Dataset Information

Evaluation of the organisation and effectiveness of internal audits to govern patient safety in hospitals: a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Hospital boards are legally responsible for safe healthcare. They need tools to assist them in their task of governing patient safety. Almost every Dutch hospital performs internal audits, but the effectiveness of these audits for hospital governance has never been evaluated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the organisation of internal audits and their effectiveness for hospitals boards to govern patient safety.

Design and setting

A mixed-methods study consisting of a questionnaire regarding the organisation of internal audits among all Dutch hospitals (n=89) and interviews with stakeholders regarding the audit process and experienced effectiveness of audits within six hospitals.

Results

Response rate of the questionnaire was 76% and 43 interviews were held. In every responding hospital, the internal audits followed the plan-do-check-act cycle. Every hospital used interviews, document analysis and site visits as input for the internal audit. Boards stated that effective aspects of internal audits were their multidisciplinary scope, their structured and in-depth approach, the usability to monitor improvement activities and to change hospital policy and the fact that results were used in meetings with staff and boards of supervisors. The qualitative methods (interviews and site visits) used in internal audits enable the identification of soft signals such as unsafe culture or communication and collaboration problems. Reported disadvantages were the low frequency of internal audits and the absence of soft signals in the actual audit reports.

Conclusion

This study shows that internal audits are regarded as effective for patient safety governance, as they help boards to identify patient safety problems, proactively steer patient safety and inform boards of supervisors on the status of patient safety. The description of the Dutch internal audits makes these audits replicable to other healthcare organisations in different settings, enabling hospital boards to complement their systems to govern patient safety.

SUBMITTER: van Gelderen SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5734458 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the organisation and effectiveness of internal audits to govern patient safety in hospitals: a mixed-methods study.

van Gelderen Saskia C SC Zegers Marieke M Boeijen Wilma W Westert Gert P GP Robben Paul B PB Wollersheim Hub C HC

BMJ open 20170710 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>Hospital boards are legally responsible for safe healthcare. They need tools to assist them in their task of governing patient safety. Almost every Dutch hospital performs internal audits, but the effectiveness of these audits for hospital governance has never been evaluated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the organisation of internal audits and their effectiveness for hospitals boards to govern patient safety.<h4>Design and setting</h4>A mixed-methods study consisting o ...[more]

PMID: 28698328

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementing an accredited quality and patient safety management system is inevitable for hospitals. Even in the case of an obligatory rule system, different approaches to implement such a system can be used: coercive (based on monitoring and threats of punishment) and catalytic (based on dialogue and suggestion). This study takes these different approaches as a starting point to explore whether and how implementation actions are linked to compliance. By doing so, this study aims to contribute to the knowledge on how to increase compliance with obligatory rules and regulations. METHODS:The internal audit system (the 'tracer system') of a large Dutch academic hospital is used as a case to investigate different implementation approaches and their effect on compliance. This case allowed us to use a multi-actor and multi-method approach for data collection. Internal audits (N?=?16) were observed, audit reports were analyzed, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with both the internal auditors (N?=?23) and the ward leaders (N?=?14) responsible for compliance. Framework analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS:Although all auditors use catalytic enforcement actions, these do not lead to (intended) compliance of all ward leaders. Rather, the catalytic actions contribute to (intended) compliance of ward leaders that are motivated, whereas they do not for the ward leaders that are not motivated. For the motivated ward leaders, catalytic enforcement actions contribute to (intended) compliance by increasing ward leaders' knowledge of the rules and how to comply with them. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that the effectiveness of implementation actions depends not only on the actions themselves, but also on the pre-existing motivation to comply. These findings imply that there is not one 'best' approach to the implementation of obligatory rules. Rather, the most effective approach depends on the willingness to comply with rules and regulations.

