Quality Management in Health Care最新文献

Background and objectives: This study measured patient reactions to medical metaphors used in musculoskeletal specialty offices and asked: (1) Are there any factors associated with patient thoughts and emotions in response to common metaphors? (2) Is there a difference between patient ratings of metaphors rated as potentially reinforcing misconceptions and those that are more neutral?

Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 228 patients presenting to multiple musculoskeletal specialty offices rated reactions to 4 metaphors presented randomly from a set of 14. Two were categorized as potentially reinforcing common misconceptions and 2 as relatively neutral. Bivariate tests and multivariable regression identified factors associated with patient ratings of levels of emotion (using the standard assessment manikins) and aspects of experience (communication effectiveness, trust, and feeling comfortable rated on 11-point ordinal scales) in response to each metaphor.

Results: Levels of patient unhelpful thinking or distress regarding symptoms were not associated with patient ratings of patient emotion and experience in response to metaphors. Metaphors that reinforce misconceptions were associated with higher ratings of communication effectiveness, trust, and comfort (P < .05).

Conclusion: The observation that metaphors that validate a person's understanding of his or her illness may elicit trust even if those metaphors have the potential to reinforce misconceptions may account for the common usage of such metaphors. Clinicians can work to incorporate methods for building trust without reinforcing misconceptions.

Background and objectives: Huddles among members of interdisciplinary medical teams involve short stand-up sessions and allow team members to focus on existing or emerging patient safety issues, thereby facilitating team communication. Hospital managers are able to recognize the current situation of the organization through patient safety attitudes, strengthen team members' awareness of patient safety, and improve the quality of health care. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of huddles on improving team members' attitudes toward patient safety.

Methods: We used a quasi-experimental design and selected 2 adult wards with similar properties as the experimental and comparison groups by convenience sampling. Data collection was from December 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, at a teaching hospital in central Taiwan. Team members of the ward performing huddles formed the experimental group, and they participated 2 times per week in 15-minute huddles from 8:15 to 8:30 am for a total of 4 weeks. The comparison group adopted the routine team care process. Both groups completed the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire during the pre- and post-tests of the study.

Results: The experimental group scored significantly higher in the post-test than in the pre-test in all aspects of safety attitudes, with the exception of stress recognition. These improved aspects were teamwork climate (76.47 ± 15.90 vs 83.29 ± 13.52, P < .001), safety climate (75.94 ± 16.14 vs 82.81 ± 13.74, P < .001), job satisfaction (74.34 ± 20.22 vs 84.40 ± 17.22, P <.001), perceptions of management (78.02 ± 19.99 vs 85.51 ± 15.97, P < .001), and working conditions (78.85 ± 17.87 vs 86.81 ± 14.74, P < .001).

Conclusion: Through the huddles, clinical team members improved their understanding of different aspects of safety attitudes. Such a study provided ward units with real-time improvement and adjustment in terms of patient safety during their medical work processes with better patient safety.

Background and objectives: Previous studies have shown that improving quality management in the central sterile supply department (CSSD) is an effective measure to control and decrease hospital-acquired infections. This study aimed to establish nursing-sensitive quality indicators for CSSD nursing in China.

Methods: We drafted nursing-sensitive quality indicators on the basis of the Structure-Process-Outcome model, and then conducted 2 rounds of consultation with experts using a modified Delphi method to determine the indicators and scientific methods of measurement.

Results: We identified five CSSD nursing-sensitive quality indicators. Recovery rates of the 2 rounds of valid questionnaires were 100%. Expert authority coefficients were 0.810 and 0.902, respectively. Kendall's coefficients of concordance were 0.168 and 0.210, respectively ( P < .05).

Conclusion: Evidence-based nursing-sensitive quality indicators for the CSSD were established.

This article describes the development of an institutional quality improvement review board (QIRB) as an effective and efficient method for reviewing and overseeing institutional quality improvement (QI) initiatives. QI projects involve the systematic collection and analysis of data and the implementation of interventions designed to improve the quality of clinical care and/or educational programs for a distinct population in a specific setting. QI projects are fundamentally distinct from human subjects research (HuSR); however, the differences between them are subtle and highly nuanced. Determining whether a project meets the definition of QI or qualifies as HuSR, thus requiring institutional review board (IRB) review, can be confusing and frustrating. Nevertheless, this distinction is highly consequential due to the heavy regulatory requirements involved in HuSR and IRB oversight. Making the correct determination of a project's regulatory status is essential before the project begins. Project leaders may not realize that their work meets the definition of HuSR and, therefore, might conduct the project without appropriate IRB review. Therefore, best practices dictate that project leaders should not decide which type of institutional review is appropriate for their projects. In addition, when QI project teams attempt to disseminate the results of their work, documentation of formal review and approval is generally required by peer-reviewed journals and professional organizations. However, institutional review mechanisms are rarely available. Projects that do not meet the definition of HuSR fall outside the purview of IRBs and most institutions do not have an alternative review body. This creates frustration for both project leaders and IRB administrators. Apart from IRB review, a separate process for reviewing QI projects offers several benefits. These include (1) relieving the burden on busy IRB staff; (2) promoting scholarly activity; (3) protecting the institution, project leaders, and participants from HuSR conducted outside of appropriate IRB review; and (4) promoting rigorous QI methods.

