14 research outputs found

    Interventions in health organisations to reduce the impact of adverse events in second and third victims

    Get PDF
    Background Adverse events (AE) are also the cause of suffering in health professionals involved. This study was designed to identify and analyse organization-level strategies adopted in both primary care and hospitals in Spain to address the impact of serious AE on second and third victims. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in healthcare organizations assessing: safety culture; health organization crisis management plans for serious AE; actions planned to ensure transparency in communication with patients (and relatives) who experience an AE; support for second victims; and protective measures to safeguard the institution’s reputation (the third victim). Results A total of 406 managers and patient safety coordinators replied to the survey. Deficient provision of support for second victims was acknowledged by 71 and 61 % of the participants from hospitals and primary care respectively; these respondents reported there was no support protocol for second victims in place in their organizations. Regarding third victim initiatives, 35 % of hospital and 43 % of primary care professionals indicated no crisis management plan for serious AE existed in their organization, and in the case of primary care, there was no crisis committee in 34 % of cases. The degree of implementation of second and third victim support interventions was perceived to be greater in hospitals (mean 14.1, SD 3.5) than in primary care (mean 11.8, SD 3.1) (p?<?0.001). Conclusions Many Spanish health organizations do not have a second and third victim support or a crisis management plan in place to respond to serious AEs

    The aftermath of adverse events in spanish primary care and hospital health professionals

    Get PDF
    Background Adverse events (AEs) cause harm in patients and disturbance for the professionals involved in the event (second victims). This study assessed the impact of AEs in primary care (PC) and hospitals in Spain on second victims. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted. We carried out a survey based on a random sample of doctors and nurses from PC and hospital settings in Spain. A total of 1087 health professionals responded, 610 from PC and 477 from hospitals. Results A total of 430 health professionals (39.6%) had informed a patient of an error. Reporting to patients was carried out by those with the strongest safety culture (Odds Ratio –OR- 1.1, 95% Confidence Interval –CI- 1.0-1.2), nurses (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.3), those under 50 years of age (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and primary care staff (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9). A total of 381 (62.5%, 95% CI 59-66%) and 346 (72.5%, IC95% 69-77%) primary care and hospital health professionals, respectively, reported having gone through the second-victim experience, either directly or through a colleague, in the previous 5 years. The emotional responses were: feelings of guilt (521, 58.8%), anxiety (426, 49.6%), re-living the event (360, 42.2%), tiredness (341, 39.4%), insomnia (317, 38.0%) and persistent feelings of insecurity (284, 32.8%). In doctors, the most common responses were: feelings of guilt (OR 0.7 IC95% 0.6-0.8), re-living the event (OR 0.7, IC95% o.6-0.8), and anxiety (OR 0.8, IC95% 0.6-0.9), while nurses showed greater solidarity in terms of supporting the second victim, in both PC (p?=?0.019) and hospital (p?=?0.019) settings. Conclusions Adverse events cause guilt, anxiety, and loss of confidence in health professionals. Most are involved in such events as second victims at least once in their careers. They rarely receive any training or education on coping strategies for this phenomenon

    Postresection CA19-9 and margin status as predictors of recurrence after adjuvant treatment for pancreatic carcinoma: Analysis of NRG oncology RTOG trial 9704

    No full text
    Purpose: NRG Oncology RTOG 9704 was the first adjuvant trial to validate the prognostic value of postresection CA19-9 levels for survival in patients with pancreatic carcinoma. The data resulting from this study also provide information about predictors of recurrence that may be used to tailor individualized management in this disease setting. This secondary analysis assessed the prognostic value of postresection CA19-9 and surgical margin status (SMS) in predicting patterns of disease recurrence. Methods and materials: This multicenter cooperative trial included participants who were enrolled as patients at oncology treatment sites in the United States and Canada. The study included 451 patients analyzable for SMS, of whom 385 were eligible for postresection CA19-9 analysis. Postresection CA19-9 was analyzed at cut points of 90, 180, and continuously. Patterns of disease recurrence included local/regional recurrence (LRR) and distant failure (DF). Multivariable analyses included treatment, tumor size, and nodal status. To adjust for multiple comparisons, a P value of ≤ .01 was considered statistically significant and > .01 to ≤ .05 to be a trend. Results: For CA19-9, 132 (34%) patients were Lewis antigen–negative (no CA19-9 expression), 200 (52%) had levels <90, and 220 (57%) had levels <180. A total of 188 patients (42%) had negative margins, 152 (34%) positive, and 111 (25%) unknown. On univariate analysis, CA19-9 cut at 90 was associated with increases in LRR (trend) and DF. Results were similar at the 180 cut point. SMS was not associated with an increase in LRR on univariate or multivariate analyses. On multivariable analysis, CA19-9 ≥ 90 was associated with increased LRR and DF. Results were similar at the 180 cut point. Conclusions: In this prospective evaluation, postresection CA19-9 was a significant predictor of both LRR and DF, whereas SMS was not. These findings support consideration of adjuvant radiation therapy dose intensification in patients with elevated postresection CA19-9
    corecore