1,746 research outputs found

    The Gap Between Science and Practice: How Therapists Make Their Clinical Decisions

    Get PDF
    Recent surveys have found that many patients are not receiving empirically supported treatments and that therapists may not update their knowledge of research. Studies have found that therapists prefer to use their clinical experience rather than research findings to improve their practice, although cognitive behavioral (CB) practitioners have been found to use research more frequently than therapists of other theoretical orientations. The organization in which therapists work has been shown to impact attitudes toward working practices, but studies have not examined whether workplace requirements to use research affect therapists’ practice. Studies to date have mainly been conducted in North America. These findings may not be generalizable to the United Kingdom where there is a National Health Service (NHS), which requires the use of empirically supported treatments. The first part of this study aimed to investigate which factors were influential in therapists’ choice of theoretical orientation and to see whether CB practitioners differed from other therapists in the factors that influenced their choice of theoretical orientation. The second part tested whether therapists’ theoretical orientation or their workplace influenced the frequency with which they used research in their clinical decision-making. The final part investigated whether being a CB practitioner or working in the NHS was associated with having a favorable attitude toward research. An online survey was sent to 4,144 psychological therapists in England; 736 therapists responded (18.5%). Therapists reported that research had little influence over their choice of theoretical orientation and clinical decision-making compared to other factors, specifically clinical experience and supervision. CB practitioners and NHS therapists, regardless of their orientation, were significantly more likely to use research than other therapists and were more likely to have a positive attitude toward research

    Clinical factors associated with the non-utilization of an anaesthesia incident reporting system

    Get PDF
    Background Incident reporting is a widely recommended method to measure undesirable events in anaesthesia. Under-utilization is a major weakness of voluntary incident reporting systems. Little is known about factors influencing reporting practices, particularly the clinical environment, anaesthesia team composition, severity of the incident, and perceived risk of litigation. The purpose of this study was to assess each of these, using an existing anaesthesia database. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study and analysed 46 207 surgical patients. We used multivariate analysis to identify factors associated with the non-utilization of the reporting system. Results We found that in 7022 (15.1%) of the procedures performed, the incident reporting system was not used. Factors associated with the non-use of the system were regional anaesthesia/local anaesthesia, odds ratio (OR) 1.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-2.62], emergency procedures OR 1.15 (95% CI: 1.05-1.27), and a consultant anaesthetist working without a trainee, OR 1.71 (95% CI: 1.03-2.82). In contrast, factors such as longer duration of surgery, OR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76-0.94), the presence of a senior anaesthesia trainee, OR 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.92), and the occurrence of severe complications with a high risk of litigation (i.e. death, nerve injuries) were less associated with a non-use of the reporting system, OR 0.65 (95% CI: 0.44-0.97). Team composition and time of day had no measurable impact on reporting practices. Conclusions Clinical factors play a significant role in the utilization of an anaesthesia incident reporting system and more particularly, severity of complications and higher liability risks which appear more as incentives than barriers to incident reportin

    National critical incident reporting systems relevant to anaesthesia: a European survey

    Get PDF
    Background Critical incident reporting is a key tool in the promotion of patient safety in anaesthesia. Methods We surveyed representatives of national incident reporting systems in six European countries, inviting information on scope and organization, and intelligence on factors determining success and failure. Results Some systems are government-run and nationally conceived; others started out as small, specialty-focused initiatives, which have since acquired a national reach. However, both national co-ordination and specialty enthusiasts seem to be necessary for an optimally functioning system. The role of reporting culture, definitional issues, and dissemination is discussed. Conclusions We make recommendations for others intending to start new systems and speculate on the prospects for sharing patient safety lessons relevant to anaesthesia at European leve

    The comparative clinical course of pregnant and non-pregnant women hospitalised with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 infection

    Get PDF
    Introduction: The Influenza Clinical Information Network (FLU-CIN) was established to gather detailed clinical and epidemiological information about patients with laboratory confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 infection in UK hospitals. This report focuses on the clinical course and outcomes of infection in pregnancy.Methods: A standardised data extraction form was used to obtain detailed clinical information from hospital case notes and electronic records, for patients with PCR-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 infection admitted to 13 sentinel hospitals in five clinical 'hubs' and a further 62 non-sentinel hospitals, between 11th May 2009 and 31st January 2010.Outcomes were compared for pregnant and non-pregnant women aged 15-44 years, using univariate and multivariable techniques.Results: Of the 395 women aged 15-44 years, 82 (21%) were pregnant; 73 (89%) in the second or third trimester. Pregnant women were significantly less likely to exhibit severe respiratory distress at initial assessment (OR?=?0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.82)), require supplemental oxygen on admission (OR?=?0.40 (95% CI: 0.20-0.80)), or have underlying co-morbidities (p-trend <0.001). However, they were equally likely to be admitted to high dependency (Level 2) or intensive care (Level 3) and/or to die, after adjustment for potential confounders (adj. OR?=?0.93 (95% CI: 0.46-1.92). Of 11 pregnant women needing Level 2/3 care, 10 required mechanical ventilation and three died.Conclusions: Since the expected prevalence of pregnancy in the source population was 6%, our data suggest that pregnancy greatly increased the likelihood of hospital admission with A(H1N1)pdm09. Pregnant women were less likely than non-pregnant women to have respiratory distress on admission, but severe outcomes were equally likely in both groups

    Point prevalence of surgical checklist use in Europe: relationship with hospital mortality

    Get PDF
    Background The prevalence of use of the World Health Organization surgical checklist is unknown. The clinical effectiveness of this intervention in improving postoperative outcomes is debated. Methods We undertook a retrospective analysis of data describing surgical checklist use from a 7 day cohort study of surgical outcomes in 28 European nations (European Surgical Outcomes Study, EuSOS). The analysis included hospitals recruiting >10 patients and excluding outlier hospitals above the 95th centile for mortality. Multivariate logistic regression and three-level hierarchical generalized mixed models were constructed to explore the relationship between surgical checklist use and hospital mortality. Findings are presented as crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 45 591 patients from 426 hospitals were included in the analysis. A surgical checklist was used in 67.5% patients, with marked variation across countries (0-99.6% of patients). Surgical checklist exposure was associated with lower crude hospital mortality (OR 0.84, CI 0.75-0.94; P=0.002). This effect remained after adjustment for baseline risk factors in a multivariate model (adjusted OR 0.81, CI 0.70-0.94; P<0.005) and strengthened after adjusting for variations within countries and hospitals in a three-level generalized mixed model (adjusted OR 0.71, CI 0.58-0.85; P<0.001). Conclusions The use of surgical checklists varies across European nations. Reported use of a checklist was associated with lower mortality. This observation may represent a protective effect of the surgical checklist itself, or alternatively, may be an indirect indicator of the quality of perioperative care. Clinical trial registration The European Surgical Outcomes Study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT0120360

    Categorization, Designation, and Regionalization of Emergency Care: Definitions, a Conceptual Framework, and Future Challenges

    Full text link
    This article reflects the proceedings of a breakout session, “Beyond ED Categorization—Matching Networks to Patient Needs,” at the 2010 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, “Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care.” It is based on concepts and areas of priority identified and developed by the authors and participants at the conference. The paper first describes definitions fundamental to understanding the categorization, designation, and regionalization of emergency care and then considers a conceptual framework for this process. It also provides a justification for a categorization system being integrated into a regionalized emergency care system. Finally, it discusses potential challenges and barriers to the adoption of a categorization and designation system for emergency care and the opportunities for researchers to study the many issues associated with the implementation of such a system.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1306–1311 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicinePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79324/1/j.1553-2712.2010.00932.x.pd

    Important Historical Efforts at Emergency Department Categorization in the United States and Implications for Regionalization

    Full text link
    This article is drawn from a report created for the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Department (ED) Categorization Task Force and also reflects the proceedings of a breakout session, “Beyond ED Categorization—Matching Networks to Patient Needs,” at the 2010 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, “Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care.” The authors describe a brief history of the significant national and state efforts at categorization and suggest reasons why many of these efforts failed to persevere or gain wider implementation. The history of efforts to categorize hospital (and ED) emergency services demonstrates recognition of the potential benefits of categorization, but reflects repeated failures to implement full categorization systems or limited excursions into categorization through licensing of EDs or designation of receiving and referral facilities. An understanding of the history of hospital and ED categorization could better inform current efforts to develop categorization schemes and processes.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:e154–e160 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicinePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79214/1/j.1553-2712.2010.00931.x.pd
    • …
    corecore