Second Victim Support at the Core of Severe Adverse Event Investigation.

There is limited evidence and a lack of standard operating procedures to address the impact of serious adverse events (SAE) on healthcare workers. We aimed to share two years' experience of a second victim support intervention integrated into the SAE management program conducted in a 500-bed University Hospital in Granada, Spain. The intervention strategy, based on the "forYOU" model, was structured into three levels of support according to the degree of affliction and the emotional needs of the professionals. A semi-structured survey of all workers involved in an SAE was used to identify potential second victims. Between 2020 and 2021, the SAE operating procedure was activated 23 times. All healthcare workers involved in an SAE (n = 135) received second-level support. The majority were physicians (51.2%), followed by nurses (26.7%). Only 58 (43.0%) received first-level emotional support and 47 (34.8%) met "second victim" criteria. Seven workers (14.9%) required third-level support. A progressive increase in the notification rates was observed. Acceptance of the procedure by professionals and managers was high. This novel approach improved the number of workers reached by the trained staff; promoted the visibility of actions taken during SAE management and helped foster patient safety culture in our setting.

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescriptions identified by Beers and STOPP criteria in co-morbid older patients at hospital discharge.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) and the association with polypharmacy (more than six drugs prescribed) in co-morbid older patients in a critical moment of care transition such as hospital discharge by means of two explicit criteria (Beers 2012 and STOPP 2008). METHOD: Cross-sectional study carried out in an older patients' population (≥65 years old) discharged from a university hospital in Spain. We recorded patients' information regarding demographics, diagnosis, drugs prescribed and associated pathological conditions and calculated the Charlson co-morbidity index. Data were obtained from the electronic medical records of hospital discharge. Beers (2012) and STOPP criteria (2008) were applied for PIP detection. The strength of association between polypharmacy and the presence of PIP was assessed by calculating the crude and adjusted odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: From 1004 patients of a 15% random sample, just 624 that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The number of prescribed drugs was a risk factor for PIP according to both criteria, even after adjusting for confounding variables. PIP frequency was higher in patients who received more than 12 medications (Beers: 34.8%, STOPP: 54.4%). Each additional medication increased the risk of PIP by 14 or 15% (Beers or STOPP). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the strategies used for PIP reduction in co-morbid older patients should focus on the management of polypharmacy. Medication review at hospital discharge is highly recommended for patients taking more than six drugs.

Frequency of potentially inappropriate prescriptions in older people at discharge according to Beers and STOPP criteria.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) are frequent, generate negative outcomes, and are to a great extent avoidable. Although there is general agreement about the definition of PIP, how to measure them is a matter of debate. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to measure the frequency of PIP in older people at hospital discharge using two sets of criteria--Beers (2012 update) and STOPP. SETTING: A university hospital in southern Spain. METHOD: This cross sectional study involved a random sample of patients 65 years or more discharged from the University Hospital San Cecilio (Granada, Spain), from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. Age, gender, length of hospital stay, type of hospital service, drugs prescribed and pathologies were obtained from discharge reports. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measures were: (1) the prevalence of PIP according to each set of criteria (Beers and STOPP) and its 95 % confidence interval, globally and stratified for different categories of the study variables; (2) the degree of agreement between the two criteria using Kappa statistics; and (3) the drugs most commonly involved in PIP according to both criteria. RESULTS: There were 624 patients (median age 78) included in our study. According to Beers criteria, 22.9 % (19.6-26.2 %) of the patients had at least one PIP. This figure was 38.4 % (34.6-42.2 %) for STOPP criteria. Just 13.6 % of the patients had prescriptions simultaneously inappropriate for both criteria. Higher PIP frequency was observed in patients discharged from internal medicine. PIP increased with the Charlson Index and with the number of drugs prescribed, but not with gender, age or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: A very high frequency of PIP at discharge was observed. By intervening in five drug groups, about 80 % of PIP might be avoided according to either of the two criteria.