Dataset Information

Global PRoMiSe (Perioperative Recommendations for Medication Safety): protocol for a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Medication errors (MEs), which occur commonly in the perioperative period, have the potential to cause patient harm or death. Many published recommendations exist for preventing perioperative MEs; however, many of these recommendations conflict and are often not applicable to middle-income and low-income countries. The goal of this study is to develop and disseminate consensus-based recommendations for perioperative medication safety that are tailored to country income level. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The primary site of this mixed-methods study is Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. Participants include a minimum of 108 international medication safety experts, 27 from each of the World Bank's four country income groups (high, upper-middle, lower-middle and low-income). Using the Delphi method, participants will rate the appropriateness of candidate medication safety recommendations by completing online surveys using RedCAP. We will use Condorcet ranking methods to prioritise the final recommendations for each country income group. We will execute a comprehensive dissemination strategy for the recommendations across each country income group. Finally, we will conduct semistructured interviews with our participants to evaluate the initial adoption and implementation of the recommendations in each country income group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study was approved by the Human Research Committee/Institutional Review Board at Partners Healthcare (2019P003567). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT04240301.

SUBMITTER: Nanji KC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7328805 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Global PRoMiSe (Perioperative Recommendations for Medication Safety): protocol for a mixed-methods study.

Nanji Karen C KC Merry Alan Forbes AF Shaikh Sofia D SD Pagel Christina C Deng Hao H Wahr Joyce A JA Gelb Adrian W AW Orser Beverley A BA

BMJ open 20200630 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Medication errors (MEs), which occur commonly in the perioperative period, have the potential to cause patient harm or death. Many published recommendations exist for preventing perioperative MEs; however, many of these recommendations conflict and are often not applicable to middle-income and low-income countries. The goal of this study is to develop and disseminate consensus-based recommendations for perioperative medication safety that are tailored to country income level ...[more]

PMID: 32606066

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying feasible and effective implementation strategies that are contextually appropriate is a challenge for researchers and implementers, exacerbated by the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding terms and definitions for implementation strategies, as well as a literature that provides imperfect guidance regarding how one might select strategies for a given healthcare quality improvement effort. In this study, we will engage an Expert Panel comprising implementation scientists and mental health clinical managers to: establish consensus on a common nomenclature for implementation strategy terms, definitions and categories; and develop recommendations to enhance the match between implementation strategies selected to facilitate the use of evidence-based programs and the context of certain service settings, in this case the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health services.Methods/designThis study will use purposive sampling to recruit an Expert Panel comprising implementation science experts and VA mental health clinical managers. A novel, four-stage sequential mixed methods design will be employed. During Stage 1, the Expert Panel will participate in a modified Delphi process in which a published taxonomy of implementation strategies will be used to establish consensus on terms and definitions for implementation strategies. In Stage 2, the panelists will complete a concept mapping task, which will yield conceptually distinct categories of implementation strategies as well as ratings of the feasibility and effectiveness of each strategy. Utilizing the common nomenclature developed in Stages 1 and 2, panelists will complete an innovative menu-based choice task in Stage 3 that involves matching implementation strategies to hypothetical implementation scenarios with varying contexts. This allows for quantitative characterizations of the relative necessity of each implementation strategy for a given scenario. In Stage 4, a live web-based facilitated expert recommendation process will be employed to establish expert recommendations about which implementations strategies are essential for each phase of implementation in each scenario.DiscussionUsing a novel method of selecting implementation strategies for use within specific contexts, this study contributes to our understanding of implementation science and practice by sharpening conceptual distinctions among a comprehensive collection of implementation strategies.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Urban living has been shown to affect health in various ways. As the world is becoming more urbanised and almost two-thirds of people with diabetes now live in cities, research into the relationship between urban living, health and diabetes is key to improving the lives of many. The majority of people with diabetes have type 2 diabetes, a subset linked to overweight and obesity, decreased physical activity and unhealthy diets. Diabetes has significant consequences for those living with the condition as well as their families, relationships and wider society. Although care and management are improving, complications remain common, and diabetes is among the leading causes of vision loss, amputation, neuropathy and renal and cardiovascular disease worldwide. We present a research protocol for exploring the drivers of type 2 diabetes and its complications in urban settings through the Cities Changing Diabetes (CCD) partnership programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A global study protocol is implemented in eight collaborating CCD partner cities. In each city, academic institutions, municipal representatives and local stakeholders collaborate to set research priorities and plan implementation of findings. Local academic teams execute the study following the global study protocol presented here. A quantitative Rule of Halves analysis obtains measures of the magnitude of the diabetes burden, the diagnosis rates in each city and the outcomes of care. A qualitative Diabetes Vulnerability Assessment explores the urban context in vulnerability to type 2 diabetes and identifies social factors and cultural determinants relevant to health, well-being and diabetes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol steers the collection of primary and secondary data across the study sites. Research ethics board approval has been sought and obtained in each site. Findings from each of the local studies as well as the result from combined multisite (global) analyses will be reported in a series of core scientific journal papers.

Project description:IntroductionApproximately 20% of serious safety incidents involving palliative patients relate to medication. These are disproportionately reported when patients are in their usual residence when compared with hospital or hospice. While patient safety incident reporting systems can support professional learning, it is unclear whether these reports encompass patient and carer concerns with palliative medications or interpersonal safety.AimTo explore and compare perceptions of (un)safe palliative medication management from patient, carer and professional perspectives in community, hospital and hospice settings.Methods and analysisWe will use an innovative mixed-methods study design combining systematic review searching techniques with cross-sectional quantitative descriptive analysis and interpretative qualitative metasynthesis to integrate three elements: (1) Scoping review: multiple database searches for empirical studies and first-hand experiences in English (no other restrictions) to establish how patients and informal carers conceptualise safety in palliative medication management. (2)Medication incidents from the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System: identifying and characterising reports to understand professional perspectives on suboptimal palliative medication management. (3) Comparison of 1 and 2: contextualising with stakeholder perspectives.Patient and public involvementOur team includes a funded patient and public involvement (PPI) collaborator, with experience of promoting patient-centred approaches in patient safety research. Funded discussion and dissemination events with PPI and healthcare (clinical and policy) professionals are planned.Ethics and disseminationProspective ethical approval granted: Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Ref 19/28). Our study will synthesise multivoiced constructions of patient safety in palliative care to identify implications for professional learning and actions that are relevant across health and social care. It will also identify changing or escalating patterns in palliative medication incidents due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peer-reviewed publications, academic presentations, plain English summaries, press releases and social media will be used to disseminate to the public, researchers, clinicians and policy-makers.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Perioperative complications have a lasting effect on health-related quality of life and long-term survival. The Royal College of Anaesthetists has proposed the development of perioperative medicine (POM) services as an intervention aimed at improving postoperative outcome, by providing better coordinated care for high-risk patients. The Perioperative Medicine Service for High-risk Patients Implementation Pilot was developed to determine if a specialist POM service is able to reduce postoperative morbidity, failure to rescue, mortality and cost associated with hospital admission. The service involves individualised objective risk assessment, admission to a postoperative critical care unit and follow-up on the surgical ward by the POM team. This paper introduces the service and how it will be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EVALUATION:A mixed-methods evaluation is exploring the impact of the service. Clinical effectiveness of the service is being analysed using a 'before and after' comparison of the primary outcome (the PostOperative Morbidity Score). Secondary outcomes will include length of stay, validated surveys to explore quality of life (EQ-5D) and quality of recovery (Quality of Recovery-15 Score). The impact on costs is being analysed using 'before and after' data from the Patient-Level Information and Costing System and the National Schedule of Reference Costs. The perceptions and experiences of staff and patients with the service, and how it is being implemented, are being explored by a qualitative process evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was classified as a service evaluation. Participant information sheets and consent forms have been developed for the interviews and approvals required for the use of the validated surveys were obtained. The findings of the evaluation are being used formatively, to make changes in the service throughout implementation. The findings will also be used to inform the potential roll-out of the service to other sites.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is a lack of robust, rigorous mixed methods studies of patient safety culture generally and notably those which incorporate behavioural theories of change. The study aimed to quantify and explain key aspects of patient safety culture which were of most concern to healthcare professionals in Qatar. METHODS:A sequential explanatory mixed methods design of a cross-sectional survey followed by focus groups in Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar. All doctors, nurses and pharmacists were invited to complete the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS). Respondents expressing interest in focus group participation were sampled purposively, and discussions based on survey findings using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explain behavioural determinants. RESULTS:One thousand, six hundred and four questionnaires were received (67.9% nurses, 13.3% doctors, 12.9% pharmacists). HSOPS composites with the lowest levels of positive responses were non-punitive response to errors (24.0% positive) and staffing (36.2%). Specific TDF determinants potentially associated with these composites were social/professional role and identity, emotions, and environmental context and resources. Thematic analysis identified issues of doctors relying on pharmacists to correct their errors and being reluctant to alter the prescribing of fellow doctors. There was a lack of recognition of nurses' roles and frequent policy non-adherence. Stress, workload and lack of staff at key times were perceived to be major contributors to errors. CONCLUSIONS:This study has quantified areas of concern relating to patient safety culture in Qatar and suggested important behavioural determinants. Rather than focusing on changing behaviour at the individual practitioner level, action may be required at the organisational strategic level to review policies, structures (including resource allocation and distribution) and processes which aim to promote patient safety culture.

Project description:BackgroundImproving medication safety is a major concern in primary care settings worldwide. The Salford Medication safety dASHboard (SMASH) intervention provided general practices in Salford (Greater Manchester, UK) with feedback on their safe prescribing and monitoring of medications through an online dashboard, and input from practice-based trained clinical pharmacists. In this study we explored how staff working in general practices used the SMASH dashboard to improve medication safety, through interactions with the dashboard to identify potential medication safety hazards and their workflow to resolve identified hazards.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods study design involving quantitative data from dashboard user interaction logs from 43 general practices during the first year of receiving the SMASH intervention, and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 22 pharmacists and physicians from 18 practices in Salford.ResultsPractices interacted with the dashboard a median of 12.0 (interquartile range, 5.0-15.2) times per month during the first quarter of use to identify and resolve potential medication safety hazards, typically starting with the most prevalent hazards or those they perceived to be most serious. Having observed a potential hazard, pharmacists and practice staff worked together to resolve that in a sequence of steps (1) verifying the dashboard information, (2) reviewing the patient's clinical records, and (3) deciding potential changes to the patient's medicines. Over time, dashboard use transitioned towards regular but less frequent (median of 5.5 [3.5-7.9] times per month) checks to identify and resolve new cases. The frequency of dashboard use was higher in practices with a larger number of at-risk patients. In 24 (56%) practices only pharmacists used the dashboard; in 12 (28%) use by other practice staff increased as pharmacist use declined after the initial intervention period; and in 7 (16%) there was mixed use by both pharmacists and practice staff over time.ConclusionsAn online medication safety dashboard enabled pharmacists to identify patients at risk of potentially hazardous prescribing. They subsequently worked with GPs to resolve risks on a case-by-case basis, but there were marked variations in processes between some practices. Workload diminished over time as it shifted towards resolving new cases of hazardous prescribing.

Dataset Information

Global PRoMiSe (Perioperative Recommendations for Medication Safety): protocol for a mixed-methods study.

Publications

Global PRoMiSe (Perioperative Recommendations for Medication Safety): protocol for a mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets