Dataset Information

Development and evaluation of an intervention based on the provision of patient feedback to improve patient safety in Spanish primary healthcare centres: study protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Despite the enormous potential for adverse events in primary healthcare (PHC), the knowledge about how to improve patient safety in this context is still sparse. We describe the methods for the development and evaluation of an intervention targeted at PHC professionals to improve patient safety in Spanish PHC centres. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The intervention will consist in using the patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care (PREOS-PC) survey to gather patient-reported experiences and outcomes concerning the safety of the healthcare patients receive in their PHC centres, and feed that information back to the PHC professionals to help them identify opportunities for safer healthcare provision. The study will involve three stages. Stage 1 (developing the intervention) will involve: (i) qualitative study with 40 PHC providers to optimise the acceptability and perceived utility of the proposed intervention; (ii) Spanish translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the PREOS-PC survey; (iii) developing the intervention components; and (iv) developing an online tool to electronically administrate PREOS-PC and automatically generate feedback reports to PHC centres. Stage 2 (piloting the intervention) will involve a 3-month feasibility (one group pre-post) study in 10 PHC centres (500 patients, 260 providers). Stage 3 (evaluating the intervention) will involve: (i) a 12-month, two-arm, two-level cluster randomised controlled trial (1248 PHC professionals within 48 PHC centres; with randomisation at the centre level in a 1:1 ratio) to evaluate the impact of the intervention on patient safety culture (primary outcome), patient-reported safety experiences and outcomes (using the PREOS-PC survey), and avoidable hospitalisations; (ii) qualitative study with 20 PHC providers to evaluate the acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention and identify implementation barriers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Balearic Islands (CEI IB: 3686/18) with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03837912; pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Serrano-Ripoll MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7008422 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and evaluation of an intervention based on the provision of patient feedback to improve patient safety in Spanish primary healthcare centres: study protocol.

Serrano-Ripoll Maria J MJ Ripoll Joana J Llobera Joan J Valderas Jose Maria JM Pastor-Moreno Guadalupe G Olry de Labry Lima Antonio A Ricci-Cabello Ignacio I

BMJ open 20191223 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Despite the enormous potential for adverse events in primary healthcare (PHC), the knowledge about how to improve patient safety in this context is still sparse. We describe the methods for the development and evaluation of an intervention targeted at PHC professionals to improve patient safety in Spanish PHC centres.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>The intervention will consist in using the patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care (PREOS-PC) survey to ...[more]

PMID: 31874872

Similar Datasets

Project description:By assessing patient safety culture, healthcare providers can identify areas for improvement in patient safety culture. To achieve this, these assessment outcomes have to be relevant and presented clearly. The aim of our study was to explore healthcare professionals' views on the feedback of a patient safety culture assessment.Twenty four hospitals participated in a patient safety culture assessment in 2012. Hospital departments received feedback in a report and on a website. In a survey, we evaluated healthcare professionals' views on this feedback and the effect of additional information about patient safety culture improvement strategies on the appraisal of the feedback. 20 hospitals participated in part I (evaluation of the report), 13 hospitals participated in part II (evaluation of the website).Healthcare professionals (e.g. members of staff and department heads/managers) rated the feedback in the report and on the website positively (average mean on different aspects?=?7.2 on a scale from 1 to 10). Interpreting results was sometimes difficult, and information was sometimes lacking, like specific recommendations and improvement strategies. The provision of additional general information on patient safety culture improvement strategies resulted only in a higher appraisal of the attractiveness (lay-out) of the report and the understandability of the feedback report. The majority (84 %) of the healthcare professionals agreed or partly agreed that the feedback on patient safety culture stimulated actions to improve patient safety culture. However, a quarter also stated that although the feedback report provided insight into the patient safety culture, they did not know how to improve patient safety culture in their hospital.Healthcare professionals seem to be positive about the feedback on patient safety culture and its effect on stimulating patient safety culture improvement. To optimally tune feedback on patient safety culture towards healthcare professionals, the following might help: 1) pay attention to the understandability of outcomes for its intended users; and 2) create feedback that is tailored towards specific hospital departments.