Project description:BackgroundPatient safety research has lagged within academic settings, including chiropractic teaching institutions. To develop a robust patient safety culture, the Institute of Medicine emphasized the need for employee's attitudes to be understanding and positive. To initiate the assessment of the current culture and future needs, this study evaluated patient safety attitudes among chiropractic teaching clinic stakeholders (supervising clinicians, student interns, and administrative staff) and compared their standardized survey scores to established medical survey databases.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods survey design with quantitative analytic priority. Chiropractic interns, clinical faculty, and clinic staff of 5 international chiropractic educational programs completed a modified version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Culture for Medical Offices Survey with open-ended comment fields between 2014 and 2016. Composite means of positive responses were calculated and compared to patient safety, quality of care, and overall self-ratings benchmarks from Canadian providers and academic settings in the AHRQ database. Qualitative responses were thematically categorized for a convergent analysis of quantitative results for the chiropractic sample.ResultsChiropractic survey response rate was 45.3% (n = 645). Quantitative survey results indicated moderate scores and ranges (57-85%) on all patient safety dimensions for the chiropractic samples. Academic medicine and chiropractic providers' benchmarks scored higher positive responses than chiropractic teaching clinics on most quantitative dimensions, except for work pressure/pace. Teamwork, organizational learning, and patient tracking/follow-up were the most positively endorsed quantitative dimensions, with communication, staff training, office standardization, and leadership support considered areas for improvement in both settings. Qualitative responses for the chiropractic clinics identified a need for open communication; additional staff training and student involvement in creating safety cultures; standardization of office processes including information exchange, scheduling, and equipment maintenance; and leadership support that focused on decreasing work pressure/pace and setting safety priorities.ConclusionAs the first report of patient safety attitudes from stakeholders in chiropractic teaching clinics, specific areas of improvement were identified. Chiropractic teaching programs might consider incorporating these and related patient safety concepts into their formal curricula. Mixed methods approach offers teaching clinics opportunities to assess stakeholders' insights and enhance safe delivery of chiropractic care.

Project description:BackgroundThe study of safety culture and its relationship to patient care have been challenged by variation in definition, dimensionality and methods of assessment. This systematic review aimed to map methods to assess safety culture in hospitals, analyse the prevalence of these methods in the published research literature and examine the dimensions of safety culture captured through these processes.MethodsWe included studies reporting on quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to assess safety culture in hospitals. The review was conducted using four academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) with studies from January 2008 to May 2020. A formal quality appraisal was not conducted. Study purpose, type of method and safety culture dimensions were extracted from all studies, coded thematically, and summarised narratively and using descriptive statistics where appropriate.ResultsA total of 694 studies were included. A third (n=244, 35.2%) had a descriptive or exploratory purpose, 225 (32.4%) tested relationships among variables, 129 (18.6%) evaluated an intervention, while 13.8% (n=96) had a methodological focus. Most studies exclusively used surveys (n=663; 95.5%), with 88 different surveys identified. Only 31 studies (4.5%) used qualitative or mixed methods. Thematic analysis identified 11 themes related to safety culture dimensions across the methods, with 'Leadership' being the most common. Qualitative and mixed methods approaches were more likely to identify additional dimensions of safety culture not covered by the 11 themes, including improvisation and contextual pressures.DiscussionWe assessed the extent to which safety culture dimensions mapped to specific quantitative and qualitative tools and methods of assessing safety culture. No single method or tool appeared to measure all 11 themes of safety culture. Risk of publication bias was high in this review. Future attempts to assess safety culture in hospitals should consider incorporating qualitative methods into survey studies to evaluate this multi-faceted construct.

Project description:PurposePatient safety in eye health care is an underdeveloped field of research. A patient safety incident occurs when an unintended incident happens that could have (or did) lead to harm. To enable learning from patient safety incidents in optometry, a characterisation of commonly experienced safety incidents is needed to identify options to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to characterise eye health-related patient safety incidents from the perspective of eye care practitioners.MethodsAt a national conference in Wales, 56 eye care practitioners participated in a stakeholder workshop on eye care-related patient safety incidents. Participants were asked to suggest patient safety incidents that have occurred, or based on their experience, could occur in optometric practice. Using the nominal group technique, participants voted on the incident they perceived could cause the most harm and the incident observed most frequently in practice. Framework analysis supported identification of themes about the nature and outcomes of incidents in eye care.ResultsDiagnostic incidents were perceived to be the most severe (highest number of 'severity votes', n = 38), whilst administration-related incidents were most frequent (highest number of 'frequency votes' n = 39). Four themes were identified which are as follows: inappropriate clinical decision-making; delayed or missed referral of patients to general medical practitioners or ophthalmologists; compromised communication with other practitioners or patients and delays in receiving eye care. The results suggest that incidents relating to inappropriate clinical decision-making could result in the most severe harm to patients but may not occur frequently.ConclusionsDiagnostic- and administrative-related incidents pose clear challenges for improvement in quality and safety of care. The breadth of themes reflecting the nature and outcomes from unsafe eye care highlights the complexity underpinning incidents and the burden to patients. This work has informed the content of an all-Wales incident report form for primary eye care practitioners.

