Dataset Information

Transitional safety incidents as reported by patients and healthcare professionals in the Netherlands: A descriptive study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Care transitions between general practice and hospital are hazardous regarding patient safety. For developing an improvement strategy adjusted to local settings, understanding of type and potential causes of transitional safety incidents (TSIs) is needed.

Objectives

To provide a broad overview of the nature of TSIs reported by patients and healthcare professionals.

Methods

We collected data (2011-2015) from three hospitals and 56 affiliated general practitioners (GPs) in two Dutch regions (one urban, one rural). We collected data from patients through a survey, interviews and incident reporting weeks, and from GPs and hospital specialists through incident reporting systems, surveys, interviews and focus group discussions. We classified reported TSIs according to type, cause and severity.

Results

In total, 548 TSIs were reported by 411 patients and 137 healthcare professionals; 368 of 548 TSI reports contained sufficient information for classification into aspects of the care transition process, 191 of 548 for cause, and 149 of 548 for severity. Most TSIs concerned handover correspondence from hospital to GP (26%), referral (14%) and communication/collaboration (14%). Concerning cause, reported TSIs could be attributed to organizational (48%) and human factors (43%). Twenty-four percent concerned unsafe situations, 45% near misses and 31% adverse events. Patients and healthcare professionals reported differently on referral (17% vs 9%), repeated diagnostic testing (20% vs 1%), and uncertainty about assigned responsible physician (10% vs 3%).

Conclusion

Reported TSIs typically concerned informational discontinuity. One third caused harm to the patient. Patients report different TSIs than healthcare professionals, suggesting a different view.

SUBMITTER: Poldervaart JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6493279 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transitional safety incidents as reported by patients and healthcare professionals in the Netherlands: A descriptive study.

Poldervaart Judith M JM van Melle Marije A MA Reijnders Leida J LJ de Wit Niek J NJ Zwart Dorien L DL

The European journal of general practice 20190329 2

<h4>Background</h4>Care transitions between general practice and hospital are hazardous regarding patient safety. For developing an improvement strategy adjusted to local settings, understanding of type and potential causes of transitional safety incidents (TSIs) is needed.<h4>Objectives</h4>To provide a broad overview of the nature of TSIs reported by patients and healthcare professionals.<h4>Methods</h4>We collected data (2011-2015) from three hospitals and 56 affiliated general practitioners ...[more]

PMID: 30924697

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:National competent authorities (NCAs) use Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) to communicate new drug safety issues to healthcare professionals (HCPs). More knowledge is needed about the effectiveness of DHPCs and the extent to which they raise awareness of new safety issues among HCPs. OBJECTIVE:The objective was to assess and compare general practitioners' (GPs'), cardiologists', and pharmacists' familiarity with DHPCs as communication tools, their awareness of specific drug safety issues, and the sources through which they had become aware of the specific issues. METHODS:GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists from nine European countries (Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) completed a web-based survey. The survey was conducted in the context of the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with DHPCs in general and their awareness of safety issues that had recently been communicated and involved the following drugs: combined hormonal contraceptives, diclofenac, valproate, and ivabradine. Those HCPs who were aware of the specific safety issues were subsequently asked to indicate the source through which they had become aware of them. Differences between professions in familiarity with DHPCs and awareness were tested using a Pearson ?2 test per country and post hoc Pearson ?2 tests in the case of statistically significant differences. RESULTS:Of the 3288 included respondents, 54% were GPs, 40% were pharmacists, and 7% were cardiologists. The number of respondents ranged from 67 in Denmark to 916 in Spain. Most respondents (92%) were familiar with DHPCs, with one significant difference between the professions: pharmacists were more familiar than GPs in Italy (99 vs 90%, P = 0.004). GPs' awareness ranged from 96% for the diclofenac issue to 70% for the ivabradine issue. A similar pattern was shown for pharmacists (91% aware of the diclofenac issue to 66% of the ivabradine issue). Cardiologists' awareness ranged from 91% for the ivabradine issue to 34% for the valproate issue. Overall, DHPCs were a common source through which GPs (range: 45% of those aware of the contraceptives issue to 60% of those aware of the valproate issue), cardiologists (range: 33% for the contraceptives issue to 61% for the valproate issue), and pharmacists (range: 41% for the contraceptives issue to 51% for the ivabradine issue) had become aware of the specific safety issues, followed by information on websites or in newsletters. CONCLUSIONS:GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists were to a similar extent (highly) familiar with DHPCs, but they differed in awareness levels of specific safety issues. Cardiologists were less aware of safety issues associated with non-cardiology drugs even if these had cardiovascular safety concerns. This implies that additional strategies may be needed to reach specialists when communicating safety issues regarding drugs outside their therapeutic area but with risks related to their field of specialisation. DHPCs were an important source for the different professions to become aware of specific safety issues, but other sources were also often used. NCAs should consider the use of a range of sources when communicating important safety issues to HCPs.

Project description:Objectives(1) To describe the epidemiology of patient safety (PS) incidents registered in an electronic notification system in primary care (PC) health centres; (2) to define a risk map; and (3) to identify the critical areas where intervention is needed.DesignDescriptive analytical study of incidents reported from 1 January to 31 December 2018, on the TPSC Cloud™ platform (The Patient Safety Company) accessible from the corporate website (Intranet) of the regional public health service.Setting24 Catalan Institute of Health PC health centres of the Tarragona region (Spain).ParticipantsProfessionals from the PC health centres and a Patient Safety Functional Unit.MeasurementsData obtained from records voluntarily submitted to an electronic, standardised and anonymised form. Data recorded: healthcare unit, notifier, type of incident, risk matrix, causal and contributing factors, preventability, level of resolution and improvement actions.ResultsA total of 1544 reports were reviewed and 1129 PS incidents were analysed: 25.0% of incidents did not reach the patient; 66.5% reached the patient without causing harm, and 8.5% caused adverse events. Nurses provided half of the reports (48.5%), while doctors reported more adverse events (70.8%; p < 0.01). Of the 96 adverse events, 46.9% only required observation, 34.4% caused temporary damage that required treatment, 13.5% required (or prolonged) hospitalization, and 5.2% caused severe permanent damage and/or a situation close to death. Notably, 99.2% were considered preventable. The main critical areas were: communication (27.8%), clinical-administrative management (25.1%), care delivery (23.5%) and medicines (18.4%); few incidents were related to diagnosis (3.6%).ConclusionsPS incident notification applications are adequate for reporting incidents and adverse events associated with healthcare. Approximately 75% and 10% of incidents reach the patient and cause some damage, respectively, and most cases are considered preventable. Adequate and strengthened risk management of critical areas is required to improve PS.

Project description:IntroductionFaced with costly hospital readmissions of increasingly complex patient populations, transitional care is a priority throughout Ontario, Canada; yet, rural patients have significantly more hospital readmissions and emergency department visits during the first 30 days following hospitalisation than urban patients. Because transitional care (TC) was designed and evaluated with urban patients, addressing urban-rural disparities in TC effectiveness requires increasing the alignment of TC with the needs of patients and families in rural communities and the rural nursing practice context. The study objectives are to (1) determine the perceived acceptability of evidence-based TC interventions targeting postdischarge care management to patients, families and nurses and (2) adapt the interventions to patients' and families' needs and the rural nursing practice context.Methods and analysisThis multimethod study has two phases. In phase I, 32-48 patients and families will rate their level of preparedness for discharge and the acceptability of evidence-based TC interventions. Participants will be engaged in semi-structured interviews about their care management needs, their perspectives on the interventions in fitting those needs and in providing suggestions for adapting the interventions to fit their needs. TC interventions perceived as acceptable to patients and families will be examined in phase II. In phase II, 32-48 hospital and home care nurses will rate the acceptability of the interventions identified by patients and families and attend focus group discussions on the feasibility of providing the interventions. Phase I and II data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board at York University and participating hospital sites. Findings will be communicated through plain language fact sheets, policy briefs, press-releases and peer-reviewed conference presentations and manuscripts.

Project description:BackgroundPromoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics have mainly been studied independently from each other. The present study investigated hospital staffs' perceptions of four different topics: (1) psychosocial working conditions, (2) leadership, (3) patient safety climate, and (4) occupational safety climate. We present results from a survey in two German university hospitals aiming to detect differences between nurses and physicians.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study using a standardized paper-based questionnaire. The survey was conducted with nurses and physicians to assess the four topics. The instruments mainly consisted of scales of the German version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), one scale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), scales to assess leadership and transformational leadership, scales to assess patient safety climate using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), and analogous items to assess occupational safety climate.ResultsA total of 995 completed questionnaires out of 2512 distributed questionnaires were returned anonymously. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The sample consisted of 381 physicians and 567 nurses. We found various differences with regard to the four topics. In most of the COPSOQ and the HSPSC-scales, physicians rated psychosocial working conditions and patient safety climate more positively than nurses. With regard to occupational safety, nurses indicated higher occupational risks than physicians.ConclusionsThe WorkSafeMed study combined the assessment of the four topics psychosocial working conditions, leadership, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate in hospitals. Looking at the four topics provides an overview of where improvements in hospitals may be needed for nurses and physicians. Based on these results, improvements in working conditions, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate are required for health care professionals in German university hospitals - especially for nurses.

Dataset Information

Transitional safety incidents as reported by patients and healthcare professionals in the Netherlands: A descriptive study.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Transitional safety incidents as reported by patients and healthcare professionals in the Netherlands: A descriptive study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets