Engaging healthcare professionals and patient representatives in the development of a quality model for hospitals: a mixed-method study.

Top-down and externally imposed quality requirements can lead to improvement but do not seem as sustainable as intended. There is a need for a quality model that intrinsically motivates healthcare professionals to contribute to quality and safe care in hospitals. This study shows how a quality model that matches the identity and the quality vision of the organization was developed. A multimethod design with three phases was used in the development of the model at a large teaching hospital in Belgium. In the first phase, 14 focus groups and 19 interviews with staff members were conducted to obtain an overview of the quality and safety challenges, complemented by a plenary discussion with the members of the patient advisory council. In the second phase, the challenges that had been captured were further assessed using a hospital-wide survey for all hospital staff. Finally, a newly established quality review board (with internal and external stakeholders) critically evaluated the input of Phases 1 and 2 and defined the basic quality standards to be implemented in the hospital. A first evaluation 2 years after the implementation was conducted based on (i) patients' perceptions of quality of care and patient safety by publicly available indicators collected in 2016, 2019, and 2022 and (ii) staff experiences and perceptions regarding the acceptability of the new model gathered through (grouped) interviews and an open questionnaire. The quality model consists of eight broad themes, including norms for the hospital staff (n = 27), sustained with quality systems (n = 8), and organizational support (n = 6), with aid from adequate management and leadership (n = 6). The themes were converted into 46 standards. These should be supported within a safe, efficient, and caring work environment. The new model was launched in the hospital in June 2021. The evaluation shows a significant difference in quality and safety on different dimensions as perceived by hospitalized patients. The perceived added value of the participatory model is a better fit with the needs of employees and the fact that the model can be adjusted to the specific context of the different hospital departments. The lack of hard indicators is seen as a challenge in monitoring quality and safety. The participation of various stakeholders inside and outside the organization in defining the quality challenges resulted in the creation of a participatory quality model for the hospital, which leads towards a better-supported quality policy in the hospital.

The effect of different care delivery models in a hospital setting on patient- and nurse-related outcomes: A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

AIM: To synthesize and assess the effectiveness of different care delivery models in a hospital setting, taking into account patient- and nurse-related outcomes. DESIGN: A systematic review with narrative synthesis in which a comparison was made between different care delivery models. METHODS: The search string consisted of four clusters: 'nursing', 'care delivery models', 'hospital setting' and 'quantitative research designs'. Four electronic databases were searched from the inception of the databases to January 2023: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. RESULTS: In total, 19 studies were included in the systematic review. The most commonly compared care delivery models were functional nursing to primary nursing (n = 6), patient allocation to team nursing (n = 4), team nursing to primary nursing (n = 3) and functional nursing to modular nursing (n = 3). Only one randomized crossover trial was found, other included studies were pretest-posttest designs or quasi-experimental designs. The implementation of a nursing care delivery model was the study intervention. The following aspects of the intervention were not reported or inadequately described by the majority of the authors; tailoring of an intervention, modifications to an intervention and the adherence or fidelity to the intervention. Job satisfaction and quality of nursing care were the most commonly reported nursing outcomes, while patient satisfaction was the most commonly reported patient outcome. Due to a high heterogeneity in outcome measures between the studies, a meta-analysis of the included studies was not possible. All included studies had a high risk of overall bias. CONCLUSION: This systematic review found mixed evidence, inconsistent reporting of certain elements of the interventions, high heterogeneity in outcome measures and low methodological quality. Although this systematic review could not answer which nursing care delivery model is the most effective or most promising, other important findings from this review may inform future research. IMPACT: There are differences in care delivery model descriptions and a lack of agreement on the strengths and weaknesses of the care delivery models. No clear-cut answer can be given about the effect of different care delivery models in a hospital setting on patient- and nurse-related outcomes. Job satisfaction and quality of nursing care were the most commonly reported nursing outcomes, while patient satisfaction was the most commonly reported patient outcome. This review can support the development of future care delivery redesign strategies. REPORTING METHOD: The systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Flemish critical care nurses' experiences regarding the influence of work-related demands on their health: a descriptive interpretive qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Critical care nurses (CCNs) around the globe face other health challenges compared to their peers in general hospital nursing. Moreover, the nursing workforce grapples with persistent staffing shortages. In light of these circumstances, developing a sustainable work environment is imperative to retain the current nursing workforce. Consequently, this study aimed to gain insight into the recalled experiences of CCNs in dealing with the physical and psychosocial influences of work-related demands on their health while examining the environments in which they operate. The second aim was to explore the complex social and psychological processes through which CCNs navigate these work-related demands across various CCN wards. METHODS: A qualitative study following Thorne's interpretive descriptive approach was conducted. From October 2022 to April 2023, six focus groups were organised. Data from a diverse sample of 27 Flemish CCNs engaged in physically demanding roles from three CCN wards were collected. The Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven was applied to support the constant comparison process. RESULTS: Participants reported being exposed to occupational physical activity, emotional, quantitative, and cognitive work-related demands, adverse patient behaviour, and poor working time quality. Exposure to these work-related demands was perceived as harmful, potentially resulting in physical, mental, and psychosomatic strain, as well as an increased turnover intention. In response to these demands, participants employed various strategies for mitigation, including seeking social support, exerting control over their work, utilising appropriate equipment, recognising rewards, and engaging in leisure-time physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: CCNs' health is challenged by work-related demands that are not entirely covered by the traditional quantitative frameworks used in research on psychologically healthy work. Therefore, future studies should focus on improving such frameworks by exploring the role of psychosocial and organisational factors in more detail. This study has important implications for workplace health promotion with a view on preventing work absenteeism and drop-out in the long run, as it offers strong arguments to promote sufficient risk management strategies, schedule flexibility, uninterrupted off-job recovery time, and positive management, which can prolong the well-being and sustainable careers of the CCN workforce.

