62 research outputs found

    Patient safety in primary care: a survey of general practitioners in the Netherlands

    Get PDF
    Contains fulltext : 89814.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Primary care encompasses many different clinical domains and patient groups, which means that patient safety in primary care may be equally broad. Previous research on safety in primary care has focused on medication safety and incident reporting. In this study, the views of general practitioners (GPs) on patient safety were examined. METHODS: A web-based survey of a sample of GPs was undertaken. The items were derived from aspects of patient safety issues identified in a prior interview study. The questionnaire used 10 clinical cases and 15 potential risk factors to explore GPs' views on patient safety. RESULTS: A total of 68 GPs responded (51.5% response rate). None of the clinical cases was uniformly judged as particularly safe or unsafe by the GPs. Cases judged to be unsafe by a majority of the GPs concerned either the maintenance of medical records or prescription and monitoring of medication. Cases which only a few GPs judged as unsafe concerned hygiene, the diagnostic process, prevention and communication. The risk factors most frequently judged to constitute a threat to patient safety were a poor doctor-patient relationship, insufficient continuing education on the part of the GP and a patient age over 75 years. Language barriers and polypharmacy also scored high. Deviation from evidence-based guidelines and patient privacy in the reception/waiting room were not perceived as risk factors by most of the GPs. CONCLUSION: The views of GPs on safety and risk in primary care did not completely match those presented in published papers and policy documents. The GPs in the present study judged a broader range of factors than in previously published research on patient safety in primary care, including a poor doctor-patient relationship, to pose a potential threat to patient safety. Other risk factors such as infection prevention, deviation from guidelines and incident reporting were judged to be less relevant than by policy makers

    The relationship between Europeanisation and policy styles: a study of agricultural and public health policymaking in three EU Member States

    Get PDF
    © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDer-ivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distri-bution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.The role of policy styles in policymaking has attracted renewed scholarly interestin recent years. One of the central debates in this literature revolves around thequestion of how to reconcile archetype national policy styles with considerabledifferences in modus operandi across policy sectors. A sector-specific featurethat is considered a key determinant of the manifestation of archetypenational policy styles in the European Union is the degree of Europeanisationof policy sectors. This paper picks up this suggestion by addressing thequestion of whether and how Europeanisation affects the degree to whichfeatures of an archetype national policy style are manifest within a sector. Weaddress this question by exploring sectoral policy styles in agricultural andfood-related public health policymaking across three EU Member States: TheNetherlands, the United Kingdom (England), and France. Our findings suggestthat the degree of Europeanisation of a policy sector does prove an importantcondition that helps to understand the relationship between national andsectoral policy styles. More specifically, Europeanisation has the strongesteffect when sectors face a higher adaptation pressure, i.e., when there is alarger misfit between sectoral regimes and EU-induced institutional demands.We suggest various promising avenues of future research on this relationship.Peer reviewe

    Risk factors in patient safety: minimally invasive surgery versus conventional surgery

    Get PDF
    Background This study aimed to identify the frequency of events in the different patient safety risk domains during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional surgery (CS). Methods A convenience sample of gynecologic MIS and CS was observed. Events were observed and categorized into one of the predefined patient safety risk domains. Results A total of 53 procedures were observed: 26 CS and 27 MIS procedures. The general characteristics were comparable between the two groups. A large number of environmental events were observed, averaging one every 2.5 min. Technical events and events of an organizational nature occurred more often in MIS (P < 0.01) than in CS (P < 0.01). The relative risk for the occurrence of one or more technical events in MIS compared with CS was 1.7, and the risk for two or more technical events was 4.1. A time out according to protocol showed no relationship to the occurrence of the different types of patient safety-related events. Conclusion The technological complexity inherent in MIS makes this type of surgery more prone to technology-related problems than CS, even in a specially designed minimally invasive surgical suite. A regular time-out procedure developed for CS lacks the attention necessary for the complex technology used in MIS and therefore is insufficient for MIS procedures briefing. Incorporating a specially designed technology checklist in a regular briefing protocol could be a solution to decrease the number of events in MIS.Biomechanical EngineeringMechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineerin

    Towards quality criteria for regional public health reporting: concept mapping with Dutch experts

    Get PDF
    Background: In the Netherlands, municipal health assessments are carried out by 28 Regional Health Services, serving 418 municipalities. In the absence of guidelines, regional public health reports were developed in two pilot regions on the basis of the model and experience of national health reporting. Though they were well received and positively evaluated, it was not clear which specific characteristics determined ‘good public health reporting’. Therefore, this study was set up to develop a theoretical framework for the quality of regional public health reporting in The Netherlands. Methods: Using concept mapping as a standardized tool for conceptualization, 35 relevant reporting experts formulated short statements in two different brainstorming sessions, describing specific quality criteria of regional public health reports. After the removal of duplicates, the list was supplemented with international criteria, and the statements were sent to each participant for rating and sorting. The results were processed statistically and represented graphically. The output was discussed and interpreted, leading to the final concept map. Results: The final concept map consisted of 97 criteria, grouped into 13 clusters, and plotted in two dimensions: a ‘product’ dimension, ranging from ‘production’ to ‘content’, and a ‘context’ dimension, ranging from ‘science’ to ‘policy’. The three most important clusters were: (i) ‘solution orientation’, (ii) ‘policy relevance’ and (iii) ‘policy impact’. Conclusion: This study provided a theoretical framework for the quality of regional public health reporting, indicating relevant domains and criteria. Further work should translate domains and criteria into operational indicators for evaluating regional public health reports

    The cost-effectiveness of a new disease management model for frail elderly living in homes for the elderly, design of a cluster randomized controlled clinical trial

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of this article is to describe the design of a study to evaluate the clinical and economic effects of a Disease Management model on functional health, quality of care and quality of life of persons living in homes for the elderly.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study concerns a cluster randomized controlled clinical trial among five intervention homes and five usual care homes in the North-West of the Netherlands with a total of over 500 residents. All persons who are not terminally ill, are able to be interviewed and sign informed consent are included. For cognitively impaired persons family proxies will be approached to provide outcome information. The Disease Management Model consists of several elements: (1) Trained staff carries out a multidimensional assessment of the patients functional health and care needs with the interRAI Long Term Care Facilities instrument (LTCF). Computerization of the LTCF produces immediate identification of problem areas and thereby guides individualized care planning. (2) The assessment outcomes are discussed in a Multidisciplinary Meeting (MM) with the nurse, primary care physician, nursing home physician and Psychotherapist and if necessary other members of the care team. The MM presents individualized care plans to manage or treat modifiable disabilities and risk factors. (3) Consultation by an nursing home physician and psychotherapist is offered to the frailest residents at risk for nursing home admission (according to the interRAI LTCF). Outcome measures are Quality of Care indicators (LTCF based), Quality Adjusted Life Years (Euroqol), Functional health (SF12, COOP-WONCA), Disability (GARS), Patients care satisfaction (QUOTE), hospital and nursing home days and mortality, health care utilization and costs.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This design is unique because no earlier studies were performed to evaluate the effects and costs of this Disease Management Model for disabled persons in homes for the elderly on functional health and quality of care.</p> <p>Trail registration number</p> <p>ISRCTN11076857</p

    An exploratory qualitative assessment of factors influencing childhood vaccine providers' intention to recommend immunization in the Netherlands

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Under the Dutch national immunization program (NIP), childhood vaccination is not mandatory, but its recommendation by childhood vaccine providers (CVP) is important for maintaining high vaccination coverage. We therefore examined factors related to providers' intentions to recommend vaccinations to parents of young children.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted four focus group discussions with nurses and physicians who provide vaccines to children 0-4 years old in diverse regions of the Netherlands. Three groups represented CVPs at child welfare centers (CWCs) serving the general population, with the fourth representing anthroposophical CWCs. Elements of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) were used to design the groups; thematic analysis was used to structure and analyze the dataset.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Four main themes emerged, including 1) perceived responsibility: to promote vaccines and discuss pros and cons with parents (although this was usually not done if parents readily accepted the vaccination); 2) attitudes toward the NIP: mainly positive, but doubts as to NIP plans to vaccinate against diseases with a low perceived burden; 3) organizational factors: limited time and information can hamper discussions with parents; 4) relationship with parents: crucial and based mainly on communication to establish trust. Compared to CVPs at standard CWCs, the anthroposophical CWCs spent more time communicating and were more willing to adapt the NIP to individual cases.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our qualitative assessment provides an overview of beliefs associated with providers' intention to recommend vaccinations. They were motivated to support the NIP, but their intentions to recommend vaccinations were affected by the perceived relevance of the vaccines, practical issues like limited time and by certain types of resistant parents. These results will inform future studies to test the magnitude and relative impact of these factors.</p

    Patient blood management in Europe

    Get PDF
    Preoperative anaemia is common in patients undergoing orthopaedic and other major surgery. Anaemia is associated with increased risks of postoperative mortality and morbidity, infectious complications, prolonged hospitalization, and a greater likelihood of allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Evidence of the clinical and economic disadvantages of RBC transfusion in treating perioperative anaemia has prompted recommendations for its restriction and a growing interest in approaches that rely on patients' own (rather than donor) blood. These approaches are collectively termed ‘patient blood management’ (PBM). PBM involves the use of multidisciplinary, multimodal, individualized strategies to minimize RBC transfusion with the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes. PBM relies on approaches (pillars) that detect and treat perioperative anaemia and reduce surgical blood loss and perioperative coagulopathy to harness and optimize physiological tolerance of anaemia. After the recent resolution 63.12 of the World Health Assembly, the implementation of PBM is encouraged in all WHO member states. This new standard of care is now established in some centres in the USA and Austria, in Western Australia, and nationally in the Netherlands. However, there is a pressing need for European healthcare providers to integrate PBM strategies into routine care for patients undergoing orthopaedic and other types of surgery in order to reduce the use of unnecessary transfusions and improve the quality of care. After reviewing current PBM practices in Europe, this article offers recommendations supporting its wider implementation, focusing on anaemia management, the first of the three pillars of PBM

    Multidisciplinaire richtlijn voor health checks noodzakelijk

    No full text
    corecore