Project description:While the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (the Checklist) can improve patient outcomes, variable administration can erode benefits. We sought to understand and improve how operating room (OR) staff use the Checklist. Our specific aims were to: determine if OR staff can discriminate between good and poor quality of Checklist administration using a validated audit tool (WHOBARS); to determine reliability and accuracy of WHOBARS self-ratings; determine the influence of demographic variables on ratings and explore OR staff attitudes to Checklist administration. DESIGN:Mixed methods study using WHOBARS ratings of surgical cases by OR staff and two independent observers, thematic analysis of staff interviews. PARTICIPANTS:OR staff in three New Zealand hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES:Reliability of WHOBARS for self-audit; staff attitudes to Checklist administration. RESULTS:Analysis of scores (243 participants, 2 observers, 59 cases) supported tool reliability, with 87% of WHOBARS score variance attributable to differences in Checklist administration between cases. Self-ratings were significantly higher than observer ratings, with some differences between professional groups but error variance from all raters was less than 10%. Key interview themes (33 interviewees) were: Team culture and embedding the Checklist, Information transfer and obstacles, Raising concerns and 'A tick-box exercise'. Interviewees felt the Checklist could promote teamwork and a safety culture, particularly enabling speaking up. Senior staff were of key importance in setting the appropriate tone. CONCLUSIONS:The WHOBARS tool could be useful for self-audit and quality improvement as OR staff can reliably discriminate between good and poor Checklist administration. OR staff self-ratings were lenient compared with external observers suggesting the value of external audit for benchmarking. Small differences between ratings from professional groups underpin the value of including all members of the team in scoring. We identified factors explaining staff perceptions of the Checklist that should inform quality improvement interventions.

Project description:ObjectivesTo predict the amount of teamwork that takes place throughout a surgery, based on performing a preoperative safety standards (surgical safety checklist and surgical count) and to explore factors affecting patient safety and staff psychological safety during a surgery, based on interprofessional teamwork.MethodsThis mixed methods study included quantitative and qualitative analyses. Quantitative data included 2,184 direct observations of surgical cases with regard to the performance of safety standards during surgeries in 29 hospitals, analyzed using multivariate binary logistic regressions. Qualitative data were obtained from an analysis of 25 semi-structured interviews with operating room (OR) clinicians and risk managers, using an inductive thematic analysis approach.ResultsAnalysis of the OR observations revealed that a lack of teamwork in the preoperative "sign-in" phase doubled the chances of there being a lack of teamwork during surgery [odds ratio = 1.972, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.741, 2.233, p < 0.001] and during the "time-out" phase (odds ratio = 2.142, 95% CI 1.879, 2.441, p < 0.001). Consistent presence of staff during surgery significantly increased teamwork, by 21% for physicians and 24% for nurses (p < 0.05), but staff turnover significantly decreased teamwork, by 73% for physicians (p < 0.05). Interview data indicated that patient safety and staff psychological safety are related to a perception of a collaborative team role among OR staff, with mutual commitment and effective interprofessional communication.ConclusionsHealthcare organizations should consider the key finding of this study when trying to identify factors that affect teamwork during a surgery. Effective preoperative teamwork positively affects intraoperative teamwork, as does the presence of more clinicians participating in a surgery, with no turnover. Other factors include working in a fixed, designated team, led by a surgeon, which functions with effective interprofessional communication that promotes patient safety and staff psychological safety.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the organisation and effectiveness of internal audits to govern patient safety in hospitals: a mixed-methods study.

Objectives

Design and setting

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Evaluation of the organisation and effectiveness of internal audits to govern patient safety in hospitals: a mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets