Simulation-Debriefing Enhanced Needs Assessment to Address Quality Markers in Health Care: An Innovation for Prospective Hazard Analysis.

IF 2.3 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.10.004
Lisa T Barker, William F Bond, Ann M Willemsen-Dunlap, Kimberly L Cooley, Jeremy S McGarvey, Rebecca L Ruger, Adam Kohlrus, Michael J Kremer, Michelle Sergel, John A Vozenilek
{"title":"Simulation-Debriefing Enhanced Needs Assessment to Address Quality Markers in Health Care: An Innovation for Prospective Hazard Analysis.","authors":"Lisa T Barker, William F Bond, Ann M Willemsen-Dunlap, Kimberly L Cooley, Jeremy S McGarvey, Rebecca L Ruger, Adam Kohlrus, Michael J Kremer, Michelle Sergel, John A Vozenilek","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.10.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Simulation-Debriefing Enhanced Needs Assessment (SDENA) is a simulation-based approach to prospective hazard analysis that uses simulation and debriefing as a unit-level diagnostic tool. Scenarios address failure modes for health care improvement targets, and debriefing explores unit-specific barriers and resiliencies. Debriefing guides are structured to explore how six drivers of a behavior engineering framework (data, tools/resources, incentives, knowledge/skills, capacity, motivation) influence clinical behaviors. Illinois Hospital Association members who deployed SDENA to address specific hospital-acquired conditions found motivation to be a more significant barrier than anticipated before deployment. SDENA represents a novel approach to improving safety and may refine intervention targets.</p>","PeriodicalId":14835,"journal":{"name":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","volume":" ","pages":"144-158"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.10.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Simulation-Debriefing Enhanced Needs Assessment (SDENA) is a simulation-based approach to prospective hazard analysis that uses simulation and debriefing as a unit-level diagnostic tool. Scenarios address failure modes for health care improvement targets, and debriefing explores unit-specific barriers and resiliencies. Debriefing guides are structured to explore how six drivers of a behavior engineering framework (data, tools/resources, incentives, knowledge/skills, capacity, motivation) influence clinical behaviors. Illinois Hospital Association members who deployed SDENA to address specific hospital-acquired conditions found motivation to be a more significant barrier than anticipated before deployment. SDENA represents a novel approach to improving safety and may refine intervention targets.

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
模拟汇报增强需求评估,以解决医疗保健中的质量指标问题:前瞻性危害分析的创新。
模拟-汇报强化需求评估(SDENA)是一种基于模拟的前瞻性危害分析方法,使用模拟和汇报作为单位级诊断工具。场景解决了医疗保健改进目标的失败模式,汇报探讨了单位特定的障碍和弹性。汇报指南的结构是为了探索行为工程框架的六个驱动因素(数据、工具/资源、激励、知识/技能、能力、动机)如何影响临床行为。伊利诺斯州医院协会成员部署SDENA来解决特定的医院获得性疾病,他们发现动机是比部署前预期的更大的障碍。SDENA代表了一种提高安全性的新方法,可以完善干预目标。
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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
116
审稿时长
49 days
期刊最新文献
Examining Patient Safety Events Using the Behaviour Change Wheel: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections by Leadership Focus on Process Measures. Implementation of the Revised American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hyperbilirubinemia Decreases Necessity for Serum Bilirubin and Phototherapy. The Impact of a Cohort Structure on Grantee Experiences Developing Clinical Quality Measures for Diagnostic Excellence. The Scholarly Upside to MOC4.
×
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