Reducing work pressure and IT problems and facilitating IT integration and audit & feedback help adherence to perioperative safety guidelines: a survey among 95 perioperative professionals

Background: To improve perioperative patient safety, guidelines for the preoperative, peroperative, andpostoperative phase were introduced in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013. To help the implementation ofthese guidelines, we aimed to get a better understanding of the barriers and drivers of perioperative guidelineadherence and to explore what can be learned for future implementation projects in complex organizations.Methods: We developed a questionnaire survey based on the theoretical framework of Van Sluisveld et al. forclassifying barriers and facilitators. The questionnaire contained 57 statements derived from (a) an instrument formeasuring determinants of innovations by the Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research, (b) interviewswith quality and safety policy officers and perioperative professionals, and (c) a publication of Cabana et al. Thetarget group consisted of 232 perioperative professionals in nine hospitals. In addition to rating the statements on afive-point Likert scale (which were classified into the seven categories of the framework: factors relating to theintervention, society, implementation, organization, professional, patients, and social factors), respondents wereinvited to rank their three most important barriers in a separate, extra open-ended question.Results: Ninety-five professionals (41%) completed the questionnaire. Fifteen statements (26%) were considered tobe barriers, relating to social factors (N = 5), the organization (N = 4), the professional (N = 4), the patient (N = 1),and the intervention (N = 1). An integrated information system was considered an important facilitator (70.4%) aswell as audit and feedback (41.8%). The Barriers Top-3 question resulted in 75 different barriers in nearly allcategories. The most frequently reported barriers were as follows: time pressure (16% of the total number ofbarriers), emergency patients (8%), inefficient IT structure (4%), and workload (3%).Conclusions: We identified a wide range of barriers that are believed to hinder the use of the perioperative safetyguidelines, while an integrated information system and local data collection and feedback will also be necessary toengage perioperative teams. These barriers need to be locally prioritized and addressed by tailored implementationstrategies. These results may also be of relevance for guideline implementation in general in complex organizations.Trial registration: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568.Keywords: Guideline adherence, Implementation, Implementation barriers, Implementation facilitators, Patientsafety, Perioperative car

Increased adherence to perioperative safety guidelines associated with improved patient safety outcomes:a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised multicentre trial

Background: National Dutch guidelines have been introduced to improve suboptimal perioperative care. A multifaceted implementation programme (IMPlementatie Richtlijnen Operatieve VEiligheid [IMPROVE]) has been developed to support hospitals in applying these guidelines. This study evaluated the effectiveness of IMPROVE on guideline adherence and the association between guideline adherence and patient safety. Methods: Nine hospitals participated in this unblinded, superiority, stepped-wedge, cluster RCT in patients with major noncardiac surgery (mortality risk >= 1%). IMPROVE consisted of educational activities, audit and feedback, reminders, organisational, team-directed, and patient-mediated activities. The primary outcome of the study was guideline adherence measured by nine patient safety indicators on the process (stop moments from the composite STOP bundle, and timely administration of antibiotics) and on the structure of perioperative care. Secondary safety outcomes included in-hospital complications, postoperative wound infections, mortality, length of hospital stay, and unplanned care. Results: Data were analysed for 1934 patients. The IMPROVE programme improved one stop moment: 'discharge from recovery room' (+16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9-23%). This stop moment was related to decreased mortality (-3%; 95% CI, -4% to -1%), fewer complications (-8%; 95% CI, -13% to -3%), and fewer unscheduled transfers to the ICU (-6%; 95% CI, -9% to -3%). IMPROVE negatively affected one other stop moment - 'discharge from the hospital' - possibly because of the limited resources of hospitals to improve all stop moments together. Conclusions: Mixed implementation effects of IMPROVE were found. We found some positive associations between guideline adherence and patient safety (i.e. mortality, complications, and unscheduled transfers to the ICU) except for the timely administration of antibiotics

Collaborative Care for patients with severe borderline and NOS personality disorders: A comparative multiple case study on processes and outcomes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Structured psychotherapy is recommended as the preferred treatment of personality disorders. A substantial group of patients, however, has no access to these therapies or does not benefit. For those patients who have no (longer) access to psychotherapy a Collaborative Care Program (CCP) is developed. Collaborative Care originated in somatic health care to increase shared decision making and to enhance self management skills of chronic patients. Nurses have a prominent position in CCP's as they are responsible for optimal continuity and coordination of care. The aim of the CCP is to improve quality of life and self management skills, and reduce destructive behaviour and other manifestations of the personality disorder.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>Quantitative and qualitative data are combined in a comparative multiple case study. This makes it possible to test the feasibility of the CCP, and also provides insight into the preliminary outcomes of CCP. Two treatment conditions will be compared, one in which the CCP is provided, the other in which Care as Usual is offered. In both conditions 16 patients will be included. The perspectives of patients, their informal carers and nurses are integrated in this study. Data (questionnaires, documents, and interviews) will be collected among these three groups of participants. The process of treatment and care within both research conditions is described with qualitative research methods. Additional quantitative data provide insight in the preliminary results of the CCP compared to CAU. With a stepped analysis plan the 'black box' of the application of the program will be revealed in order to understand which characteristics and influencing factors are indicative for positive or negative outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The present study is, as to the best of our knowledge, the first to examine Collaborative Care for patients with severe personality disorders receiving outpatient mental health care. With the chosen design we want to examine how and which elements of the CC Program could contribute to a better quality of life for the patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2763">NTR2763</a></p

