Veiligheid in de zorg

De onderzoeksvraag Van gezondheidszorginstellingen wordt verwacht dat zij investeren in de veiligheid van de door hen geleverde zorg (Meurs 2008). Burgers – als zij onverhoopt patiënt en/of cliënt worden van een zorginstelling – moeten er op kunnen vertrouwen dat de kwaliteit van de zorg goed is en dat er veilig wordt gewerkt. Terwijl de professionals voor goede kwaliteit zorgen, zijn managers, bestuurders en toezichthouders verantwoordelijk voor de randvoorwaarden opdat goede kwaliteit ook geleverd kan worden. Tronto maakt in dit verband het onderscheid tussen zorgen dat en zorgen voor. Managers en bestuurders zijn verantwoordelijk voor het realiseren van de randvoorwaarden die professionals nodig hebben om goede kwaliteit en veiligheid te leveren (Tronto 1994). Toezichthouders zien hierop toe. Professionals zorgen voor de feitelijke kwaliteit en veiligheid van patiëntenzorg in het dagelijks handelen en hebben ook een verantwoordelijkheid om zich te verantwoorden over de wijze waarop zij kwaliteit en veiligheid waarborgen. In nationale kwaliteitsprogr

Quantitative data management in quality improvement collaboratives

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Collaborative approaches in quality improvement have been promoted since the introduction of the Breakthrough method. The effectiveness of this method is inconclusive and further independent evaluation of the method has been called for. For any evaluation to succeed, data collection on interventions performed within the collaborative and outcomes of those interventions is crucial. Getting enough data from Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) for evaluation purposes, however, has proved to be difficult. This paper provides a retrospective analysis on the process of data management in a Dutch Quality Improvement Collaborative. From this analysis general failure and success factors are identified.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper discusses complications and dilemma's observed in the set-up of data management for QICs. An overview is presented of signals that were picked up by the data management team. These signals were used to improve the strategies for data management during the program and have, as far as possible, been translated into practical solutions that have been successfully implemented.</p> <p>The recommendations coming from this study are:</p> <p>From our experience it is clear that quality improvement programs deviate from experimental research in many ways. It is not only impossible, but also undesirable to control processes and standardize data streams. QIC's need to be clear of data protocols that do not allow for change. It is therefore minimally important that when quantitative results are gathered, these results are accompanied by qualitative results that can be used to correctly interpret them.</p> <p>Monitoring and data acquisition interfere with routine. This makes a database collecting data in a QIC an intervention in itself. It is very important to be aware of this in reporting the results. Using existing databases when possible can overcome some of these problems but is often not possible given the change objective of QICs.</p> <p>Introducing a standardized spreadsheet to the teams is a very practical and helpful tool in collecting standardized data within a QIC. It is vital that the spreadsheets are handed out before baseline measurements start.</p

What happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory

In response to widespread policy prescriptions for responsible innovation, social scientists and engineering ethicists, among others, have sought to engage natural scientists and engineers at the ‘midstream’: building interdisciplinary collaborations to integrate social and ethical considerations with research and development processes. Two ‘laboratory engagement studies’ have explored how applying the framework of midstream modulation could enhance the reflections of natural scientists on the socio-ethical context of their work. The results of these interdisciplinary collaborations confirm the utility of midstream modulation in encouraging both first- and second-order reflective learning. The potential for second-order reflective learning, in which underlying value systems become the object of reflection, is particularly significant with respect to addressing social responsibility in research practices. Midstream modulation served to render the socio-ethical context of research visible in the laboratory and helped enable research participants to more critically reflect on this broader context. While lab-based collaborations would benefit from being carried out in concert with activities at institutional and policy levels, midstream modulation could prove a valuable asset in the toolbox of interdisciplinary methods aimed at responsible innovation

Evaluation of a large scale implementation of disease management programmes in various Dutch regions: a study protocol

Background. Disease management programmes (DMPs) have been developed to improve effectiveness and economic efficiency withi

Opening the black box of quality improvement collaboratives: an Actor-Network theory approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Quality improvement collaboratives are often labeled as black boxes because effect studies usually do not describe exactly how the results were obtained. In this article we propose a way of opening such a black box, by taking up a dynamic perspective based on Actor-Network Theory. We thereby analyze how the problematisation process and the measurement practices are constructed. Findings from this analysis may have consequences for future evaluation studies of collaboratives.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In an ethnographic design we probed two projects within a larger quality improvement collaborative on long term mental health care and care for the intellectually disabled. Ethnographic observations were made at nine national conferences. Furthermore we conducted six case studies involving participating teams. Additionally, we interviewed the two program leaders of the overall projects.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In one project the problematisation seemed to undergo a shift of focus away from the one suggested by the project leaders. In the other we observed multiple roles of the measurement instrument used. The instrument did not only measure effects of the improvement actions but also changed these actions and affected the actors involved.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Effectiveness statistics ideally should be complemented with an analysis of the construction of the collaborative and the improvement practices. Effect studies of collaboratives could benefit from a mixed methods research design that combines quantitative and qualitative methods.</p