS:443 research questions were submitted by 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals, through a national survey. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 173 questions were collated into themes. The themes were largely focused on communication, team and system working, interfaces across primary and secondary care, medication, self-management support and technology. The questions were then prioritised through a national survey, the top 30 questions were taken forward to the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 research questions focused on the most vulnerable in society, holistic whole-person care, safer communication and coordination between care providers, work intensity, continuity of care, suicide risk, complex care at home and confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS:This study was the first national prioritisation exercise to identify patient and healthcare professional priorities for primary care patient safety research. The research priorities identified a range of important gaps in the existing evidence to inform everyday practice to address primary care patient safety.
| S-EPMC5855454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer, one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers, is now being detected earlier and treatments are improving, which means that patients are living longer. Partnering with Canadian clinicians, patients and researchers, we aimed to determine research priorities for those living with early-stage colorectal cancer in Canada.MethodsWe followed the well-established priority-setting partnership outlined by the James Lind Alliance to identify and prioritize unanswered questions about early-stage (i.e., stages I-III) colorectal cancer. The study was conducted from September 2018 to September 2020. We surveyed patients, caregivers and clinicians from across Canada between June 2019 and December 2019. We categorized the responses using thematic analysis to generate a list of unique questions. We conducted an interim prioritization survey from April 2020 to July 2020, with patients, caregivers and clinicians, to determine a shorter list of questions, which was then reviewed at a final meeting (involving patients, caregivers and clinicians) in September 2020. At that meeting, we used a consensus-based process to determine the top 10 priorities.ResultsFor the initial survey, 370 responses were submitted by 185 individuals; of the 98 individuals who provided demographic information, 44 (45%) were patients, 16 (16%) were caregivers, 7 (7%) were members of an advocacy group, 26 (27%) were health care professionals and 5 (5%) were categorized as "other." The responses were refined to create a list of 66 unique unanswered questions. Twenty-five respondents answered the interim prioritization survey: 13 patients (52%), 2 caregivers (8%), 3 advocacy group members (12%) and 7 health care professionals (28%). This led to a list of the top 30 questions. The final consensus meeting involved 20 individuals (10 patients [50%], 3 caregivers [15%] and 7 health care professionals [35%]), who agreed to the top 10 research priorities. The priorities covered a range of topics, including screening, treatment, recurrence, management of adverse effects and decision-making.InterpretationWe determined the top research priorities for early-stage colorectal cancer using a collaborative partnership of stake-holders from across Canada. The priorities covered a broad range of topics that could be addressed by future research, including improved screening practices, the role of personalized medicine, the management of adverse effects of treatment, decision-making and prevention of recurrence.
| S-EPMC9259415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Physical healthcare has dominated the patient safety field; research in mental healthcare is not as extensive but findings from physical healthcare cannot be applied to mental healthcare because it delivers specialised care that faces unique challenges. Therefore, a clearer focus and recognition of patient safety in mental health as a distinct research area is still needed. The study aim is to identify future research priorities in the field of patient safety in mental health. DESIGN:Semistructured interviews were conducted with the experts to ascertain their views on research priorities in patient safety in mental health. A three-round online Delphi study was used to ascertain consensus on 117 research priority statements. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Academic and service user experts from the USA, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Agreement in research priorities on a five-point scale. RESULTS:Seventy-nine statements achieved consensus (>70%). Three out of the top six research priorities were patient driven; experts agreed that understanding the patient perspective on safety planning, on self-harm and on medication was important. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first international Delphi study to identify research priorities in safety in the mental field as determined by expert academic and service user perspectives. A reasonable consensus was obtained from international perspectives on future research priorities in patient safety in mental health; however, the patient perspective on their mental healthcare is a priority. The research agenda for patient safety in mental health identified here should be informed by patient safety science more broadly and used to further establish this area as a priority in its own right. The safety of mental health patients must have parity with that of physical health patients to achieve this.
| S-EPMC5855203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Three reported episodes of anaphylaxis, where 1:1000 adrenaline was not immediately obtainable, triggered us to assess its availability on all adult wards. We found adrenaline was unavailable on 50% of audited wards. A questionnaire for doctors and nurses revealed lack of knowledge on both the management of anaphylaxis and location of emergency drugs. Given that anaphylaxis is a treatable but potentially fatal condition, we held a meeting to discuss the situation with senior pharmacists, resuscitation managers, and senior doctors. Our intervention was to advise the production of 'anaphylaxis packs' as part of the crash trolley kit. This was to be added to the laminated crash trolley check list and to include adrenaline, chlorphenamine, hydrocortisone, and the anaphylaxis algorithm. The aim was to improve ward stock, staff knowledge, and create a consistent location for emergency drugs, so minimising human error, and patient harm. With a PDSA approach we trialled the intervention on four pilot wards. The packs have now been dispersed trust-wide. Re-audit at four months showed 100% ward stock of anaphylaxis packs, more consistent drug location and improved staff knowledge. There were 17 coded incidents of anaphylaxis at this hospital in 2011, the actual figure likely being higher. We feel our project has greatly improved patient safety in this area.
| S-EPMC4652734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine and telephone-triage may compromise patient safety, particularly if urgency is underestimated. We aimed to explore the level of safety of a pediatric telemedicine service, with particular reference to the appropriateness of the medical diagnoses made by the online physicians and the reasonableness of their decisions.MethodsThis retrospective multi-method study investigated the decision-making process of physicians in a pediatric tele-triage service provided in Israel. The first section of the study investigates several measures relating to patient safety in the telemedicine setting. Two physicians reviewed a random sample of 339 parent-physician consultations conducted via a pediatric telemedicine service provided by a healthcare organization during 2014-2017. The consultations were analyzed for factors that may have affected the online physicians' decisions, with an emphasis on the appropriateness of the diagnoses and the reasonableness of the decisions. The online physicians' decisions were also compared to the subsequent outcomes (i.e., parental compliance with the recommendations and medical follow-ups within the healthcare system) after each consultation. The second section of the study (using a qualitative approach) consisted of interviews with 15 physicians who work in the pediatric telemedicine service, in order to explore their subjective experiences and efforts for assuring patient safety. The physicians were asked about factors that may have affected their reaching an appropriate diagnosis and a reasonable decision while maintaining patient safety.ResultsThe first section of the study demonstrates high levels of diagnosis appropriateness (98.5%) and decision reasonableness (92%), as well as low levels of false-positive (2.65%) and false-negative (5.3%), good sensitivity (82.85%), and high specificity (96.15%). A high association between the online decisions and the subsequent outcomes was also observed. The second section of the study presents physicians' means for ensuring high patient safety - by implementing a range of factors that helped them reach appropriate diagnoses and reasonable decisions.ConclusionsThe results show overall high patient safety in the pediatric tele-triage service that was examined. However, decision makers must strive to implement additional means for further enhancing the clinicians' ability to reach accurate diagnoses and provide optimal treatments within the tele-triage settings - with the aim of ensuring patient safety.
| S-EPMC7126468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectivesTo assess the patient safety culture in Primary Health Care (PHC) setting after the transition to the Family Health Strategy (FHS) model in a Brazilian metropolitan area and compare the results between the categories of health care professionals.MethodsA cross-sectional study including 246 workers from primary health care services in Federal District, Brazil. Data collection took place from October to December 2019 through the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture (MOSPSC) application. Patient safety culture was considered positive when the score was above 60%. For comparisons between the categories of health care professionals', the ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for composite percent positive scores, and Pearson's chi-square or Fishers exact test for frequency and percentage of positive responses.ResultsThe overall MOSPSC composite percent positive score was 49.9%. Among the 12 dimensions, only three showed a positive patient safety culture: Teamwork (73.1%), Organizational learning (62.9%), and Patient care tracking/follow-up (60.1%). The percentage of positive responses on overall quality assessment (78.1%) and overall patient safety assessment (78.0%) showed a positive evaluation. There was no significant difference in the composite percent positive score of overall MOSPSC (p = 0.135) and the percentage of positive responses on overall patient safety assessment (p = 0.156) between the categories of health care professionals. Overall quality assessment showed a significant difference between job roles (p < 0.001), in which nursing /health care technicians showed a significantly lower score than other job roles.ConclusionThe patient safety culture assessment showed a weakness in the patient safety in the PHC services. The MOSPSC and nine of its dimensions presented a negative safety culture assessment, regardless of the high scores in the overall patient safety and quality assessments.
| S-EPMC9321378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic pain affects 1-3 million Canadian children and adolescents and their families. The primary objective of the Partnering For Pain project was to collaboratively identify the top 10 research priorities in pediatric chronic pain. METHODS:Partnering For Pain took a patient-oriented research approach and followed a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to identify the top research priorities in pediatric chronic pain according to people with lived experience (patients), family members and health care providers (clinicians). The PSP was completed in 4 phases between May and December 2018: 1) national survey of stakeholders, including those with lived experience with pediatric chronic pain, family members and clinicians who treat children with chronic pain, to gather priorities, 2) data processing, 3) interim prioritization by invited patients, family members and clinicians (former research participants or identified through pediatric chronic pain programs, patient partner organizations and steering committee member networks) and 4) in-person priority-setting workshop involving patients, family members and clinicians identified via steering committee networks and partner organizations, with evaluation of patient engagement. The process was led by a national steering committee of patient and parent partners, researchers and clinicians engaged in codesign, analysis and translation of project findings. RESULTS:In phase 1, 215 Canadians (86 patients [40.0%], 56 family members [26.0%] and 73 clinicians [34.0%]) submitted 540 potential priorities that were developed into 112 unique research questions (phase 2). Of the 112 questions, 63 were rated for importance by 57 participants (19 patients [33%], 17 family members [30%] and 21 clinicians [37%]) in phase 3. In phase 4, 20 participants (6 patients [30%], 6 family members [30%] and 8 clinicians [40%]) discussed the 25 most highly rated questions and reached consensus on the final top 10. INTERPRETATION:The final priorities address pediatric chronic pain prevention, impact and treatment, as well as delivery, access and coordination of care. The priorities reflect a directed and collaborative call to action to improve existing pediatric pain research and care. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY:Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 children and teens. This means that 1-3 million Canadian youth deal with pain lasting months to years. This pain gets in the way of being active, sleeping, going to school, and getting along with friends and family. Youth with chronic pain and their families are experts on what it's like to live with pain, but, until now, research has not asked what issues they care about most. The goal of the Partnering For Pain project was to develop a list of the 10 most important things we still need to learn about chronic pain during childhood according to people who live with it, their families and health care providers. We did this in 4 steps: 1) a survey with 215 people who shared 540 concerns they have about chronic pain in childhood, 2) turning those concerns into questions that can be answered by research, 3) a survey with 57 people who ranked how important each research question was and 4) an in-person discussion with 20 people who chose the top 10 research priorities. Each step included Canadians who have had chronic pain during childhood, their families and health care providers. The final top 10 list has questions about how to better prevent and care for children and teens with chronic pain. These priorities make sure that future research focuses on what is most important to people who will use it in their everyday lives. Project video: https://youtu.be/wA-RwrFiSPk. Project website: www.partneringforpain.com.
| S-EPMC6839970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prenatal micronutrient deficiencies are associated with negative maternal and birth outcomes. Multiple micronutrient supplementation (MMS) during pregnancy is a cost-effective intervention to reduce these adverse outcomes. However, important knowledge gaps remain in the implementation of MMS interventions. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology was applied to inform the direction of research and investments needed to support the implementation of MMS interventions for pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Following CHNRI methodology guidelines, a group of international experts in nutrition and maternal health provided and ranked the research questions that most urgently need to be resolved for prenatal MMS interventions to be successfully implemented. Seventy-three research questions were received, analyzed, and reorganized, resulting in 35 consolidated research questions. These were scored against four criteria, yielding a priority ranking where the top 10 research options focused on strategies to increase antenatal care attendance and MMS adherence, methods needed to identify populations more likely to benefit from MMS interventions and some discovery issues (e.g., potential benefit of extending MMS through lactation). This exercise prioritized 35 discrete research questions that merit serious consideration for the potential of MMS during pregnancy to be optimized in LMIC.
| S-EPMC7186835 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With increasing emphasis among health care providers and funders on patient-centered care, it follows that patients and their caregivers should be included when priorities for research are being established. This study sought to identify the most important unanswered questions about the management of kidney failure from the perspective of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and the health care professionals who care for these patients. Research uncertainties were identified through a national Canadian survey of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and health care professionals. Uncertainties were refined by a steering committee that included patients, caregivers, researchers, and clinicians to assemble a short-list of the top 30 uncertainties. Thirty-four people (11 patients; five caregivers; eight physicians; six nurses; and one social worker, pharmacist, physiotherapist, and dietitian each) from across Canada subsequently participated in a workshop to determine the top 10 research questions. In total, 1570 usable research uncertainties were received from 317 respondents to the survey. Among these, 259 unique uncertainties were identified; after ranking, these were reduced to a short-list of 30 uncertainties. During the in-person workshop, the top 10 research uncertainties were identified, which included questions about enhanced communication among patients and providers, dialysis modality options, itching, access to kidney transplantation, heart health, dietary restrictions, depression, and vascular access. These can be used alongside the results of other research priority-setting exercises to guide researchers in designing future studies and inform health care funders.
| S-EPMC4186509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Priority setting research has focused on the macro (national) and micro (bedside) level, leaving the meso (institutional, hospital) level relatively neglected. This is surprising given the key role that hospitals play in the delivery of healthcare services and the large proportion of health systems resources that they absorb. To explore the factors that impact upon priority setting at the hospital level, we conducted a thematic review of empirical studies. A systematic search of PubMed, EBSCOHOST, Econlit databases and Google scholar was supplemented by a search of key websites and a manual search of relevant papers' reference lists. A total of 24 papers were identified from developed and developing countries. We applied a policy analysis framework to examine and synthesize the findings of the selected papers. Findings suggest that priority setting practice in hospitals was influenced by (1) contextual factors such as decision space, resource availability, financing arrangements, availability and use of information, organizational culture and leadership, (2) priority setting processes that depend on the type of priority setting activity, (3) content factors such as priority setting criteria and (4) actors, their interests and power relations. We observe that there is need for studies to examine these issues and the interplay between them in greater depth and propose a conceptual framework that might be useful in examining priority setting practices in hospitals.
| S-EPMC4353893 | biostudies-other