Collaborative Care for patients with severe borderline and NOS personality disorders: A comparative multiple case study on processes and outcomes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Structured psychotherapy is recommended as the preferred treatment of personality disorders. A substantial group of patients, however, has no access to these therapies or does not benefit. For those patients who have no (longer) access to psychotherapy a Collaborative Care Program (CCP) is developed. Collaborative Care originated in somatic health care to increase shared decision making and to enhance self management skills of chronic patients. Nurses have a prominent position in CCP's as they are responsible for optimal continuity and coordination of care. The aim of the CCP is to improve quality of life and self management skills, and reduce destructive behaviour and other manifestations of the personality disorder.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>Quantitative and qualitative data are combined in a comparative multiple case study. This makes it possible to test the feasibility of the CCP, and also provides insight into the preliminary outcomes of CCP. Two treatment conditions will be compared, one in which the CCP is provided, the other in which Care as Usual is offered. In both conditions 16 patients will be included. The perspectives of patients, their informal carers and nurses are integrated in this study. Data (questionnaires, documents, and interviews) will be collected among these three groups of participants. The process of treatment and care within both research conditions is described with qualitative research methods. Additional quantitative data provide insight in the preliminary results of the CCP compared to CAU. With a stepped analysis plan the 'black box' of the application of the program will be revealed in order to understand which characteristics and influencing factors are indicative for positive or negative outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The present study is, as to the best of our knowledge, the first to examine Collaborative Care for patients with severe personality disorders receiving outpatient mental health care. With the chosen design we want to examine how and which elements of the CC Program could contribute to a better quality of life for the patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2763">NTR2763</a></p

Design of a multicentered randomized controlled trial on the clinical and cost effectiveness of schema therapy for personality disorders

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite international guidelines describing psychotherapy as first choice for people with personality disorders (PDs), well-designed research on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy for PD is scarce. Schema therapy (ST) is a specific form of psychological treatment that proved to be effective for borderline PD. Randomized controlled studies on the effectiveness of ST for other PDs are lacking. Another not yet tested new specialized treatment is Clarification Oriented Psychotherapy (COP). The aim of this project is to perform an effectiveness study as well as an economic evaluation study (cost effectiveness as well as cost-utility) comparing ST versus COP versus treatment as usual (TAU). In this study, we focus on avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, paranoid, histrionic and narcissistic PD.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In a multicentered randomized controlled trial, ST, and COP as an extra experimental condition, are compared to TAU. Minimal 300 patients are recruited in 12 mental health institutes throughout the Netherlands, and receive an extensive screening prior to enrolment in the study. When eligible, they are randomly assigned to one of the intervention groups. An economic evaluation and a qualitative research study on patient and therapist perspectives on ST are embedded in this trial. Outcome assessments (both for clinical effectiveness and economic evaluation) take place at 6,12,18,24 and 36 months after start of treatment. Primary outcome is recovery from PD; secondary measures include general psychopathological complaints, social functioning and quality of life. Data for the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses are collected by using a retrospective cost interview. Information on patient and therapist perspectives is gathered using in-depth interviews and focus groups, and focuses on possible helpful and impeding aspects of ST.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial is the first to compare ST and COP head-to-head with TAU for people with a cluster C, paranoid, histrionic and/or narcissistic PD. By combining clinical effectiveness data with an economic evaluation and with direct information from primary stakeholders, this trial offers a complete and thorough view on ST as a contribution to the improvement of treatment for this PD patient group.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=566">NTR566</a></p

Outcome of crisis intervention for borderline personality disorder and post traumatic stress disorder: a model for modification of the mechanism of disorder in complex post traumatic syndromes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study investigates the outcome of crisis intervention for chronic post traumatic disorders with a model based on the theory that such crises manifest trauma in the present. The sufferer's behavior is in response to the current perception of dependency and entrapment in a mistrusted relationship. The mechanism of disorder is the sufferer's activity, which aims to either prove or disprove the perception of entrapment, but, instead, elicits more semblances of it in a circular manner. Patients have reasons to keep such activity private from therapy and are barely aware of it as the source of their symptoms.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The hypothesis is that the experimental intervention will reduce symptoms broadly within 8 to 24 h from initiation of treatment, compared to treatment as usual. The experimental intervention sidesteps other symptoms to engage patients in testing the trustworthiness of the troubled relationship with closure, thus ending the circularity of their own ways. The study compares 32 experimental subjects with 26 controls at similar crisis stabilization units.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) supported the hypothesis (both in total score and for four of five subscales), as did results with Client Observation, a pilot instrument designed specifically for the circular behavior targeted by the experimental intervention. Results were mostly non-significant from two instruments of patient self-observation, which provided retrospective pretreatment scores.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The discussion envisions further steps to ascertain that this broad reduction of symptoms ensues from the singular correction that distinguishes the experimental intervention.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Protocol Registration System NCT00269139. The PRS URL is <url>https://register.clinicaltrials.gov</url></p

Venray Leunen - Horsterweg : een inventariserend veldonderzoek in de vorm van proefsleuven

Lit.opg