Comparison of complaints to the intensive care units and those to the general wards: an analysis using the Healthcare Complaint Analysis Tool in an academic medical center in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: The management of complaints in the setting of intensive care may provide opportunities to understand patient and family experiences and needs. However, there are limited reports on the structured application of complaint analysis tools and comparisons between healthcare complaints in the critical care setting and other settings. METHODS: From the complaint management database of a university-affiliated medical center in Taiwan, we retrospectively identified the records of healthcare complaints to the intensive care units (ICUs) from 2008 to 2016. Complaints to the general wards in the same period were randomly selected from the database with twice the number of that of the ICU complaints. We coded, typed, and compared the complaints from the two settings according to the Healthcare Complaint Analysis Tool. RESULTS: We identified 343 complaints to the ICUs and randomly selected 686 complaints to the general wards during the 9-year study period. Most (94.7%) of the complaints to the ICUs came from the family members, whereas more complaints to the general wards came from the patients (44.2%). A total of 1529 problems (441 from ICU and 818 from general wards) were identified. Compared with the general ward complaints, in the ICU there were more complaints with multiple problems (25.1% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.002), complaints were referred more frequently to the nurses (28.1% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001), and they focused more commonly on the care on the ICU/ward (60.5% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.029). The proportions of the three domains (clinical, management, and relationship) of complaints were similar between the ICU and general ward complaints (p = 0.121). However, in the management domain, the problems from ICU complaints focused more on the environment than on the institutional processes (90.9% vs. 74.5%, p < 0.001), whereas in the relationship domain, the problems focused more on communication (17.9% vs. 8.0%) and less on listening (34.6% vs. 46.5%) (p = 0.002) than the general ward complaints. CONCLUSIONS: A structured typing and systematic analysis of the healthcare complaints to the ICUs may provide valuable insights into the improvement of care quality, especially to the perceptions of the ICU environment and communications of the patients and their families.

The effects of eradication of Helicobacter pylori on the recurrence of duodenal ulcers in patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: The role of Helicobacter pylori in patients with cirrhosis and increased prevalence of peptic ulcers is still poorly defined. The objective is to evaluate the effect of H pylori eradication on ulcer recurrence in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: The study was conducted at a single, tertiary, referral hospital with 1200 beds. Patients with cirrhosis and duodenal ulcers were tested for H pylori and were enrolled in the study. Patients with positive H pylori received eradication therapy. Patients with duodenal ulcers received antisecretory therapy and regular endoscopic examinations. Main outcome measurements were the recurrence of duodenal ulcers within 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients with cirrhosis and duodenal ulcers were enrolled. Fifty-four patients (52%) were H pylori positive, and 50 patients (48%) were H pylori negative. Forty-four patients received antimicrobial treatment and 36 patients achieved eradication of H pylori. Recurrent duodenal ulcers within 1 year were noted in 21 of 36 patients (58%) who achieved H pylori eradication. Recurrent duodenal ulcers also were noted in 8 of the 18 patients (44%) who remained H pylori positive and in 24 of the patients (48%) who were H pylori negative since their enrollment in the study (p = 0.53). The limitation was a relatively small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study showed that the prevalence of H pylori in patients with cirrhosis and duodenal ulcers was only 52%. Eradication of H pylori in patients with cirrhosis and duodenal ulcers did not effectively reduce the recurrence of ulcers.

Clinical application of clip-assisted endoscopic method for nasoenteric feeding in patients with gastroparesis and gastroesophageal wounds.

AIM: To report the clinical experiences in the application of clip-assisted endoscopic method for nasoenteric feeding in patients with gastroparesis and patients with gastroesophageal wounds, and to compare the efficacy of nasoenteric feeding in these two indications. METHODS: From April 2002 to January 2004, 21 consecutive patients with gastroparesis or gastroesophageal wounds were enrolled and received nasoenteric feeding for nutritional support. A clip-assisted method was used to place the nasoenteric tubes. Outcomes in the two groups were compared with respect to the successful rate of enteral feeding, percentage of recommended energy intake (REI), and complication rates. RESULTS: The gastroparesis group included 13 patients with major burns (n = 7), trauma (n = 2), congestive heart failure (n = 2) and post-surgery gastric stasis syndrome (n = 2). The esophageogastric wound group included eight patients with tracheoesophageal fistula (n = 2) and wound leakage following gastric surgery (n = 6). Two study groups were similar in feeding successful rates (84.6% vs 75.0%). There were also no differences in the percentage of REI between groups (79.4% vs 78.6%). Additionally, no complications occurred in any of the study groups. CONCLUSION: Nasoenteric feeding is a useful method to provide nutritional support to most of the patients with gastroparesis who cannot tolerate nasogastric tube feeding and to the cases who need bypass feeding for esophageogastric wounds.