Networks as perspective on policy and implementation

This article discusses the jungle of theories and approaches that abound today in works applied to the management of relations between organizations. It discusses the actions of 'individuals' who may be thought of as managers of an inter-organizational entity (IOE). It also explores research that describes organizational capabilities - in the sense of building them - as a product of, and an enactment through, managerial action. It address the various ways in which this kind of research has been conducted, including a discussion of the various methodologies and underlying theories that provide foundations for discussions of the management challenges inherent in dealing with collaboration and areas of substantive focus. Finally, this article closes with a discussion of significant gaps in the literature that require future research.</p

Methods and systems used to measure and monitor occupational disease and injury in New Zealand

The National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee (NOHSAC) commissioned Health Outcomes International to conduct a review of methods and systems used to measure and monitor occupational disease and injury in New Zealand. This is NOHSAC’s second project designed to provide an independent evidence-based assessment of some of the measures that would deliver the greatest benefit for the prevention of occupational injury and disease in New Zealand

Australians with osteoarthritis: satisfaction with health care providers and the perceived helpfulness of treatments and information sources

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction of Australian patients who suffer from osteoarthritis (OA) with their health care providers and the perceived helpfulness of treatments and information sources.Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was conducted with a sample of 560 Australian patients who suffer from OA with questions about satisfaction with health care providers and the helpfulness of different treatment options and information sources. Logistic regression models were used to assess potential predictors of satisfaction. Thematic analysis was undertaken for attitudinal factors associated with satisfaction.Results: A total of 435 participants returned questionnaires (response rate 78%). Most respondents were highly satisfied with the care provided by their general practitioner (GP) (84%), communication with their GP (88%), time spent with their GP (84%), and their ability to talk freely with their GP about their medical problem (93%), but less satisfied with their ability to talk freely about associated emotional problems (77%). Satisfaction with pharmacists (80%), rheumatologists (76%), and orthopedic surgeons (72%) was high. Joint replacement surgery (91%), prescription anti-inflammatory medications (66%), aids and assistive devices (65%), intra-articular injections (63%), and prescription painkiller medications (62%) were perceived as effective treatments. Less highly rated treatments were exercise (48%), physiotherapy (43%), and complementary medicines (29%). A majority of patients were satisfied with the information to manage their OA (65%). From the multivariable logistic regression analysis, four GP satisfaction factors were found to be predictors of overall satisfaction with GP care: the amount of time that the GP spends with the patient (P=0.005), the information the GP provides about what to expect (P<0.001), the communication between patient and GP (P=0.001), and the information that the GP provides about medications (P=0.042).Conclusion: The study showed that although patients with OA were generally satisfied with their health care providers, there was notable variation in the perceived helpfulness of therapeutic options. The importance to patients of having access to good quality information about their condition was emphasized

Diagnostic error in the emergency department: learning from national patient safety incident report analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error occurs more frequently in the emergency department than in regular in-patient hospital care. We sought to characterise the nature of reported diagnostic error in hospital emergency departments in England and Wales from 2013 to 2015 and to identify the priority areas for intervention to reduce their occurrence. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods design using an exploratory descriptive analysis and thematic analysis of patient safety incident reports. Primary data were extracted from a national database of patient safety incidents. Reports were filtered for emergency department settings, diagnostic error (as classified by the reporter), from 2013 to 2015. These were analysed for the chain of events, contributory factors and harm outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2288 cases of confirmed diagnostic error: 1973 (86%) delayed and 315 (14%) wrong diagnoses. One in seven incidents were reported to have severe harm or death. Fractures were the most common condition (44%), with cervical-spine and neck of femur the most frequent types. Other common conditions included myocardial infarctions (7%) and intracranial bleeds (6%). Incidents involving both delayed and wrong diagnoses were associated with insufficient assessment, misinterpretation of diagnostic investigations and failure to order investigations. Contributory factors were predominantly human factors, including staff mistakes, healthcare professionals' inadequate skillset or knowledge and not following protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Systems modifications are needed that provide clinicians with better support in performing patient assessment and investigation interpretation. Interventions to reduce diagnostic error need to be evaluated in the emergency department setting, and could include standardised checklists, structured reporting and technological investigation improvements

