Reducing errors in health care: cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary team training in obstetric emergencies (TOSTI study); a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are many avoidable deaths in hospitals because the care team is not well attuned. Training in emergency situations is generally followed on an individual basis. In practice, however, hospital patients are treated by a team composed of various disciplines. To prevent communication errors, it is important to focus the training on the team as a whole, rather than on the individual. Team training appears to be important in contributing toward preventing these errors. Obstetrics lends itself to multidisciplinary team training. It is a field in which nurses, midwives, obstetricians and paediatricians work together and where decisions must be made and actions must be carried out under extreme time pressure.</p> <p>It is attractive to belief that multidisciplinary team training will reduce the number of errors in obstetrics. The other side of the medal is that many hospitals are buying expensive patient simulators without proper evaluation of the training method. In the Netherlands many hospitals have 1,000 or less annual deliveries. In our small country it might therefore be more cost-effective to train obstetric teams in medical simulation centres with well trained personnel, high fidelity patient simulators, and well defined training programmes.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The aim of the present study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary team training in a medical simulation centre in the Netherlands to reduce the number of medical errors in obstetric emergency situations. We plan a multicentre randomised study with the centre as unit of analysis. Obstetric departments will be randomly assigned to receive multidisciplinary team training in a medical simulation centre or to a control arm without any team training.</p> <p>The composite measure of poor perinatal and maternal outcome in the non training group was thought to be 15%, on the basis of data obtained from the National Dutch Perinatal Registry and the guidelines of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (NVOG). We anticipated that multidisciplinary team training would reduce this risk to 5%. A sample size of 24 centres with a cluster size of each at least 200 deliveries, each 12 centres per group, was needed for 80% power and a 5% type 1 error probability (two-sided). We assumed an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) value of maximum 0.08.</p> <p>The analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle and stratified for teaching or non-teaching hospitals.</p> <p>Primary outcome is the number of obstetric complications throughout the first year period after the intervention. If multidisciplinary team training appears to be effective a cost-effective analysis will be performed.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If multidisciplinary team training appears to be cost-effective, this training should be implemented in extra training for gynaecologists.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>The protocol is registered in the clinical trial register number NTR1859</p

SUGAR-DIP trial: Oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Introduction In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM. Methods The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals

Sensitivity and reliability of cerebral oxygenation responses to postural changes measured with near-infrared spectroscopy

10.1007/s00421-019-04101-0EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY11951117-112

Empirical management of community-acquired pneumonia: impact of concurrent A/H1N1 influenza pandemic on guideline implementation

Background: Guideline-concordant therapies have been proven to be associated with improved health and economic outcomes in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, actual use of CAP guidelines remains poor, but using tailored interventions looks promising. Based on local observations, we assessed the impact of low-intensity interventions to improve guideline use. Methods: Pre- and post-intervention study with segmented regression analysis in a large tertiary care centre [University Hospitals Leuven (UZL)] and a smaller secondary care control hospital [Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (ZOL)] from October 2007 through to June 2010 in Belgium. Results: A total of 477 patients were included in UZL, with 58.5% of the patients treated according to local guidelines. Guideline adherence remained stable, but a decrease (-28.6%; P=0.021) was observed during guideline re-introduction in October 2009. Further analysis showed a high correlation with the concurrent A/H1N1 influenza pandemic (r(point-biserial)=0.683; P=0.045) and with suspected influenza infection (odds ratio=2.70; P=0.038). In ZOL, 326 patients were enrolled, with 69.3% being treated concordantly. A similar, non-significant decrease in guideline adherence was observed after October 2009. Conclusions: Our interventions did not lead to a higher proportion of CAP patients receiving guideline-compliant therapy. Instead, a compliance decrease was observed, coinciding with the peak in the A/H1N1 pandemic in the population. Similar observations could be made in ZOL. The widespread attention for this pandemic may have altered the perception of needed antibiotic therapy for pulmonary infections, bypassing our interventions and decreasing actual guideline compliance. Increased vigilance and follow-up is needed when epidemics with similar impact occur in the future