Patient Engagement In Health Care Safety: An Overview Of Mixed-Quality Evidence.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sharma AE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7060147 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient Engagement In Health Care Safety: An Overview Of Mixed-Quality Evidence.
Sharma Anjana E AE Rivadeneira Natalie A NA Barr-Walker Jill J Stern Rachel J RJ Johnson Amanda K AK Sarkar Urmimala U
Health affairs (Project Hope) 20181101 11
Patients and caregivers play a central role in health care safety in the hospital, ambulatory care setting, and community. Despite this, interventions to promote patient engagement in safety are still underexplored. We conducted an overview of review articles on patient engagement interventions in safety to examine the current state of the evidence. Of the 2,795 references we evaluated, 52 articles met our full-text inclusion criteria for synthesis in 2018. We identified robust evidence supporti ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere is considerable international interest in exploiting the potential of digital solutions to enhance the quality and safety of health care. Implementations of transformative eHealth technologies are underway globally, often at very considerable cost. In order to assess the impact of eHealth solutions on the quality and safety of health care, and to inform policy decisions on eHealth deployments, we undertook a systematic review of systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness and consequences of various eHealth technologies on the quality and safety of care.Methods and findingsWe developed novel search strategies, conceptual maps of health care quality, safety, and eHealth interventions, and then systematically identified, scrutinised, and synthesised the systematic review literature. Major biomedical databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between 1997 and 2010. Related theoretical, methodological, and technical material was also reviewed. We identified 53 systematic reviews that focused on assessing the impact of eHealth interventions on the quality and/or safety of health care and 55 supplementary systematic reviews providing relevant supportive information. This systematic review literature was found to be generally of substandard quality with regards to methodology, reporting, and utility. We thematically categorised eHealth technologies into three main areas: (1) storing, managing, and transmission of data; (2) clinical decision support; and (3) facilitating care from a distance. We found that despite support from policymakers, there was relatively little empirical evidence to substantiate many of the claims made in relation to these technologies. Whether the success of those relatively few solutions identified to improve quality and safety would continue if these were deployed beyond the contexts in which they were originally developed, has yet to be established. Importantly, best practice guidelines in effective development and deployment strategies are lacking.ConclusionsThere is a large gap between the postulated and empirically demonstrated benefits of eHealth technologies. In addition, there is a lack of robust research on the risks of implementing these technologies and their cost-effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated, despite being frequently promoted by policymakers and "techno-enthusiasts" as if this was a given. In the light of the paucity of evidence in relation to improvements in patient outcomes, as well as the lack of evidence on their cost-effectiveness, it is vital that future eHealth technologies are evaluated against a comprehensive set of measures, ideally throughout all stages of the technology's life cycle. Such evaluation should be characterised by careful attention to socio-technical factors to maximise the likelihood of successful implementation and adoption.
| S-EPMC3022523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite progress in recent years, an estimated 273,500 women died as a result of maternal causes in 2010. The burden of these deaths is disproportionately bourne by women who reside in low income countries or belong to the poorest sectors of the population of middle or high income ones, and it is particularly acute in regions where access to and utilization of facility-based services for childbirth and newborn care is lowest. Evidence has shown that poor quality of facility-based care for these women and newborns is one of the major contributing factors for their elevated rates of morbidity and mortality. In addition, women who perceive the quality of facilty-based care to be poor,may choose to avoid facility-based deliveries, where life-saving interventions could be availble. In this context, understanding the underlying factors that impact the quality of facility-based services and assessing the effectiveness of interventions to improve the quality of care represent critical inputs for the improvement of maternal and newborn health. This series of five papers assesses and summarizes information from relevant systematic reviews on the impact of various approaches to improve the quality of care for women and newborns. The first paper outlines the conceptual framework that guided this study and the methodology used for selecting the reviews and for the analysis. The results are described in the following three papers, which highlight the evidence of interventions to improve the quality of maternal and newborn care at the community, district, and facility level. In the fifth and final paper of the series, the overall findings of the review are discussed, research gaps are identified, and recommendations proposed to impove the quality of maternal and newborn health care in resource-poor settings.
| S-EPMC4160919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient safety and quality care remain major challenges to Ghana's healthcare system. Like many health systems in Africa, this is largely because demand for healthcare is outstripping available human and material resource capacity of healthcare facilities and new investment is insufficient. In the light of these demand and supply constraints, systematic community engagement (SCE) in healthcare quality assessment can be a feasible and cost effective option to augment existing quality improvement interventions. SCE entails structured use of existing community groups to assess healthcare quality in health facilities. Identified quality gaps are discussed with healthcare providers, improvements identified and rewards provided if the quality gaps are closed.PurposeThis paper evaluates whether or not SCE, through the assessment of health service quality, improves patient safety and risk reduction efforts by staff in healthcare facilities.MethodsA randomized control trail was conducted in 64 primary healthcare facilities in the Greater Accra and Western regions of Ghana. Patient risk assessments were conducted in 32 randomly assigned intervention and control facilities. Multivariate multiple regression test was used to determine effect of the SCE interventions on staff efforts towards reducing patient risk. Spearman correlation test was used to ascertain associations between types of community groups engaged and risk assessment scores of healthcare facilities.FindingsClinic staff efforts towards increasing patient safety and reducing risk improved significantly in intervention facilities especially in the areas of leadership/accountability (Coef. = 10.4, p<0.05) and staff competencies (Coef. = 7.1, p<0.05). Improvement in service utilization and health resources could not be attributed to the interventions because these were outside the control of the study and might have been influenced by institutional or national level developments between the baseline and follow-up period. Community groups that were gender balanced, religious/faith-based, and had structured leadership appeared to be better options for effective SCE in healthcare quality assessment.ConclusionCommunity engagement in healthcare quality assessment is a feasible client-centered quality improvement option that should be discussed for possible scale-up in Ghana and other resource poor countries in Africa.
| S-EPMC4664410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Occupational injuries and diseases are a huge public health problem and cause extensive suffering and loss of productivity. Nevertheless, many occupational health and safety (OHS) guidelines are still not based on the best available evidence. In the last decade, numerous systematic reviews on behavioural, relational and mixed interventions to reduce occupational injuries and diseases have been carried out, but a comprehensive synopsis is yet missing. The aim of this overview of reviews is to provide a comprehensive basis to inform evidence-based decision-making about interventions in the field of OHS. METHODS:We conducted an overview of reviews. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Cochrane Library (Wiley), epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) for relevant systematic reviews published between January 2008 and June 2018. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications and determined the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews with the ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool. RESULTS:We screened 2287 abstracts and 200 full-texts for eligibility. Finally, we included 25 systematic reviews with a low risk of bias for data synthesis and analysis. We identified systematic reviews on the prevention of occupational injuries, musculoskeletal, skin and lung diseases, occupational hearing impairment and interventions without specific target diseases. Several interventions led to consistently positive results on individual diseases; other interventions did not show any effects, or the studies are contradictory. We provide detailed results on all included interventions. DISCUSSION:To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive overview of behavioural, relational and mixed interventions and their effectiveness in preventing occupational injuries and diseases. It provides policymakers with an important basis for making evidence-based decisions on interventions in this field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018100341.
| S-EPMC6924871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTelehealthcare involves the use of information and communication technologies to deliver healthcare at a distance and to support patient self-management through remote monitoring and personalised feedback. It is timely to scrutinise the evidence regarding the benefits, risks and costs of telehealthcare.Methods and findingsTwo reviewers searched for relevant systematic reviews published from January 1997 to November 2011 in: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and PakMed. Reviewers undertook independent quality assessment of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for systematic reviews. 1,782 review articles were identified, from which 80 systematic reviews were selected for inclusion. These covered a range of telehealthcare models involving both synchronous (live) and asynchronous (store-and-forward) interactions between provider and patients. Many studies showed no differences in outcomes between telehealthcare and usual care. Several reviews highlighted the large number of short-term (<12 months) feasibility studies with under 20 participants. Effects of telehealthcare on health service indicators were reported in several reviews, particularly reduced hospitalisations. The reported clinical effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions for patients with long-term conditions appeared to be greatest in those with more severe disease at high-risk of hospitalisation and death. The failure of many studies to adequately describe the intervention makes it difficult to disentangle the contributions of technological and human/organisational factors on the outcomes reported. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare remains sparse. Patient safety considerations were absent from the evaluative telehealthcare literature.ConclusionsPolicymakers and planners need to be aware that investment in telehealthcare will not inevitably yield clinical or economic benefits. It is likely that the greatest gains will be achieved for patients at highest risk of serious outcomes. There is a need for longer-term studies in order to determine whether the benefits demonstrated in time limited trials are sustained.
| S-EPMC3747134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOnly rudimentary tools exist to support health system organizations to evaluate their public and patient engagement (PPE) activities. This study responds to this gap by developing a generic evaluation tool for use in a wide range of organizations.MethodsThe evaluation tool was developed through an iterative, collaborative process informed by a review of published and grey literature and with the input of Canadian PPE researchers and practitioners. Over a 3-year period, structured e-mail, telephone and face-to-face exchanges, including a modified Delphi process, were used to produce an evaluation tool that includes core principles of high-quality engagement, expected outcomes for each principle and three unique evaluation questionnaires that were tested and revised with input from 65 end users.ResultsThe tool is structured around four core principles of 'quality engagement': (i) integrity of design and process; (ii) influence and impact; (iii) participatory culture; and (iv) collaboration and common purpose. Three unique questionnaires were developed to assess each of these four evaluation domains from the following perspectives: (i) those who participate in PPE activities; (ii) those who plan, execute or sponsor PPE activities within organizations; and (iii) those who provide the leadership and capacity for PPE within their organizations.ConclusionsThis is the first known collaboration of researchers and practitioners in the co-design of a comprehensive PPE evaluation tool aimed at three distinct respondent groups and for use in a wide range of health system organization settings.
| S-EPMC5152717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient safety in primary care is an emerging field of research with a growing evidence base in western countries but little has been explored in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries (GCC) including the Sultanate of Oman. This study aimed to review the literature on the safety culture and patient safety measures used globally to inform the development of safety culture among health care workers in primary care with a particular focus on the Middle East.MethodsA systematic review of the literature. Searches were undertaken using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from the year 2000 to 2014. Terms defining safety culture were combined with terms identifying patient safety and primary care.ResultsThe database searches identified 3072 papers that were screened for inclusion in the review. After the screening and verification, data were extracted from 28 papers that described safety culture in primary care. The global distribution of the articles is as follows: the Netherlands (7), the United States (5), Germany (4), the United Kingdom (1), Australia, Canada and Brazil (two for each country), and with one each from Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The characteristics of the included studies were grouped under the following themes: safety culture in primary care, incident reporting, safety climate and adverse events. The most common theme from 2011 onwards was the assessment of safety culture in primary care (13 studies, 46%). The most commonly used safety culture assessment tool is the Hospital survey on patient safety culture (HSOPSC) which has been used in developing countries in the Middle East.ConclusionsThis systematic review reveals that the most important first step is the assessment of safety culture in primary care which will provide a basic understanding to safety-related perceptions of health care providers. The HSOPSC has been commonly used in Kuwait, Turkey, and Iran.
| S-EPMC6026504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Massachusetts' health care reform substantially decreased the percentage of uninsured residents. However, less is known about how reform affected access to care, especially according to insurance type.To assess access to care in Massachusetts after implementation of health care reform, based on insurance status and type.We surveyed a convenience sample of 431 patients presenting to the Emergency Department of Massachusetts' second largest safety net hospital between July 25, 2009 and March 20, 2010.Demographic and clinical characteristics, insurance coverage, measures of access to care and cost-related barriers to care.Patients with Commonwealth Care and Medicaid, the two forms of insurance most often newly-acquired under the reform, reported similar or higher utilization of and access to outpatient visits and rates of having a usual source of care, compared with the privately insured. Compared with the privately insured, a significantly higher proportion of patients with Medicaid or Commonwealth Care Type 1 (minimal cost sharing) reported delaying or not getting dental care (42.2 % vs. 27.1 %) or medication (30.0 % vs. 7.0 %) due to cost; those with Medicaid also experienced cost-related barriers to seeing a specialist (14.6 % vs. 3.5 %) or getting recommended tests (15.6 % vs. 5.9 %). Those with Commonwealth Care Types 2 and 3 (greater cost sharing) reported significantly more cost-related barriers to obtaining care than the privately insured (45.0 % vs. 16.0 %), to seeing a primary care doctor (25.0 % vs. 6.0 %) or dental provider (58.3 % vs. 27.1 %), and to obtaining medication (20.8 % vs. 7.0 %). No differences in cost-related barriers to preventive care were found between the privately and publicly insured.Access to care improved less than access to insurance following Massachusetts' health care reform. Many newly insured residents obtained Medicaid or state subsidized private insurance; cost-related barriers to access were worse for these patients than for the privately insured.
| S-EPMC3475814 | biostudies-other
Project description:Policy Points: Health care complaints contain valuable data on quality and safety; however, there is no reliable method of analysis to unlock their potential. We demonstrate a method to analyze health care complaints that provides reliable insights on hot spots (where harm and near misses occur) and blind spots (before admissions, after discharge, systemic and low-level problems, and errors of omission). Systematic analysis of health care complaints can improve quality and safety by providing patient-centered insights that localize issues and shed light on difficult-to-monitor problems.ContextThe use of health care complaints to improve quality and safety has been limited by a lack of reliable analysis tools and uncertainty about the insights that can be obtained. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool, which we developed, was used to analyze a benchmark national data set, conceptualize a systematic analysis, and identify the added value of complaint data.MethodsWe analyzed 1,110 health care complaints from across England. "Hot spots" were identified by mapping reported harm and near misses onto stages of care and underlying problems. "Blind spots" concerning difficult-to-monitor aspects of care were analyzed by examining access and discharge problems, systemic problems, and errors of omission.FindingsThe tool showed moderate to excellent reliability. There were 1.87 problems per complaint (32% clinical, 32% relationships, and 34% management). Twenty-three percent of problems entailed major or catastrophic harm, with significant regional variation (17%-31%). Hot spots of serious harm were safety problems during examination, quality problems on the ward, and institutional problems during admission and discharge. Near misses occurred at all stages of care, with patients and family members often being involved in error detection and recovery. Complaints shed light on 3 blind spots: (1) problems arising when entering and exiting the health care system; (2) systemic failures pertaining to multiple distributed and often low-level problems; and (3) errors of omission, especially failure to acknowledge and listen to patients raising concerns.ConclusionsThe analysis of health care complaints reveals valuable and uniquely patient-centered insights on quality and safety. Hot spots of harm and near misses provide an alternative data source on adverse events and critical incidents. Analysis of entry-exit, systemic, and omission problems provides insight on blind spots that may otherwise be difficult to monitor. Benchmark data and analysis scripts are downloadable as supplementary files.
| S-EPMC6131356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Long-stay institutions have been considerably affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the mental health of clients and staff as well as quality and safety of care in long-stay institutions during the state-of-emergency in the Czech Republic in response to COVID-19 pandemic. We found a high prevalence of poor mental health outcomes in clients (46% poor well-being, 58% depression, 45% anxiety) and staff (17% poor well-being, 22% depression, 14% anxiety). In clients, COVID-19 health-related and economic worries were associated with depression (1.79, 95% CI = 1.14; 2.8 and 2.28, 95% CI = 1.27; 4.08 respectively) and anxiety (1.63, 95% CI = 1.11; 2.4 and 1.85, 95% CI = 1.2; 2.85 respectively) and in staff with any mental health outcome (1.92, 95% CI = 1.33; 2.77 and 1.75, 95% CI = 1.15; 2.66 respectively). Lack of information and communication from authorities, lack of protective equipment and logistic difficulties were reported as challenges. Delivery of care was mostly disrupted as well as admission and discharge processes. Other reported issues included lack of staff, lack of activities for patients or an increase in usage of restrictive measures. Best practices and key future measures were identified by each institution, a summary of which is presented in the article.
| S-EPMC8021439 | biostudies-literature