Systematic review of the appropriateness of eye care delivery in eye care practice

Background: Health care systems are continually being reformed, however care improvement and intervention effectiveness are often assumed, not measured. This paper aimed to review findings from published studies about the appropriateness of eye care delivery, using existing published evidence and/or experts' practice and to describe the methods used to measure appropriateness of eye care. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using Medline, Embase and CINAHL (2006 to September 2016). Studies reporting the processes of eye care delivery against existing published evidence and/or experts' practice were selected. Data was extracted from published reports and the methodological quality using a modified critical appraisal tool. The primary outcomes were percentage of appropriateness of eye care delivery. This study was registered with PROSPERO, reference CRD42016049974. Results: Fifty-seven studies were included. Most studies assessed glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy and the overall methodological quality for most studies was moderate. The ranges of appropriateness of care delivery were 2-100% for glaucoma, 0-100% for diabetic retinopathy and 0-100% for other miscellaneous conditions. Published studies assessed a single ocular condition, a sample from a single centre or a single domain of care, but no study has attempted to measure the overall appropriateness of eye care delivery. Conclusions: These findings indicated a wide range of appropriateness of eye care delivery, for glaucoma and diabetic eye care. Future research would benefit from a comprehensive approach where appropriateness of eye care is measured across multiple conditions with a single methodology, to guide priorities within eye care delivery and monitor quality improvement initiatives.</p

Nature of Blame in Patient Safety Incident Reports: Mixed Methods Analysis of a National Database.

PURPOSE: A culture of blame and fear of retribution are recognized barriers to reporting patient safety incidents. The extent of blame attribution in safety incident reports, which may reflect the underlying safety culture of health care systems, is unknown. This study set out to explore the nature of blame in family practice safety incident reports. METHODS: We characterized a random sample of family practice patient safety incident reports from the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System. Reports were analyzed according to prespecified classification systems to describe the incident type, contributory factors, outcomes, and severity of harm. We developed a taxonomy of blame attribution, and we then used descriptive statistical analyses to identify the proportions of blame types and to explore associations between incident characteristics and one type of blame. RESULTS: Health care professionals making family practice incident reports attributed blame to a person in 45% of cases (n = 975 of 2,148; 95% CI, 43%-47%). In 36% of cases, those who reported the incidents attributed fault to another person, whereas 2% of those reporting acknowledged personal responsibility. Blame was commonly associated with incidents where a complaint was anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: The high frequency of blame in these safety, incident reports may reflect a health care culture that leads to blame and retribution, rather than to identifying areas for learning and improvement, and a failure to appreciate the contribution of system factors in others' behavior. Successful improvement in patient safety through the analysis of incident reports is unlikely without achieving a blame-free culture

Sources of unsafe primary care for older adults: a mixed-methods analysis of patient safety incident reports

Background: Older adults are frequent users of primary healthcare services, but are at increased risk of healthcare-related harm in this setting. Objectives: To describe the factors associated with actual or potential harm to patients aged 65 years and older, treated in primary care, to identify action to produce safer care. Design and Setting: A cross-sectional mixed-methods analysis of a national (England and Wales) database of patient safety incident reports from 2005 to 2013. Subjects: 1,591 primary care patient safety incident reports regarding patients aged 65 years and older. Methods: We developed a classification system for the analysis of patient safety incident reports to describe: the incident and preceding chain of incidents; other contributory factors; and patient harm outcome. We combined findings from exploratory descriptive and thematic analyses to identify key sources of unsafe care. Results: The main sources of unsafe care in our weighted sample were due to: medication-related incidents e.g. prescribing, dispensing and administering (n = 486, 31%; 15% serious patient harm); communication-related incidents e.g. incomplete or non-transfer of information across care boundaries (n = 390, 25%; 12% serious patient harm); and clinical decision-making incidents which led to the most serious patient harm outcomes (n = 203, 13%; 41% serious patient harm). Conclusion: Priority areas for further research to determine the burden and preventability of unsafe primary care for older adults, include: the timely electronic tools for prescribing, dispensing and administering medication in the community; electronic transfer of information between healthcare settings; and, better clinical decision-making support and guidance