COVID-19 大流行前后成人和儿科急诊室的安全文化。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Emergency Medicine Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1136/emermed-2023-213427
Dolores Beteta Fernández, Arturo Pereda Mas, Carlos Perez Canovas, Ana Patricia Navarro Egea, Manuel Pardo Rios, Julian Alcaraz-Martinez
{"title":"COVID-19 大流行前后成人和儿科急诊室的安全文化。","authors":"Dolores Beteta Fernández, Arturo Pereda Mas, Carlos Perez Canovas, Ana Patricia Navarro Egea, Manuel Pardo Rios, Julian Alcaraz-Martinez","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2023-213427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The WHO recognises patient safety as a serious public health problem. The COVID-19 pandemic affected adult EDs (AEDs) and paediatric EDs (PEDs) differently. We compared the culture of safety in the adult AED and PED before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quasi-experimental study was performed. In 2019, we conducted a survey using the Spanish-adapted Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture open to all staff (doctors, nurses and paediatric residents) in AED and PED. This survey provides scores for 12 separate domains and a global assessment of safety (scale 0-10). The survey was repeated in 2021 after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the second survey, the researchers constructed a Pareto Chart (based on the responses from the surveys), demonstrating the most important problems to develop improvement proposals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 2019 questionnaire was completed by 125 AED workers and 65 PED workers. The 2021 questionnaire was completed by 79 AED workers and 50 PED workers. The global assessment of safety in the AED was 6.13 points at baseline and increased to 7.58 points (p<0.001) after COVID-19. The global assessment for the PED was 6.8 points at baseline and increased to 7.62 points after COVID-19 (p<0.001). In both services, the dimension that was most favourably assessed was 'Teamwork in the Service' while 'Provision of Staff' was least favourably assessed. The Pareto charts showed four dimensions contributing more than 50% of negative responses: 'Provision of staff' and 'Hospital Management support for patient safety' coincided in both services.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The baseline perception of the culture of safety was higher in the PED but improved in both services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adverse situations can provide an opportunity to improve patient safety culture.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Culture of safety in an adult and paediatric emergency department before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.\",\"authors\":\"Dolores Beteta Fernández, Arturo Pereda Mas, Carlos Perez Canovas, Ana Patricia Navarro Egea, Manuel Pardo Rios, Julian Alcaraz-Martinez\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2023-213427\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The WHO recognises patient safety as a serious public health problem. The COVID-19 pandemic affected adult EDs (AEDs) and paediatric EDs (PEDs) differently. We compared the culture of safety in the adult AED and PED before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quasi-experimental study was performed. In 2019, we conducted a survey using the Spanish-adapted Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture open to all staff (doctors, nurses and paediatric residents) in AED and PED. This survey provides scores for 12 separate domains and a global assessment of safety (scale 0-10). The survey was repeated in 2021 after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the second survey, the researchers constructed a Pareto Chart (based on the responses from the surveys), demonstrating the most important problems to develop improvement proposals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 2019 questionnaire was completed by 125 AED workers and 65 PED workers. The 2021 questionnaire was completed by 79 AED workers and 50 PED workers. The global assessment of safety in the AED was 6.13 points at baseline and increased to 7.58 points (p<0.001) after COVID-19. The global assessment for the PED was 6.8 points at baseline and increased to 7.62 points after COVID-19 (p<0.001). In both services, the dimension that was most favourably assessed was 'Teamwork in the Service' while 'Provision of Staff' was least favourably assessed. The Pareto charts showed four dimensions contributing more than 50% of negative responses: 'Provision of staff' and 'Hospital Management support for patient safety' coincided in both services.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The baseline perception of the culture of safety was higher in the PED but improved in both services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adverse situations can provide an opportunity to improve patient safety culture.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213427\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213427","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:世卫组织认为患者安全是一个严重的公共卫生问题。COVID-19 大流行对成人急诊室(AED)和儿科急诊室(PED)的影响不同。我们比较了 COVID-19 大流行前后成人急诊室和儿科急诊室的安全文化:我们开展了一项准实验研究。2019 年,我们使用西班牙文改编的 "医院患者安全文化调查 "对 AED 和 PED 的所有员工(医生、护士和儿科住院医师)进行了一次调查。该调查提供了 12 个独立领域的分数以及对安全的总体评估(0-10 分)。2021 年,在 COVID-19 第一波大流行之后,研究人员再次进行了调查。第二次调查结束后,研究人员(根据调查的答复)绘制了帕累托图表,展示了最重要的问题,以制定改进建议:有 125 名 AED 工作人员和 65 名 PED 工作人员填写了 2019 年调查问卷。79 名 AED 工人和 50 名 PED 工人填写了 2021 年调查问卷。对 AED 安全性的总体评估在基线时为 6.13 分,后来增加到 7.58 分(p 结论:AED 工作人员对安全文化的基线认知为 6.13 分,而 PED 工作人员则为 7.58 分:PED 对安全文化的基线感知较高,但在 COVID-19 大流行期间,两个部门的安全文化都有所改善。不良情况可为改善患者安全文化提供契机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Culture of safety in an adult and paediatric emergency department before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The WHO recognises patient safety as a serious public health problem. The COVID-19 pandemic affected adult EDs (AEDs) and paediatric EDs (PEDs) differently. We compared the culture of safety in the adult AED and PED before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: A quasi-experimental study was performed. In 2019, we conducted a survey using the Spanish-adapted Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture open to all staff (doctors, nurses and paediatric residents) in AED and PED. This survey provides scores for 12 separate domains and a global assessment of safety (scale 0-10). The survey was repeated in 2021 after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the second survey, the researchers constructed a Pareto Chart (based on the responses from the surveys), demonstrating the most important problems to develop improvement proposals.

Results: The 2019 questionnaire was completed by 125 AED workers and 65 PED workers. The 2021 questionnaire was completed by 79 AED workers and 50 PED workers. The global assessment of safety in the AED was 6.13 points at baseline and increased to 7.58 points (p<0.001) after COVID-19. The global assessment for the PED was 6.8 points at baseline and increased to 7.62 points after COVID-19 (p<0.001). In both services, the dimension that was most favourably assessed was 'Teamwork in the Service' while 'Provision of Staff' was least favourably assessed. The Pareto charts showed four dimensions contributing more than 50% of negative responses: 'Provision of staff' and 'Hospital Management support for patient safety' coincided in both services.

Conclusion: The baseline perception of the culture of safety was higher in the PED but improved in both services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adverse situations can provide an opportunity to improve patient safety culture.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
期刊最新文献
Best evidence topic report: can intradermal sterile water injections provide effective pain relief in patients with renal colic? Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Is it time to reframe resuscitation in trauma? Are there differences in low-acuity emergency department visits between culturally and linguistically diverse migrants and people with English-speaking background: a population-based linkage study of adults over 45.
×
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