Cancer patients’ experiences of error and consequences during diagnosis and treatment

The study objective was to investigate patient experienced error during diagnosis and treatment of cancer. The design included a nationwide patient survey on quality and safety in Danish cancer care. Responses regarding patient experienced error were separately analyzed, quantitative responses using descriptive statistics and qualitative responses using systematic text analysis. Study participants included 6,720 adult patients with a first time diagnosis of cancer registered between May 1st and August 31st 2010. The patients received a questionnaire concerning their experiences of care received by general practitioners, specialist practitioners and at the hospital. A response rate of 65% was achieved. 10 – 25% of patients experienced error during diagnosis or treatment. 61% reported that hospital errors had consequences. Unexpected surgical errors/complications (27%), delay due to doctors’ assessment errors (24%) and unavailable test results (21%) were the most frequent types of errors identified using closed questions. 819 qualitative responses supplemented this information and revealed errors related to cancer detection, planning & coordination, patient-provider communication, administrative processes and treatment & medication. Physical, psychological, social as well as organizational consequences of the errors were uncovered. Patient experiences of errors suggest that practices related to informed consent, diagnostic reasoning as well as handling of test results, referrals and the medical chart should be further improved. In addition, safety aspects of the patient-provider communication and involvement of patients as an extra safety barrier merit further study

A mixed methods inquiry into the validity of data

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Veterinary decision making in relation to metritis - a qualitative approach to understand the background for variation and bias in veterinary medical records

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Results of analyses based on veterinary records of animal disease may be prone to variation and bias, because data collection for these registers relies on different observers in different settings as well as different treatment criteria. Understanding the human influence on data collection and the decisions related to this process may help veterinary and agricultural scientists motivate observers (veterinarians and farmers) to work more systematically, which may improve data quality. This study investigates qualitative relations between two types of records: 1) 'diagnostic data' as recordings of metritis scores and 2) 'intervention data' as recordings of medical treatment for metritis and the potential influence on quality of the data.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study is based on observations in veterinary dairy practice combined with semi-structured research interviews of veterinarians working within a herd health concept where metritis diagnosis was described in detail. The observations and interviews were analysed by qualitative research methods to describe differences in the veterinarians' perceptions of metritis diagnosis (scores) and their own decisions related to diagnosis, treatment, and recording.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The analysis demonstrates how data quality can be affected during the diagnostic procedures, as interaction occurs between diagnostics and decisions about medical treatments. Important findings were when scores lacked consistency within and between observers (variation) and when scores were adjusted to the treatment decision already made by the veterinarian (bias). The study further demonstrates that veterinarians made their decisions at 3 different levels of focus (cow, farm, population). Data quality was influenced by the veterinarians' perceptions of collection procedures, decision making and their different motivations to collect data systematically.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Both variation and bias were introduced into the data because of veterinarians' different perceptions of and motivations for decision making. Acknowledgement of these findings by researchers, educational institutions and veterinarians in practice may stimulate an effort to improve the quality of field data, as well as raise awareness about the importance of including knowledge about human perceptions when interpreting studies based on field data. Both recognitions may increase the usefulness of both within-herd and between-herd epidemiological analyses.</p

Resistance to penicillin of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from cows with high somatic cell counts in organic and conventional dairy herds in Denmark

BACKGROUND: Quarter milk samples from cows with high risk of intramammary infection were examined to determine the prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus (SA) and penicillin resistant SA (SAr) in conventional and organic dairy herds and herds converting to organic farming in a combined longitudinal and cross-sectional study. METHODS: 20 conventional herds, 18 organic herds that converted before 1995, and 19 herds converting to organic farming in 1999 or 2000 were included in the study. Herds converting to organic farming were sampled three times one year apart; the other herds were sampled once. Risk of infection was estimated based on somatic cell count, milk production, breed, age and lactation stage. RESULTS: The high-risk cows represented about 49 % of the cows in the herds. The overall prevalence of SA and SAr among these cows was 29% (95% confidence interval: 24%–34%) and 4% (95% confidence interval: 2%–5%) respectively. The prevalence of penicillin resistance among SA infected cows was 12% (95% confidence interval: 6%–19%) when calculated from the first herd visits. No statistically significant differences were observed in the prevalence of SAr or the proportion of isolates resistant to penicillin between herd groups. CONCLUSION: The proportion of isolates resistant to penicillin was low compared to studies in other countries except Norway and Sweden. Based on the low prevalence of penicillin resistance of SA, penicillin should still be the first choice of antimicrobial agent for treatment of bovine intramammary infection in Denmark