22 research outputs found

    The Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool: a valid and reliable instrument for measuring care process organization of health care teams

    Get PDF
    Background: Patient safety can be increased by improving the organization of care. A tool that evaluates the actual organization of care, as perceived by multidisciplinary teams, is the Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool (CPSET). CPSET was developed in 2007 and includes 29 items in five subscales: (a) patient-focused organization, (b) coordination of the care process, (c) collaboration with primary care, (d) communication with patients and family, and (e) follow-up of the care process. The goal of the present study was to further evaluate the psychometric properties of the CPSET at the team and hospital levels and to compile a cutoff score table. Methods: The psychometric properties of the CPSET were assessed in a multicenter study in Belgium and the Netherlands. In total, 3139 team members from 114 hospitals participated. Psychometric properties were evaluated by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach’s alpha, interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Kruskall-Wallis test, and Mann–Whitney test. For the cutoff score table, percentiles were used. Demographic variables were also evaluated. Results: CFA showed a good model fit: a normed fit index of 0.93, a comparative fit index of 0.94, an adjusted goodness-of-fit index of 0.87, and a root mean square error of approximation of 0.06. Cronbach’s alpha values were between 0.869 and 0.950. The team-level ICCs varied between 0.127 and 0.232 and were higher than those at the hospital level (0.071-0.151). Male team members scored significantly higher than females on 2 of the 5 subscales and on the overall CPSET. There were also significant differences among age groups. Medical doctors scored significantly higher on 4 of the 5 subscales and on the overall CPSET. Coordinators of care processes scored significantly lower on 2 of the 5 subscales and on the overall CPSET. Cutoff scores for all subscales and the overall CPSET were calculated. Conclusions: The CPSET is a valid and reliable instrument for health care teams to measure the extent care processes are organized. The cutoff table permits teams to compare how they perceive the organization of their care process relative to other teams

    Inhospital management of COPD exacerbations: a systematic review of the literature with regard to adherence to international guidelines

    No full text
    Rationale Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are a leading cause of hospitalization. Suboptimal inhospital management is expected to lead to more frequent exacerbations and recurrent hospital admission, and is associated with increased mortality. Aims To explore inhospital management of COPD and to compare the results with recommendations from international guidelines. Methods A literature search was carried out for relevant articles published 2000-2009 in the databases Medline, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Invert. In addition, the reference lists of the selected articles were examined. Main inclusion criteria were as follows: COPD, exacerbation, hospitalization, description of inpatient management, and clinical trials. Assessment and treatment strategies in different studies were analysed and compared with American Thoracic Society-European Respiratory Society and Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines. Outcomes were analysed. Results Seven eligible studies were selected. Non-pharmacological treatment was infrequently explored. When compared with international guidelines, diagnostic assessment and therapy were suboptimal, especially non-pharmacological treatment. Respiratory physicians were more likely to perform recommended interventions than non-respiratory physicians. Conclusions Adherence to international guidelines is low for inhospital management of COPD exacerbations, especially in terms of non-pharmacological treatment. Further investigation is recommended to explore strategies like care pathways that improve performance of recommended interventions.status: publishe

    Impact of care pathway implementation on interprofessional teamwork: an international cluster randomized controlled trial

    No full text
    This study evaluates whether the implementation of an in-hospital care pathway (CP) improves interprofessional teamwork across countries and tests whether improved communications ("relational coordination") is the mechanism of action. A hospital-based cluster randomized controlled trial in Ireland, Belgium, Italy, and Portugal was performed. Fifty-six interprofessional teams caring for patients admitted with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or for patients with a proximal femur fracture were included and randomly assigned to an intervention group (31 teams and 567 team members), where a CP was implemented, and a control group (25 teams and 417 team members) representing usual care. Multilevel regression and mediation analysis were applied. First, although no significant effect was found on our primary outcome relational coordination, our CP significantly improved several team inputs, team processes (team climate for innovation) and team output (the level of organized care, level of competence) indicators. Second, our team process indicator of team climate for innovation partially mediated the association between CP implementation and team output indicator of better level of organized care. In conclusion, a CP sets in motion various mechanisms that improve some but not all aspects of interprofessional teamwork. Relational coordination does not appear to be the mechanism by which team outputs are enhanced.status: Published onlin

    a cluster randomized trial

    No full text
    Purpose: Current in-hospital management of exacerbations of COPD is suboptimal, and patient outcomes are poor. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether implementation of a care pathway (CP) for COPD improves the 6 months readmission rate. Secondary outcomes were the 30 days readmission rate, mortality, length of stay and adherence to guidelines. Patients and methods: An international cluster randomized controlled trial was performed in Belgium, Italy and Portugal. General hospitals were randomly assigned to an intervention group where a CP was implemented or a control group where usual care was provided. The targeted population included patients with COPD exacerbation. Results: Twenty-two hospitals were included, whereof 11 hospitals (n=174 patients) were randomized to the intervention group and 11 hospitals (n=168 patients) to the control group. The CP had no impact on the 6 months readmission rate. However, the 30 days readmission rate was significantly lower in the intervention group (9.7%; 15/155) compared to the control group (15.3%; 22/144) (odds ratio =0.427; 95% confidence interval 0.222-0.822; P=0.040). Performance on process indicators was significantly higher in the intervention group for 2 of 24 main indicators (8.3%). Conclusion: The implementation of this in-hospital CP for COPD exacerbation has no impact on the 6 months readmission rate, but it significantly reduces the 30 days readmission rate.publishersversionpublishe
    corecore