Dataset Information

Evaluating a system-wide, safety investigation in healthcare course in Norway: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective and setting

National, system-wide safety investigation represents a new approach to safety improvement in healthcare. In 2019, a new master's level course in Safety Investigation in Healthcare was established to support the training and development of a new team of investigators from an independent investigatory body. The course was established at one Norwegian university and a total of 19 students were enrolled and completed the course. The aim of this study was to qualitatively evaluate the course, and the objectives were to explore the students' needs and expectations prior to the course conduct, and their experiences and suggestions for improvements after course completion.

Design

The study design was a qualitative explorative study with individual and focus group interviews. Data collection included five individual interviews prior to course participation and two focus group interviews, after course participation, with a total sample size of 13 participants. Data were analysed according to thematic analysis.

Results

The results showed a need for a common conceptual foundation for the multidisciplinary team of safety investigators who were all employed in the same investigatory body. Course participation contributed to create reflexive spaces for the participants and generated new knowledge about the need for a broad range of investigatory tools and approaches. This contrasted with the initial aspiration among the participants to have a recipe for how to conduct safety investigations.

Conclusions

Course participation contributed to a common language among a highly multidisciplinary group of safety investigators and supported building a culture of collaborative learning. The need for additional activities to further develop a safety investigation curriculum in healthcare was identified. It is recommended that such a curriculum be co-created with independent investigators, safety scientists, patients and users, and healthcare professionals to ensure a strong methods repertoire and a sound theoretical backdrop for investigatory practice.

SUBMITTER: Haraldseid-Driftland C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9207758 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMigrant populations in the European Union (EU) suffer a disproportionate burden of infectious diseases and may be particularly vulnerable due to poor conditions in countries of origin or throughout transit to the host country. Given the rising level of migration into Europe, the vaccination of migrant populations has become a key priority, with European countries committing to equitably extending the benefits of vaccination to all. However, in Norway, little is known about the vaccination of migrant populations.ObjectiveThe aim of this qualitative research study was to explore the process of vaccinating migrant populations in Norway and elucidate any challenges as perceived by healthcare providers. This involved exploring the challenges faced by healthcare providers in delivering vaccinations to migrants as well as potential barriers faced by migrants in accessing vaccinations in Norway, from the perspectives of healthcare providers.MethodsIn June 2019, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with seven healthcare providers who are involved in vaccinating migrants in South-Eastern and Western Norway. This included healthcare providers working in general practice, public health and infectious disease clinics, migrant health clinics, and local public health institutes.ResultsAn inductive, exploratory analysis identified key themes that were reviewed and analysed in light of existing literature. According to the informants, the Childhood Immunisation Programme is effective in including migrant children within the national vaccination schedule. However, gaps in vaccination appear to exist with regards to adult migrants as well as working migrants. There is currently no consistent or structured approach to vaccinating adult migrants in Norway, including no guidelines from governing bodies on how to organise vaccination to adult migrants in municipalities. Furthermore, reasons why adult vaccination is not prioritised were provided, such as tuberculosis screening and treatment taking precedence and the common assumption among healthcare providers that vaccinations are dealt with in childhood.ConclusionThe development of equitable immunisation programmes requires an understanding of the multifactorial barriers to immunisation, such as those posed by policies, structures and governance bodies, or lack thereof. It also entails understanding the administration of such policies and the perspectives of those who are responsible for the delivery of vaccination, namely healthcare providers. This qualitative research study demonstrated that challenges exist in the vaccination of migrants in Norway and that they are coherent with those experienced throughout the EU, principally the presence of gaps in vaccinating adult migrants, working migrants and internal EU migrants. This research provides direction for future investigations and highlights the need for the inclusion of migrant status in the Norwegian Immunisation Registry.

Project description:BackgroundPatients' involvement in patient safety has increased in healthcare. Use of checklists may improve patient outcome in surgery, though few have attempted to engage patients' use of surgical checklist. To identify risk elements of complications based on patients' and healthcare workers' experiences is warranted. This study aims to identify what the patients and healthcare workers find to be the risk elements that should be included in a patient-driven surgical patient safety checklist.MethodA qualitative study design where post-operative patients, surgeons, ward physicians, ward nurses, and secretaries from five surgical specialties took part in focus group interviews. Eleven focus groups were conducted including 25 post-operative patients and 27 healthcare workers at one tertiary teaching hospital and one community hospital in Norway. Based on their experiences, participants were asked to identify perceived risks before and after surgery. The interviews were analysed using content analysis.ResultsSafety risk factors were categorised as pre-operative information: pre-operative preparations, post-operative information, post-operative plans and follow-up. The subcategories under pre-operative information and preparations were: contact information, medication safety, health status, optimising health, dental status, read information, preparation two weeks before surgery, inform your surgical ward, planning your own discharge, preparation on admission and just before surgery. The subcategories under post-operative information, further plans and follow-up were: prevention and complications, restriction and activity, medication safety, pain relief, stomach functions, further care and appointments. Both healthcare workers and patients express the need for a surgical patient safety checklist.ConclusionA broad spectre of risk elements for a patient safety checklist were identified. Developing a surgical safety checklist based on these risk elements might reduce complications and unwanted errors.Trail registrationThe study is registered as part of a clinical trial in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03105713.

Project description:ObjectiveSurgical site infections are known postoperative complications, yet the most preventable of healthcare-associated infections. Correct provision of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) is crucial. Use of the WHO Safe Surgical Checklist (SSC) has been reported to improve provision of SAP, and reduce infections postoperatively. To understand possible mechanisms and interactions generating such effects, we explored the underlying work processes of SAP provision and SSC performance at the intersection of perioperative procedures and actual team working.DesignAn ethnographic study including observations and in-depth interviews. A combination of deductive and inductive content analysis of the data was conducted.SettingOperating theatres with different surgical specialities, in three Norwegian hospitals.ParticipantsObservations of perioperative team working (40 hours) and in-depth interviews of 19 experienced perioperative team members were conducted. Interview participants followed a maximum variation purposive sampling strategy.ResultsAnalysis identified provision of SAP as a process of linked activities; sequenced, yet disconnected in time and space throughout the perioperative phase. Provision of SAP was handled in relation to several interactive factors: preparation and administration, prescription accuracy, diversity of prescription order systems, patient-specific conditions and changes in operating theatre schedules. However, prescription checks were performed either as formal SSC reviews of SAP items or as informal checks of relevant documents. In addition, use of cognitive reminders and clinical experiences were identified as mechanisms used to enable administration of SAP within the 60 min timeframe described in the SSC.ConclusionProvision of SAP was identified as a complex process. Yet, a key element in provision of SAP was the given 60 min. timeframe of administration before incision, provided in the SSC. Thus, the SSC seems beneficial in supporting timely SAP administration practice by either being a cognitive tool and/or as a cognitive intervention.