Reformulating real-time random safety analysis during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Gonzalo Sirgo, Manuel A Samper, Julen Berrueta, Joana Cañellas, Alejandro Rodríguez, María Bodí
{"title":"Reformulating real-time random safety analysis during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.","authors":"Gonzalo Sirgo, Manuel A Samper, Julen Berrueta, Joana Cañellas, Alejandro Rodríguez, María Bodí","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2024.502117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>From a safety perspective, the pandemic imposed atypical work dynamics that led to noticeable gaps in clinical safety across all levels of health care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To verify that Real-Time Random Safety Analyses (AASTRE) are feasible and useful in a high-pressure care setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective study (January-September 2022).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University Hospital with 350 beds. Two mixed ICUs (12 and 14 beds).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Two safety audits per week were planned to determine the feasibility and usefulness of the 32 safety measures (grouped into 8 blocks).</p><p><strong>Main variables of interest: </strong>1) Feasibility: Proportion of completed audits compared to scheduled audits and time spent. 2) Utility: Changes in the care process made as a result of implementing AASTRE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 390 patient-days were analyzed (179 were Non-COVID patients and 49 were COVID patients). In the COVID patient subgroup, age, ICU stay, SAPS 3, and ICU mortality were significantly higher compared to the Non-COVID patient subgroup. Regarding feasibility, 93.8% of planned rounds were carried out with an average audit time of 25 ± 8 min. Overall, changes in the care process were made in 11.8% of the measures analyzed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a high-complexity care environment, AASTRE proved to be a feasible and useful tool with only two interventions per week lasting less than 30 min. Overall, AASTRE allowed unsafe situations to be turned safe in more than 10% of the evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":" ","pages":"502117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2024.502117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: From a safety perspective, the pandemic imposed atypical work dynamics that led to noticeable gaps in clinical safety across all levels of health care.

Objectives: To verify that Real-Time Random Safety Analyses (AASTRE) are feasible and useful in a high-pressure care setting.

Design: Prospective study (January-September 2022).

Setting: University Hospital with 350 beds. Two mixed ICUs (12 and 14 beds).

Interventions: Two safety audits per week were planned to determine the feasibility and usefulness of the 32 safety measures (grouped into 8 blocks).

Main variables of interest: 1) Feasibility: Proportion of completed audits compared to scheduled audits and time spent. 2) Utility: Changes in the care process made as a result of implementing AASTRE.

Results: A total of 390 patient-days were analyzed (179 were Non-COVID patients and 49 were COVID patients). In the COVID patient subgroup, age, ICU stay, SAPS 3, and ICU mortality were significantly higher compared to the Non-COVID patient subgroup. Regarding feasibility, 93.8% of planned rounds were carried out with an average audit time of 25 ± 8 min. Overall, changes in the care process were made in 11.8% of the measures analyzed.

Conclusions: In a high-complexity care environment, AASTRE proved to be a feasible and useful tool with only two interventions per week lasting less than 30 min. Overall, AASTRE allowed unsafe situations to be turned safe in more than 10% of the evaluations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新制定SARS-CoV-2大流行期间的实时随机安全性分析。
导言:从安全角度来看,大流行带来了非典型的工作动态,导致各级卫生保健在临床安全方面存在明显差距。目的:验证实时随机安全分析(AASTRE)在高压护理环境中的可行性和实用性。设计:前瞻性研究(2022年1月- 9月)。单位:大学医院,350张床位。2个混合icu(12床和14床)。干预措施:计划每周进行两次安全审核,以确定32项安全措施(分为8个区块)的可行性和有效性。主要感兴趣的变量:1)可行性:完成审核与计划审核的比例和花费的时间。2)效用:由于AASTRE的实施,护理过程发生了变化。结果:共分析390个患者日(其中非COVID患者179例,COVID患者49例)。在COVID患者亚组中,年龄、ICU住院时间、SAPS 3和ICU死亡率均显著高于非COVID患者亚组。在可行性方面,93.8%的计划轮次被执行,平均审计时间为25 ± 8 min。总体而言,11.8%的分析措施改变了护理过程。结论:在高度复杂的护理环境中,AASTRE被证明是一种可行且有用的工具,每周仅需两次干预,持续时间不超过30 min。总的来说,AASTRE在超过10%的评估中允许不安全的情况变成安全的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Congenital absence of the circumflex coronary artery. Current perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in critical patient safety Patient safety, what does clinical simulation and teaching innovation contribute? An unexpected foramen ovale Fistula from subclavian artery to right internal jugular vein secondary to firearm injury
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1