Barriers and facilitators to chemotherapy patients' engagement in medical error prevention

Background: Medical errors are a serious threat to chemotherapy patients. Patients can make contributions to safety but little is known about the acceptability of error-preventing behaviors and its predictors. Patients and methods: A cross-sectional survey study among chemotherapy patients treated at the oncology/hematology unit of a regional hospital was conducted. Patients were presented vignettes of errors and unsafe acts and responded to measures of attitudes, behavioral control, norms, barriers, and anticipated reaction. Results: A total of 479 patients completed the survey (52% response rate). Patients reported a high level of anticipated activity but intentions to engage for safety varied considerably between the hypothetical scenarios (range: 57%-96%, χ2 P < 0.001). Health, knowledge and staff time pressure were perceived as most important barriers. Instrumental [odds ratio (OR) = 1.3, P = 0.046] and experiential attitudes (OR = 1.4, P < 0.001), expectations attributed to clinical staff (OR = 1.2, P = 0.024) and behavioral control (OR = 1.8, P < 0.001) were predictors for patients' behaviors. Conclusions: Patients are affirmative toward engaging for safety but perceive considerable barriers. Intentions to engage in error prevention vary by clinical context and are strongly influenced by attitudes, normative and control beliefs. To successfully involve patients in medical error, prevention clinicians need to address their patients' beliefs and reduce barriers through educatio

Oncology nurses' beliefs and attitudes towards the double-check of chemotherapy medications:a cross-sectional survey study

BACKGROUND: Double-checking medications is a widely used strategy to enhance safe medication administration in oncology, but there is little evidence to support its effectiveness. The proliferated use of double-checking may be explained by positive attitudes towards checking among nurses. This study investigated oncology nurses' beliefs towards double-checking medication, its relation to beliefs about safety and the influence of nurses' level of experience and proximity to clinical care. METHODS: This was a survey of all oncology nurses in three Swiss hospitals. The questionnaire contained 41 items on 6 domains. Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors linked to strong beliefs in the effectiveness of double-checking. RESULTS: Overall, 274 (70%) out of 389 nurses responded (91% female, mean age 37 (standard deviation = 10)). Nurses reported very strong beliefs in the effectiveness and utility of double-checking. They were also confident about their own performance in double-checking. Nurses widely believed that double checking produced safety (e.g., 86% believed errors of individuals could be intercepted with double-checks). In contrast, some limitations of double-checking were also recognized, e.g., 33% of nurses reported that double checking caused frequent interruptions and 28% reported that double-checking was done superficially in their unit. Regression analysis revealed that beliefs in effectiveness of double-checking were mainly associated with beliefs in safety production (p < 0.001). Nurses with experience in barcode scanning held less strong beliefs in effectiveness of double-checking (p = 0.006). In contrast to our expectations, there were no differences in beliefs between any professional sub-groups. CONCLUSION: The widespread and strong believe in the effectiveness of double-checking is linked to beliefs about safety production and co-exists with acknowledgement of the major disadvantages of double-checking by humans. These results are important factors to consider when any existing procedures are adapted or new checking procedures are implemented

Implementation status of safety measures to prevent errors with non-oncologic methotrexate: surveys in community and hospital pharmacies.

BACKGROUND Accidental overdose of low-dose methotrexate can lead to serious patient harm. Different safety measures are recommended to prevent errors, yet, as errors continue to happen, their implementation is questionable. AIM To evaluate the implementation status of safety measures for methotrexate in community and hospital pharmacies. METHOD An electronic questionnaire was sent to head pharmacists of 163 community and 94 hospital pharmacies in Switzerland. The implementation of recommended safety measures (general measures, safety working procedures, IT-based measures) was assessed and descriptive analysis performed. An analysis of sales data underlined the relevance of our results, i.e., the population under risk for overdose. RESULTS A response was obtained from 53% (n = 87) of community and 50% (n = 47) of hospital pharmacists. Pharmacies had implemented a median of 6 (IQR 3, community) and 5 (IQR 5, hospital) safety measures overall. Most of these were defined safety procedures, instructing staff on how to handle methotrexate prescriptions. Across all safety measures, compliance with single procedures was perceived as "very likely" by 54% of community pharmacies. IT-based measures (e.g., alerts) were absent in 38% (n = 31) of community and 57% (n = 27) of hospital pharmacies. On average, every community pharmacy dispensed 22 packages annually. CONCLUSION Safety in relation to methotrexate in pharmacies relies mostly on staff instructions, which are considered weak measures. In light of the serious risk imposed on patients, pharmacies should set a focus on stronger IT-based measures that rely less on human performance