Project description:IntroductionPatients are a valuable source of information about ways to prevent harm in healthcare, and can provide feedback about the factors that contribute to safety incidents. The Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) is a novel and validated tool that captures patient feedback on safety and can be used by primary care practice teams to identify and prevent safety incidents. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of PC PMOS as a tool for data-driven safety improvement and monitoring in Australian primary care.Methods and analysisFeasibility will be assessed using a mixed-methods approach to understand the enablers, barriers, acceptability, practicability, intervention fidelity and scalability of C PMOS as a tool for safety improvement across six primary care practices in the south-west region of Victoria. Patients over the age of 18 years attending their primary care practice will be invited to complete the PC PMOS when presenting for an appointment. Staff members at each practice will form a safety improvement team. Staff will then use the patient feedback to develop and implement specific safety interventions over a 6-month period. Data collection methods during the intervention period includes audio recordings of staff meetings, overt observations at training and education workshops, reflexive researcher insights, document collection and review. Data collection postintervention includes patient completion of the PC PMOS and semistructured interviews with staff. Triangulation and thematic analysis techniques will be employed to analyse the qualitative and content data. Analysis methods will use current evidence and models of healthcare culture, safety improvement and patient involvement in safety to inform the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was granted by Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group, Faculty of Health (HEAG-H 175_2017). Study results will be disseminated through local and international conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Project description:BackgroundAdverse events in the primary care setting result in a direct cost equivalent to at least 2.5% of total healthcare spending. Across OECD countries, they lead to more than seven million avoidable hospital admissions annually. In this manuscript, we describe the protocol of a trial aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of SinergiAPS (a patient-centered audit and feedback intervention) in reducing avoidable hospital admission and explore the factors that may affect its implementation.MethodsWe will conduct a 24-month, parallel, open-label, multicenter, pragmatic, hybrid type 1 randomized clinical trial. 118 primary healthcare centers with wide geographical distribution in Spain will be randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to two groups. The intervention group will receive two audits (baseline and intermediate at 12 months) based on information collected through the administration of the PREOS-PC questionnaire (a measure of patient-reported patient safety) to a convenience sample of 100 patients per center. The intervention group will receive reports on the results of both audits, along with educational resources aimed at facilitating the design and implementation of safety improvement plans. The control group will receive care as usual. The primary outcome will be the rate of avoidable hospitalizations (administrative data). Secondary outcomes: patient-reported patient safety experiences and outcomes (PREOS-PC questionnaire); patient safety culture as perceived by professionals (MOSPSC questionnaire); adverse events reported by healthcare professionals (ad hoc questionnaire); the number of safety improvement actions which the re has implemented (ad hoc questionnaire). Outcome data will be collected at baseline and 24 months follow-up. For the evaluation of the implementation of the SinergiAPS intervention, we will draw on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We will collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data (30 individual interviews, implementation logbooks; questionnaires for professionals from intervention centers, and level of use of the SinergiAPS web tool).DiscussionThis study will expand the scarce body of evidence existing regarding the effects and implementation of interventions aimed at promoting patient and family engagement in primary healthcare, specifically for enhancing patient safety. The study has the potential to produce an impact on clinical practice, healthcare systems, and population health.Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05958108?term=sinergiAPS&rank=1 (NCT05958108).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient safety is a key target in public health, health services and medicine. Communication between all parties involved in gynecology and obstetrics (clinical staff/professionals, expectant mothers/patients and their partners, close relatives or friends providing social support) should be improved to ensure patient safety, including the avoidance of preventable adverse events (pAEs). Therefore, interventions including an app will be developed in this project through a participatory approach integrating two theoretical models. The interventions will be designed to support participants in their communication with each other and to overcome difficulties in everyday hospital life. The aim is to foster effective communication in order to reduce the frequency of pAEs. If communication is improved, clinical staff should show an increase in work satisfaction and patients should show an increase in patient satisfaction. METHODS:The study will take place in two maternity clinics in Germany. In line with previous studies of complex interventions, it is divided into three interdependent phases. Each phase provides its own methods and data. Phase 1: Needs assessment and a training for staff (n?=?140) tested in a pre-experimental study with a pre/post-design. Phase 2: Assessment of communication training for patients and their social support providers (n?=?423) in a randomized controlled study. Phase 3: Assessment of an app supporting the communication between staff, patients, and their social support providers (n?=?423) in a case-control study. The primary outcome is improvement of communication competencies. A range of other implementation outcomes will also be assessed (i.e. pAEs, patient/treatment satisfaction, work satisfaction, safety culture, training-related outcomes). DISCUSSION:This is the first large intervention study on communication and patient safety in gynecology and obstetrics integrating two theoretical models that have not been applied to this setting. It is expected that the interventions, including the app, will improve communication practice which is linked to a lower probability of pAEs. The app will offer an effective and inexpensive way to promote effective communication independent of users' motivation. Insights gained from this study can inform other patient safety interventions and health policy developments. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03855735; date of registration: February 27, 2019.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Frailty in elderly patients is associated with an increased risk of poor health outcomes, including falls, delirium, malnutrition, hospitalisation, and mortality. Because polypharmacy is recognised as a possible major contributor to the pathogenesis of geriatric frailty, reducing inappropriate medication exposure is supposed to be a promising approach to improve health-related quality of life and prevent adverse outcomes. A major challenge for the process of deprescribing of inappropriate polypharmacy is to improve the communication between general practitioner (GPs), patient and family carer. This study investigates the effects of a complex intervention in frail elderly patients with polypharmacy living at home. METHODS:This is a cluster randomised controlled trial including 136 GPs and 676 patients. Patients with a positive clinical screening for frailty are eligible if they are aged 70?years or older, receiving family or professional nursing care at home, and taking in five or more drugs per day. Exclusion criteria are higher grade of dementia and life expectancy of 6 months or less. The GPs of the intervention group receive an educational training promoting a deprescribing guideline and providing information on how to conduct a family conference focussing on prioritisation of treatment goals concerning drug therapy. During the 1-year intervention, GPs are expected to perform a total of three family conferences, each including a structured medication review with patients and their family carers. GPs of the control group will receive no training and will deliver care as usual. Geriatric assessment of all patients will be performed by study nurses during home visits at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the hospitalisation rate during the observation period of 12?months. Secondary outcomes are number and appropriateness of medications, mobility, weakness, cognition, depressive disorder, health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, weight, and costs of health care use. DISCUSSION:This study will provide evidence for a pragmatic co-operative and patient-centred educational intervention using family conferences to improve patient safety in frail elderly patients with polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00015055 (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform [ICTRP]). Registered on 6 February 2019.

Project description:Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback on safety of prescribing compared with moderately enhanced usual care.Design Three arm, highly pragmatic cluster randomised trial.Setting and participants 262/278 (94%) primary care practices in three Scottish health boards.Interventions Practices were randomised to: "usual care," consisting of emailed educational material with support for searching to identify patients (88 practices at baseline, 86 analysed); usual care plus feedback on practice's high risk prescribing sent quarterly on five occasions (87 practices, 86 analysed); or usual care plus the same feedback incorporating a behavioural change component (87 practices, 86 analysed).Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a patient level composite of six prescribing measures relating to high risk use of antipsychotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and antiplatelets. Secondary outcomes were the six individual measures. The primary analysis compared high risk prescribing in the two feedback arms against usual care at 15 months. Secondary analyses examined immediate change and change in trend of high risk prescribing associated with implementation of the intervention within each arm.Results In the primary analysis, high risk prescribing as measured by the primary outcome fell from 6.0% (3332/55 896) to 5.1% (2845/55 872) in the usual care arm, compared with 5.9% (3341/56 194) to 4.6% (2587/56 478) in the feedback only arm (odds ratio 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.96) compared with usual care; P=0.007) and 6.2% (3634/58 569) to 4.6% (2686/58 582) in the feedback plus behavioural change component arm (0.86 (0.78 to 0.95); P=0.002). In the pre-specified secondary analysis of change in trend within each arm, the usual care educational intervention had no effect on the existing declining trend in high risk prescribing. Both types of feedback were associated with significantly more rapid decline in high risk prescribing after the intervention compared with before.Conclusions Feedback of prescribing safety data was effective at reducing high risk prescribing. The intervention would be feasible to implement at scale in contexts where electronic health records are in general use.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01602705.

Project description:Objectives To explore care experiences in multidisciplinary primary healthcare centres from the patients, carers and healthcare professionals perspectives. Design This qualitative study used face-to-face, in-depth interviews and focus groups. Patients with multimorbidity monitored by a General Practitioner (GP) and another professional from the health centre were recruited through purposive sampling and included with their carer. They were interviewed together while professionals were interviewed separately. Verbatims were coded with subsequent blind analysis, using an inductive approach, to find aspects and features. The constant comparative method highlighted data consistencies and variations. Participants Twenty-six patients, 23 family carers and 57 healthcare professionals. Setting Five multidisciplinary primary healthcare centres, in France, between March 2017 and December 2018. Results This unique study grouped perspectives into nine core quality of primary care aspects: having accessible, available, and varied care; feeling welcome and enjoying comfortable, well-equipped, and clean premises; having quality medicotechnical care (medical knowledge and technical skills); having a reliable GP; receiving appropriate care from healthcare professionals other than the GP; maintaining an efficient relationship with healthcare professionals; benefiting from organised and coordinated care; being an informed, supported and involved patient; having an informed, supported and involved carer. New areas of interest include the multidisciplinary nature of the centres, appreciation of other professionals within the centre, medicotechnical dimensions of care and the carer’s role in maintaining patient autonomy. Conclusions This is the first study to interview patients and carers alongside healthcare professionals. This enhanced knowledge improves understanding of these aspects and can guide implementation of evaluation tools that truly reflect patient and carer needs and enable an efficient experience in terms of quality. To address deficiencies in existing questionnaires, the new perspectives found will be added to former aspects to create a comprehensive quality of primary care evaluation tool. Trial registration number NCT02934711, Results.

Project description:To improve the transparency of the local health care system, treatment cost was recently referenced to disease related groups. Treatment quality must be legally documented in a patient registry, in particular for the highly specialized treatments provided by neurosurgery departments.In 2013 we have installed a patient registry focused on cranial neurosurgery. Surgeries are characterized by indication, treatment, location and other specific neurosurgical parameters. Preoperative state and postoperative outcome are recorded prospectively using neurological and sociological scales. Complications are graded by their severity in a therapy-oriented complication score system (Clavien-Dindo-Grading system, CDG). Results are presented at the monthly clinical staff meeting.Data acquisition compatible with the clinic workflow permitted to include all eligible patients into the registry. Until December 2015, we have registered 2880 patients that were treated in 3959 surgeries and 8528 consultations. Since the registry is fully operational (August 2014), we have registered 325 complications on 1341 patient discharge forms (24%). In 64% of these complications, no or only pharmacological treatment was required. At discharge, there was a clear correlation of the severity of the complication and the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS, ? = -0.3, slope -6 KPS percentage points per increment of CDG) and the length of stay (? = 0.4, slope 1.5 days per increment of CDG).While the therapy-oriented complication scores correlate reasonably well with outcome and length of stay, they do not account for new deficits that cannot be treated. Outcome grading and complication severity grading thus serve a complimentary purpose. Overall, the registry serves to streamline and to complete information flow in the clinic, to identify complication rates and trends early for the internal quality monitoring and communication with patients. Conversely, the registry influences clinical practice in that it demands rigorous documentation and standard operating procedures.

Dataset Information

Development and evaluation of an intervention based on the provision of patient feedback to improve patient safety in Spanish primary healthcare centres: study protocol.

Publications

Development and evaluation of an intervention based on the provision of patient feedback to improve patient safety in Spanish primary healthcare centres: study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets