Pflege in ländlichen Regionen stärken - Empfehlungen des Sachverständigenrates zur Bedarfsgerechtigkeit

Schaeffer D, Herr D, Lessing C. Pflege in ländlichen Regionen stärken - Empfehlungen des Sachverständigenrates zur Bedarfsgerechtigkeit. Pflege & Gesellschaft. 2015;20(1):80-88

Are administrative data valid when measuring patient safety in hospitals? A comparison of data collection methods using a chart review and administrative data

Objective: To evaluate the validity and reliability of German Diagnosis Related Group administrative data to measure indicators of patient safety in comparison to clinical records. Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted using chart review (CR) as gold standard and screening of associated administrative data based on DRG coding. Setting: Three German somatic acute care hospitals for adults. Participants: A total of 3000 cases treated between May and December, 2010. Main outcome measures: Eight indicators were used to analyse the incidence of associated adverse events (AEs): pressure ulcers, catheter-related infections, respiratory failure, deep vein thromboses, hospital-acquired pneumonia, acute renal failure, acute myocardial infarction and wound infections. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and Cohen's Kappa with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Screening of administrative data identified 171 AEs and 456 were identified by CR. A number of 135 identical events were identified by both methods. Sensitivities for the detection of AEs using administrative data ranged from 6 to 100%. Specificities ranged from 99 to 100%. PPV were 33 to 100% and reliabilities were 12 to 85%. Conclusions: Indicators based on German administrative data deviate widely from indicators based on clinical data. Therefore, hospitals should be cautious to use indicators based on administrative data for quality assurance. However, some might be useful for case findings and quality improvement. The precision of the evaluated indicators needs further development to detect AEs by the valid use of administrative data

Assessment of Patient and Occupational Safety Culture in Hospitals: Development of a Questionnaire with Comparable Dimensions and Results of a Feasibility Study in a German University Hospital

(1) Background: Both patient and occupational safety cultures should be considered when promoting safety culture. To our knowledge, there are no studies that capture patient safety culture (PSC) and occupational safety culture (OSC) in hospitals while using a common questionnaire. The aim of this feasibility study in a German university hospital was to develop a questionnaire to assess both issues analogously. In addition to feasibility outcomes, we report results of PSC-OSC comparisons. (2) Methods: To assess PSC, we used the existing Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC) questionnaire. Developing new OSC “twin items„ for certain parts of the HSPSC was supported by a previous literature review. Additionally, we developed multiple choice questions to examine knowledge and competencies regarding specific PS/OS aspects. (3) Results: Developing and implementing a combined PSC and OSC assessment instrument was feasible. The overall response rate was 33% (407 nurses, 140 physicians). In general, the statistical reliability of almost all scales was sufficient. Positive PSC perceptions (agreement rates 46⁻87%) were found in 16 out of 18 scales. Of the four twin scales, the PSC values were significantly better. Individual PS- and OS-related knowledge and competencies were lower than expected. (4) Conclusion: The comparative investigation of patient and occupational safety in a large hospital is a promising approach and can be recommended for further studies. We used our experiences that are presented here in an ongoing bicentric study on the associations between working conditions, occupational safety culture, patient safety culture, and patient safety outcomes (WorkSafeMed)

Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study

Background: Promoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics have mainly been studied independently from each other. The present study investigated hospital staffs’ perceptions of four different topics: (1) psychosocial working conditions, (2) leadership, (3) patient safety climate, and (4) occupational safety climate. We present results from a survey in two German university hospitals aiming to detect differences between nurses and physicians. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study using a standardized paper-based questionnaire. The survey was conducted with nurses and physicians to assess the four topics. The instruments mainly consisted of scales of the German version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), one scale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), scales to assess leadership and transformational leadership, scales to assess patient safety climate using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), and analogous items to assess occupational safety climate. Results: A total of 995 completed questionnaires out of 2512 distributed questionnaires were returned anonymously. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The sample consisted of 381 physicians and 567 nurses. We found various differences with regard to the four topics. In most of the COPSOQ and the HSPSC-scales, physicians rated psychosocial working conditions and patient safety climate more positively than nurses. With regard to occupational safety, nurses indicated higher occupational risks than physicians. Conclusions: The WorkSafeMed study combined the assessment of the four topics psychosocial working conditions, leadership, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate in hospitals. Looking at the four topics provides an overview of where improvements in hospitals may be needed for nurses and physicians. Based on these results, improvements in working conditions, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate are required for health care professionals in German university hospitals – especially for nurses

Correction to: Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a crosssectional study

Correction to: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3862-7 In the original publication of this article, the authors missed that reverse coding was necessary for the item “Do you work separate from your colleagues?” before calculating the scale ‘social relations’. So they corrected the analysis accordingly. The results with the revised scale show that there are no longer any significant differences between nurses and physicians with regard to this scale

Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background Promoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics have mainly been studied independently from each other. The present study investigated hospital staffs’ perceptions of four different topics: (1) psychosocial working conditions, (2) leadership, (3) patient safety climate, and (4) occupational safety climate. We present results from a survey in two German university hospitals aiming to detect differences between nurses and physicians. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study using a standardized paper-based questionnaire. The survey was conducted with nurses and physicians to assess the four topics. The instruments mainly consisted of scales of the German version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), one scale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), scales to assess leadership and transformational leadership, scales to assess patient safety climate using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), and analogous items to assess occupational safety climate. Results A total of 995 completed questionnaires out of 2512 distributed questionnaires were returned anonymously. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The sample consisted of 381 physicians and 567 nurses. We found various differences with regard to the four topics. In most of the COPSOQ and the HSPSC-scales, physicians rated psychosocial working conditions and patient safety climate more positively than nurses. With regard to occupational safety, nurses indicated higher occupational risks than physicians. Conclusions The WorkSafeMed study combined the assessment of the four topics psychosocial working conditions, leadership, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate in hospitals. Looking at the four topics provides an overview of where improvements in hospitals may be needed for nurses and physicians. Based on these results, improvements in working conditions, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate are required for health care professionals in German university hospitals – especially for nurses