Case management in oncology rehabilitation (CAMON): The effect of case management on the quality of life in patients with cancer after one year of ambulant rehabilitation. A study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial in oncology rehabilitation

Background Cancer diseases and their therapies have negative effects on the quality of life. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of case management in a sample of oncological outpatients with the intent of rehabilitation after cancer treatment. Case management wants to support the complex information needs of the patients in addition to the segmented structure of the health care system. Emphasis is put on support for self-management in order to enhance health - conscious behaviour, learning to deal with the burden of the illness and providing the opportunity for regular contacts with care providers. We present a study protocol to investigate the efficacy of a case management in patients following oncology rehabilitation after cancer treatment. Methods The trial is a multicentre, two-arm randomised controlled study. Patients are randomised parallel in either 'usual care' plus case management or 'usual care' alone. Patients with all types of cancer can be included in the study, if they have completed the therapy with chemo- and/or radiotherapy/surgery with curative intention and are expected to have a survival time >1 year. To determine the health-related quality of life the general questionnaire FACT G is used. The direct correlation between self-management and perceived self-efficacy is measured with the Jerusalem & Schwarzer questionnaire. Patients satisfaction with the care received is measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care 5 As (PACIC-5A). Data are collected at the beginning of the trial and after 3, 6 and 12 months. The power analysis revealed a sample size of 102 patients. The recruitment of the centres began in 2009. The inclusion of patients began in May 2010. Discussion Case management has proved to be effective regarding quality of life of patients with chronic diseases. When it comes to oncology, case management is mainly used in cancer treatment, but it is not yet common in the rehabilitation of cancer patients. Case management in oncology rehabilitation is not well-established in Switzerland. A major challenge of the study will therefore probably be the recruitment of the patients due to the physicians' and patients' scarcely existing awareness of this issue

HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990–2004

BACKGROUND: Studies published in non-English languages are systematically missing in systematic reviews of growth and quality of economic evaluations of health care. The aims of this study were: to characterize German evaluations, published in English or German-language, in terms of various key parameters; to investigate methods to derive quality-of-life weights in cost-utility studies; and to examine changes in study characteristics over the years. METHODS: We conducted a country-specific systematic review of the German and English-language literature of German economic evaluations (assessment of or application to the German health care system) published 1990–2004. Generic and specialized health economic databases were searched. Two independent reviewers verified fulfillment of inclusion criteria and extracted study characteristics. RESULTS: The fulltexts of 730 articles were reviewed of which 283 fulfilled all entry criteria. 32% of included studies were published in German-language. 51% of studies evaluated pharmaceuticals and 63% were cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic appraisals concentrate on few disease categories and important health areas are strongly underrepresented. Declaration of sponsorship was associated with article language (49% English articles vs. 29% German articles, p < 0.001). The methodology used to obtain quality-of-life weights in published cost-utility studies was very diverse, poorly reported and most studies did not use German patients' or community health state valuations. CONCLUSION: Many of the German-language evaluations included in our study are likely to be missing in international reviews and may be systematically different from English-language reviews from Germany. Lack of transparency and adherence to recommended reporting practices constitute a serious problem in German economic evaluations

How robust are value judgements of health inequality aversion? Testing for framing and cognitive effects

