BMJ Open Quality最新文献

Background: Regular screening reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). The Canton of Vaud, Switzerland, has a regional screening programme offering faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) or colonoscopy. Participation in the screening programme has been low, particularly among complex patients. Patient navigation has strong evidence for increasing the CRC screening rate.

Design and objective: This feasibility study tested patient navigation performed by medical assistants for complex patients at an academic primary care practice.

Baseline measurements: A review of 328 patients' medical charts revealed that 51% were up-to-date with screening (16% within the programme), 24% were ineligible, 5% had a documented refusal and 20% were not up-to-date, of whom 58 (18%) were complex patients. INTERVENTION FEBRUARY 2023 TO MAY 2023: We tried to help complex patients participate in the screening programme using either in-person or telephone patient navigation. Each intervention was piloted by a physician-researcher and then performed by a medical assistant. Based on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance framework, we collected: Intervention participation and refusal, screening acceptance and completion and both patients and medical assistant acceptability (ie, qualitative interviews).

Results: Only 4/58 (7%) patients participated in the in-person patient navigation test phase due to scheduling problems. All four patients accepted a prescription and 2/4 (50%) completed their test. We piloted a telephone intervention to bypass scheduling issues but all patients refused a telephone discussion with the medical assistant. At two months after the last intervention, the proportion of patients up-to-date increased from 51% to 56%.

Conclusion: Our overall approach was resource-intensive and had little impact on the overall participation rate. It was likely not sustainable. New approaches and reimbursement for a specific patient navigator role are needed to increase CRC screening of complex patients.

Introduction: Studies on the impacts of COVID-19 on patient safety are emerging. However, few studies have elicited the perspectives of front-line clinicians.

Methods: We interviewed clinicians from 16 US hospitals who worked in the emergency department, intensive care unit or inpatient unit during the COVID-19 pandemic. We asked about their experiences with both clinician well-being and patient care throughout the pandemic. We used a rigorous thematic analysis to code the interview transcripts. This study was part of a larger randomised control trial of an intervention to improve healthcare worker well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic; the findings described here draw from clinicians who spontaneously raised issues related to patient safety.

Results: 11 physicians and 16 nurses in our sample raised issues related to patient safety. We identified two primary themes: (1) compromised access to healthcare and (2) impaired care delivery. First, clinicians discussed how changes in access to healthcare early in the pandemic-including a shift to telehealth and deferred care-led to delays in accurate diagnosis and patients presenting later in their disease course. Second, clinicians discussed the effects of COVID-19 on care delivery related to staffing, equipment shortages and space constraints and how they deviated from the standard of care to manage these constraints. Clinicians noted how these issues led to patient safety events such as central line infections, patient falls and serious medication administration errors.

Conclusions: Several well-intentioned interventions implemented in the early weeks of the pandemic created a unique context that affected patient safety throughout the pandemic. Future pandemic preparedness should consider planning that incorporates a patient safety lens to mitigate further harm from occurring during a public health crisis.

Prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) following total joint arthroplasty are a significant and costly complication. To address fragmented care typically seen with separate management, we established a combined infectious disease and orthopaedic surgery clinic at Duke Health in July 2020. This clinic focuses on patients experiencing acute deterioration or multiple PJI episodes, often at the stage where amputation is the only option offered. From July 2021 to March 2024, the clinic completed 974 visits with 319 unique patients. The clinic maintained a low no-show rate of 5.0%. Treatment plans included procedures such as debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (38%), as well as implant explantation and one-stage exchange (32% each), with amputation required in only 4% of cases. The integrated clinic model facilitated real-time, multidisciplinary care, improving patient outcomes and operational efficiency. This approach offers a promising model for managing complex infections.

This is an observational study in which we evaluated current levels of risk communication (RC) among gynaecological oncologists and their view on the Mapping All Patient Probabilities in Numerical Graphs (MAPPING) application as a possible tool to facilitate RC and shared decision-making (SDM). In part A, we audio-recorded 29 conversations between gynaecological oncologists and patients when discussing treatment options. In part B, interviews were performed with eight gynaecological oncologists.RC and SDM were measured using two observer-based measures, that is, the RC content (RCC) tool (scale 0-2) and the OPTION-5 instrument (scale 0-100). We used CollaboRATE questionnaire (scale 0-10) and a self-developed survey to assess patient-reported RC and SDM. In part B, we evaluated physicians' attitudes regarding the use of the MAPPING application to support RC. Patients were minimally involved in the decision-making process (OPTION-5 25.9%±13.4 RCC 0.21±0.18). Patient-reported SDM was high (mean collaboRATE score 9.19±1.79) and patients preferred receiving numeric information, whereas most physicians used qualitative risk terms rather than exact numbers. In part B, gynaecologists had a positive attitude towards the MAPPING application. However, they stated that the app was difficult to use improvement of layout and better implementations are needed.

Background: Adverse medical events affect 10% of American households annually, inducing a variety of harms and attitudinal changes. The impact of adverse events on perceived abandonment by patients and their care partners has not been methodically assessed.

Objective: To identify ways in which providers, patients and families responded to medical mishaps, linking these qualitatively and statistically to reported feelings of abandonment and sequelae induced by perceived abandonment.

Methods: Mixed-methods analysis of responses to the Massachusetts Medical Errors Recontact survey with participants reporting a medical error within the past 5 years. The survey consisted of forty closed and open-ended questions examining adverse medical events and their consequences. Respondents were asked whether they felt 'that the doctors abandoned or betrayed you or your family'. Open-ended responses were analysed with a coding schema by two clinician coders.

Results: Of the 253 respondents, 34.5% initially and 20% persistently experienced abandonment. Perceived abandonment could be traced to interactions before (18%), during (34%) and after (45%) the medical mishap. Comprehensive post-incident communication reduced abandonment for patients staying with the provider associated with the mishap. However, 68.4% of patients perceiving abandonment left their original provider; for them, post-error communication did not increase the probability of resolution. Abandonment accounted for half the post-event loss of trust in clinicians.

Limitations: Survey-based data may under-report the impact of perceived errors on vulnerable populations. Moreover, patients may not be cognizant of all forms of adverse events or all sequelae to those events. Our data were drawn from a single state and time period.

Conclusion: Addressing the deleterious impact of persisting abandonment merits attention in programmes responding to patient safety concerns. Enhancing patient engagement in the aftermath of an adverse medical event has the potential to reinforce therapeutic alliances between patients and their subsequent clinicians.

Importance: Despite evidence that most upper respiratory infections (URIs) are due to viruses, antibiotics are frequently prescribed for this indication in the outpatient setting. Antibiotic stewardship strategies are needed to reduce adverse patient outcomes and staggering healthcare costs due to resistant infections that ensue from inappropriate prescriptions.

Objective: To determine if individual provider scorecards detailing antibiotic prescribing rates paired with educational resources reduce inappropriate antibiotic use for URIs in the outpatient primary care setting.

Design, setting and participants: This quality improvement project investigated the number of URI-coded office visits in the primary care setting over three consecutive influenza seasons, which resulted in an antibiotic prescription in Cooper University Healthcare's 14 primary care offices. We compared provider's individual prescribing patterns to their peers' average and created a scorecard that was shared with each provider over a series of intervention phases. Data were collected from a preintervention period (November 2017-February 2018), and two postintervention phases, phase I (November 2018-February 2019) and phase II (November 2019-February 2020).

Intervention: A personalised, digital scorecard containing antibiotic-prescribing data for URI-coded visits from the prior influenza season was emailed to each primary care provider. Prior to the subsequent influenza season, prescribers received their updated prescribing rates as well as peer-to-peer comparisons. In both phases, the scorecard was attached to an email with antimicrobial stewardship educational materials.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was a reduction in the number of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for URI-related diagnoses. The diagnoses were organised into five broad coding categories, including bronchitis, sinusitis, sore throat excluding strep, influenza and tonsillitis excluding strep.