Background and objectives: Blood products are scarce resources. Audits on the use of red blood cells (RBCs) in tertiary centers have repeatedly highlighted inappropriate use. Earlier retrospective audit at our local community hospitals has demonstrated that only 85% and 54% of all requests met Choosing Wisely Canada guidelines for pre-transfusion hemoglobin (Hb) of 80 g/L or less and single unit, respectively.We sought to improve RBC utilization by 15% over a period of 12 months (meeting Choosing Wisely Canada criteria of pre-transfusion Hb ≤80g/L by >80% and single-unit transfusion by >65%).

Methods: Following repeated PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycles, we implemented educational strategies, prospective transfusion medicine (TM) technologist-led screening of orders, and an RBC order set.

Results: The 3-month median percentages of appropriate RBC use for pre-transfusion Hb and single unit (September-November 2021) across all 3 hospitals were 90% and 71%, respectively. Overall, the rate of appropriate RBCs based on pre-transfusion Hb remained above target (>80%), with minimal improvement across all hospitals (median percentage at pre- and post-technologist screening periods of 87% and 90%, respectively). The median percentage of appropriate RBCs based on single-unit transfusion orders has improved across all Niagara Health hospitals with sustained targets (3-month median percentage at pre- and post-technologist screening and most recent time periods of 54%, 56%, and 71%, respectively).

Conclusions: We have taken a collaborative, multifaceted approach to optimizing utilization of RBCs across the Niagara Health hospitals. The rates of appropriate RBC use were comparable with the provincial and national accreditation benchmark standards. In particular, the TM technologist-led screening was effective in producing sustained improvement with respect to single-unit transfusion. One of the balancing outcomes was increasing workload on technologists. Local and provincial efforts are needed to facilitate recruitment and retention of laboratory technologists, especially in community hospitals.

Background and objectives: Of the 4 pillars of academic practice for nursing and allied health, research has been the least developed and no standard competency framework exists that is embedded in health professional scopes of practice. The objective of this article is to report on the preliminary development and pilot-testing of research and academic scholarship core competencies for nonphysician health professionals working within a large urban academic health sciences center.

Methods: We conducted an internal and external environmental scan and multiphase consultation process to develop research and academic core competencies for health professionals working within an interprofessional setting.

Results: The final framework outlines 3 levels of research proficiency (novice, proficient, and advanced) and the relevant roles, specific competencies, and observable actions and/or activities for each proficiency level.

Conclusions: Organizations should consider the integration of the framework within performance management processes and the development of a road map and self-assessment survey to track progress over time and support health professionals with their academic practice goals.

Background and objective: Little information is available on how to assess the impact of research studies conducted in government hospitals in Latin America and specifically in Mexico. We aimed to determine the returns on investment of the research projects that were carried out in the Hospital General "Dr. Manuel Gea Gonzalez" (HGMGG), a general university hospital located in Mexico City, using a categorization model.

Methods: We conducted a study including bibliometric analyses of publications associated with all research studies performed during the period 2016-2019 in the HGMGG and investigator interviews, according to the payback framework categorization model.

Results: All studies analyzed had a positive impact based on outcomes in 5 "payback categories": (1) knowledge; (2) research targeting, capacity building, and absorption; (3) policy and product development; (4) health benefits; and (5) broader economic benefits.

Conclusions: To date, it has not been possible to establish a set of indicators that show the results of the investigations carried out by medical specialists in training, who carry out the bulk of medical care in general hospitals and in the National Institutes of Health in Mexico. We identified, in the 5 categories of the payback framework model, different areas of opportunity to improve the benefits of the hospital's medical services through the development of scientific research projects.

Background and objectives: Operating rooms (ORs) disproportionally contribute 20% to 33% of hospital waste nationwide and therefore have a major impact on hospital waste management. Seventy percent of general OR waste is incorrectly eliminated as clinical waste, which compounds unnecessary financial burden and produces negative environmental impact. The primary purpose of this quality improvement (QI) project was to evaluate the effectiveness of waste segregation education for OR anesthesia staff on improving waste segregation compliance in the OR.

Methods: A waste segregation QI project was implemented at a 19-OR hospital. Sharps bins in each OR were monitored for weight in pounds and 6 ORs were monitored for percent compliance both pre- and post-institution of a waste segregation education. In addition, a waste segregation knowledge assessment, waste segregation barriers assessment, and a demographic survey were administered to anesthesia staff. Twenty-two certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), 13 anesthesiologists, and 4 anesthesia technicians responded to the initial surveys and assessments while 30 of these original 39 participants (77%) responded following the educational intervention. A cost analysis was calculated pre- and post-implementation by multiplying total weight of the sharps bins by the price per pound of sharps.

Results: Twenty-three percent of participants reported having formal waste segregation training. Survey responses revealed that the greatest barrier to waste segregation involved bin location (56.4%), followed by lack of time to segregate (25.6%), lack of knowledge of what content goes in the bin (25.6%), and lack of incentive (25.6%). A waste segregation knowledge assessment showed improvement from pre- ( M = 9.18, SD = 1.66) to post-implementation ( M = 9.90, SD = 1.64). Pre-implementation sharps bin compliance was 50.70% while post-implementation bin compliance improved to 58.44%. A 27.64% decrease in sharps disposal cost occurred following implementation, which is estimated to produce a $2964 cost savings per year.

Conclusions: Waste segregation education for anesthesia staff increased their waste management knowledge, improved sharps waste bin compliance, and produced an overall cost savings.