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: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: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:BackgroundHigh-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions have small/moderate effects on clinical practice, but few trials explicitly compare different forms of feedback. There is growing recognition that intervention development should be theory-informed, and that comprehensive reporting of intervention design is required by potential users of trial findings. The paper describes intervention development for the Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) study, a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial in 262 Scottish general practices.MethodsThe NHS chose to implement a feedback intervention to utilise a new resource, new Prescribing Information System (newPIS). The development phase required selection of high-risk prescribing outcome measures and design of intervention components: (1) educational material (the usual care comparison), (2) feedback of practice rates of high-risk prescribing received by both intervention arms and (3) a theory-informed behaviour change component to be received by one intervention arm. Outcome measures, educational material and feedback design, were developed with a National Health Service Advisory Group. The behaviour change component was informed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Health Action Process Approach. A focus group elicitation study and an email Delphi study with general practitioners (GPs) identified key attitudes and barriers of responding to the prescribing feedback. Behaviour change techniques were mapped to the psychological constructs, and the content was informed by the results of the elicitation and Delphi study.ResultsSix high-risk prescribing measures were selected in a consensus process based on importance and feasibility. Educational material and feedback design were based on current NHS Scotland practice and Advisory Group recommendations. The behaviour change component was resource constrained in development, mirroring what is feasible in an NHS context. Four behaviour change interventions were developed and embedded in five quarterly rounds of feedback targeting attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and action planning (2×).ConclusionsThe paper describes a process which is feasible to use in the resource-constrained environment of NHS-led intervention development and documents the intervention to make its design and implementation explicit to potential users of the trial findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01602705.

Project description:ObjectivesPatient involvement in safety improvement is a developing area of research. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a patient feedback on safety intervention in primary care. Specifically, the intervention acceptability, fidelity, implementation enablers and barriers, scalability, and process of systematically collecting safety data were examined.Design, setting and participantsMixed-methods feasibility trial with six purposively selected Australian primary care practices.InterventionThe intervention comprised an iterative process with a cycle of measurement, learning, feedback, action planning and implementation period of 6 months.Primary and secondary outcomesQualitative and quantitative data relating to feasibility measures (acceptability, fidelity, enablers, barriers, scalability and process of collecting safety data) were collected and analysed.ResultsA total of n=1750 patients provided feedback on safety. There was a statistically significant increase in mean patient safety scores indicating improved safety (4.30-4.37, p=0.002). Staff deemed the intervention acceptable, with minor recommendations for improvement. Intervention fidelity was high and implementation enablers were attributed to the intervention structure and framework, use of intuitive problem-solving approaches, and multidisciplinary team involvement. Practice-based safety interventions resulted in sustainable and measurable changes to systems for safety, such as increased access to care and improved patient information accuracy.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that this innovative patient feedback on safety intervention is feasible for scale-up to a larger effectiveness trial and further spread into policy and practice. This intervention complements existing safety improvement strategies and activities, and integrates into current patient feedback service requirements for Australian primary care. Further research is needed to examine the intervention effects on safety incident reduction.

Project description:BackgroundAssessments of the culture surrounding patient safety can inform healthcare settings on how their structures and processes impact patient outcomes. This study investigated patient safety culture in Primary Health Care Centres in Kuwait, and benchmarked the findings against regional and international results. This study also examined the association between predictors and outcomes of patient safety culture in these settings.MethodsThis cross-sectional quantitative study used the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture. The study was targeted at staff of all the Primary Health Care Centres in Kuwait with at least one year of experience. Data were analysed using SPSS 23 at a significance level of ≤ .05. Univariate (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) and bivariate (chi-squared tests, student t-tests, ANOVA F-tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, Spearman's correlation) analyses provided an overview of participant socio-demographics and the association between patient safety culture composites and outcomes. We undertook a multivariate regression analysis to predict the determinants of patient safety culture. Results were benchmarked against similar local (Kuwait, 2014), regional (Yemen, 2015) and international (US, 2018) studies.ResultsThe responses of 6602 employees from 94 centres were included in the study, with an overall response rate of 78.7%. The survey revealed Teamwork (87.8% positive ratings) and Organisational Learning (78.8%) as perceived areas of strength. Communication about Error (57.7%), Overall Perceptions of Patient Safety and Quality (57.4%), Communication Openness (54.4%), Owner/Managing Partner/Leadership Support for Patient Safety (53.8%) and Work Pressure and Pace (28.4%) were identified as areas requiring improvement. Benchmarking analysis revealed that Kuwait centres are performing at benchmark levels or better on four and six composites when compared to international and regional findings, respectively. Regression modelling highlighted significant predictions regarding patient safety outcomes and composites.ConclusionsThis is the first major study addressing the culture of patient safety in public Primary Health Care Centres regionally. Improving patient safety culture is critical for these centres to improve the quality and safety of the healthcare services they provide. The findings of this study can guide country-level strategies to develop the systems that govern patient safety practices.

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:IntroductionDevelopments in information technology offer opportunities to enhance medication safety in primary care. We evaluated the implementation and adoption of a complex pharmacist-led intervention involving the use of an electronic audit and feedback surveillance dashboard to identify patients potentially at risk of hazardous prescribing or monitoring of medicines in general practices. The intervention aimed to create a rapid learning health system for medication safety in primary care. This study aimed to explore how the intervention was implemented, adopted and embedded into practice using a qualitative process evaluation.MethodsTwenty two participants were purposively recruited from eighteen out of forty-three general practices receiving the intervention as well as clinical commissioning group staff across Salford UK, which reflected the range of contexts in which the intervention was implemented. Interviews explored how pharmacists and GP staff implemented the intervention and how this affected care practice. Data analysis was thematic with emerging themes developed into coding frameworks based on Normalisation Process Theory (NPT).ResultsEngagement with the dashboard involved a process of sense-making in which pharmacists considered it added value to their work. The intervention helped to build respect, improve trust and develop relationships between pharmacists and GPs. Collaboration and communication between pharmacists and clinicians was primarily initiated by pharmacists and was important for establishing the intervention. The intervention operated as a rapid learning health system as it allowed for the evidence in the dashboard to be translated into changes in work practices and into transformations in care.ConclusionsOur study highlighted the importance of the combined use of information technology and the role of pharmacists working in general practice settings. Medicine optimisation activities in primary care may be enhanced by the implementation of a pharmacist-led electronic audit and feedback system. This intervention established a rapid learning health system that swiftly translated data from electronic health records into changes in practice to improve patient care. Using NPT provided valuable insights into the ways in which developing relationships, collaborations and communication between health professionals could lead to the implementation, adoption and sustainability of the intervention.

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