Background: Empirical studies have found that members of the public are inequality averse and value health gains for disadvantaged groups with poor health many times more highly than gains for better off groups. However, these studies typically use abstract scenarios that involve unrealistically large reductions in health inequality, and face-to-face survey administration. It is not known how robust these findings are to more realistic scenarios or anonymous online survey administration. Methods: This study aimed to test the robustness of questionnaire estimates of inequality aversion by comparing the following: (1) small versus unrealistically large health inequality reductions; (2) population-level versus individual-level descriptions of health inequality reductions; (3) concrete versus abstract intervention scenarios; and (4) online versus face to face mode of administration. Fifty-two members of the public participated in face-to-face discussion groups, while 83 members of the public completed an online survey. Participants were given a questionnaire instrument with different scenario descriptions for eliciting aversion to social inequality in health. Results: The median respondent was inequality averse under all scenarios. Scenarios involving small rather than unrealistically large health gains made little difference in terms of inequality aversion, as did population-level rather than individual-level scenarios. However, the proportion expressing extreme inequality aversion fell 19 percentage points when considering a specific health intervention scenario rather than an abstract scenario, and was 11-21 percentage points lower among online public respondents compared to the discussion group. Conclusions: Our study suggests that both concrete scenarios and online administration reduce the proportion expressing extreme inequality aversion but still yield median responses implying substantial health inequality aversion

Bedside rationing by general practitioners: A postal survey in the Danish public healthcare system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is ethically controversial whether medical doctors are morally permitted to ration the care of their patients at the bedside. To explore whether general practitioners in fact do ration in this manner we conducted a study within primary care in the Danish public healthcare system. The purpose of the study was to measure the extent to which general practitioners (GPs) would be willing to factor in cost-quality trade-offs when prescribing medicine, and to discover whether, and if so to what extent, they believe that patients should be informed about this.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Postal survey of 600 randomly selected Danish GPs, of which 330 responded to the questionnaire. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 14.0) was used to produce general descriptive statistics. Significance was calculated with the McNemar and the chi-square test. The main outcome measures of the study were twofold: an assessment of the proportion of GPs who, in a mainly hypothetical setting, would consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given their economic impact on the healthcare system; and a measure of the extent to which they would disclose this information to patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the hypothetical setting 95% of GPs considered cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. In all 90% stated that this consideration had been relevant in clinical decision-making within the last month. In the hypothetical setting 55% would inform their patients that they considered a cost-quality trade-off relevant to their clinical decisions given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. The most common reason (68%) given for not wanting to inform patients about this matter was the belief that the information would not prove useful to patients. In the hypothetical setting cost-quality trade-offs were considered relevant significantly more often in connection with concerns about costs to the patient (86%) than they were in connection with concerns about costs to the healthcare system (55%; p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although readiness to consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to clinical decisions is prevalent among GPs in Denmark, only half of GPs would disclose to patients that they consider this relevant to their clinical decision-making. The results of this study raise two important ethical problems. First, under Danish law physicians are required to inform patients about all equal treatments. The fact that only a few GPs would inform their patients about all of the relevant treatments therefore seems to contravene Danish law. Second, it is ethically controversial that physicians act as economic gatekeepers.</p

The equivalence of numbers: The social value of avoiding health decline: An experimental web-based study

BACKGROUND: Health economic analysis aimed at informing policy makers and supporting resource allocation decisions has to evaluate not only improvements in health but also avoided decline. Little is known however, whether the "direction" in which changes in health are experienced is important for the public in prioritizing among patients. This experimental study investigates the social value people place on avoiding (further) health decline when directly compared to curative treatments in resource allocation decisions. METHODS: 127 individuals completed an interactive survey that was published in the World Wide Web. They were confronted with a standard gamble (SG) and three person trade-off tasks, either comparing improvements in health (PTO-Up), avoided decline (PTO-Down), or both, contrasting health changes of equal magnitude differing in the direction in which they are experienced (PTO-WAD). Finally, a direct priority ranking of various interventions was obtained. RESULTS: Participants strongly prioritized improving patients' health rather than avoiding decline. The mean substitution rate between health improvements and avoided decline (WAD) ranged between 0.47 and 0.64 dependent on the intervention. Weighting PTO values according to the direction in which changes in health are experienced improved their accuracy in predicting a direct prioritization ranking. Health state utilities obtained by the standard gamble method seem not to reflect social values in resource allocation contexts. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the utility of being cured of a given health state might not be a good approximation for the societal value of avoiding this health state, especially in cases of competition between preventive and curative interventions

Does the perception of fairness and standard of care in the health system depend on the field of study? Results of an empirical analysis

Background: The main challenge in the context of health care reforms and priority setting is the establishment and/or maintenance of fairness and standard of care. For the political process and interdisciplinary discussion, the subjective perception of the health care system might even be as important as potential objective criteria. Of special interest are the perceptions of academic disciplines, whose representatives act as decision makers in the health care sector. The aim of this study is to explore and compare the subjective perception of fairness and standard of care in the German health care system among students of medicine, law, economics, philosophy, and religion. Methods: Between October 2011 and January 2012, we asked freshmen and advanced students of the fields mentioned above to participate in a paper and pencil survey. Prior to this, we formulated hypotheses. The data were analysed by micro econometric regression techniques. Results: Data from 1,088 students were included in the study. Medical students, freshmen, and advanced students perceive the standard of care significantly as being better than non-medical students. Differences in the perception of fairness are not significant between the freshmen of the academic disciplines; however, they increase with the number of study terms. Besides the field of study, further variables such as gender and health status have a significant impact on perceptions. Conclusions: Our results show that there are differences in the perception of fairness and standard of care between academic disciplines, which might influence the interdisciplinary discussion on health care reforms and priority setting.Leibniz University Hannover/Wege in die Forschung I

Women’s, partners’ and healthcare providers’ views and experiences of assisted vaginal birth: a systematic mixed methods review

Background When certain complications arise during the second stage of labour, assisted vaginal delivery (AVD), a vaginal birth with forceps or vacuum extractor, can effectively improve outcomes by ending prolonged labour or by ensuring rapid birth in response to maternal or fetal compromise. In recent decades, the use of AVD has decreased in many settings in favour of caesarean section (CS). This review aimed to improve understanding of experiences, barriers and facilitators for AVD use. Methods Systematic searches of eight databases using predefined search terms to identify studies reporting views and experiences of maternity service users, their partners, health care providers, policymakers, and funders in relation to AVD. Relevant studies were assessed for methodological quality. Qualitative findings were synthesised using a meta-ethnographic approach. Confidence in review findings was assessed using GRADE CERQual. Findings from quantitative studies were synthesised narratively and assessed using an adaptation of CERQual. Qualitative and quantitative review findings were triangulated using a convergence coding matrix. Results Forty-two studies (published 1985–2019) were included: six qualitative, one mixed-method and 35 quantitative. Thirty-five were from high-income countries, and seven from LMIC settings. Confidence in the findings was moderate or low. Spontaneous vaginal birth was most likely to be associated with positive short and long-term outcomes, and emergency CS least likely. Views and experiences of AVD tended to fall somewhere between these two extremes. Where indicated, AVD can be an effective, acceptable alternative to caesarean section. There was agreement or partial agreement across qualitative studies and surveys that the experience of AVD is impacted by the unexpected nature of events and, particularly in high-income settings, unmet expectations. Positive relationships, good communication, involvement in decision-making, and (believing in) the reason for intervention were important mediators of birth experience. Professional attitudes and skills (development) were simultaneously barriers and facilitators of AVD in quantitative studies. Conclusions Information, positive interaction and communication with providers and respectful care are facilitators for acceptance of AVD. Barriers include lack of training and skills for decision-making and use of instruments