How much do we know about nursing care delivery models in a hospital setting? A mapping review.

To deal with the upcoming challenges and complexity of the nursing profession, it is deemed important to reflect on our current organization of care. However, before starting to rethink the organization of nursing care, an overview of important elements concerning nursing care organization, more specifically nursing models, is necessary. The aim of this study was to conduct a mapping review, accompanied by an evidence map to map the existing literature, to map the field of knowledge on a meta-level and to identify current research gaps concerning nursing models in a hospital setting. Next to nursing models, two other organizational correlates seem to be of importance when looking at the organization of nursing care: nurse staffing and skill mix. Although it seems that in recent research, the theoretical focus on the organization of nursing care has been left behind, the increasingly complex healthcare environment might gain from the use of nursing theory, or in this case, care delivery models. As almost no fundamental studies have been done toward the combination of care delivery models, nurse staffing, and skill mix, those elements should be taken into account to fully capture the organization of nursing care in future research.

Bedside handovers in mental health care: An explorative review.

INTRODUCTION: Involving mental healthcare patients in nursing handover practices seems a promising method for increasing patient participation, empowerment, and shared decision-making but is hardly found in practice. METHOD: An explorative review on bedside handovers in mental health care was conducted. Searched databases included CINHAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase. The search strategy yielded 3126 articles. Nine articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. RESULTS: Pre- and post-implementation perspectives were described, as well as strategies for implementation. After the implementation of bedside handover, nurses and patients experienced more time spent together and a greater sense of involvement with the care plans could be noticed. DISCUSSION: Being involved in bedside handovers facilitates active participation and open dialogue between nurses and patients. This accelerates the opportunities for patients to take part in shared decision-making and feel recognised as experts in their illness experience. More research on possible differences in effectiveness across different patient diagnoses is recommended. CONCLUSION: Involving patients in mental health care in handover practices seems a promising method but limited research has been done to explore the meaning it has to mental healthcare nurses and patients.

The cost of a first and second hospital-wide accreditation in Flanders, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Hospital accreditation is a popular and widely used quality control and improvement instrument. Despite potential benefits, ques-tions are raised whether it constitutes appropriate use of hospitals' limited financial resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to calculate the cost of preparing for and undergoing a first and second accreditation by the Joint Commission International or Qualicor Europe in acute-care hospitals. METHOD: All (n = 53) acute-care hospitals in Flanders (Belgium) were invited to participate and report on the costs in preparing for and undergoing a first and/or second accreditation cycle. To measure costs, a questionnaire with six domains and 90 questions was developed based on literature review, policy documents and a multidisciplinary expert group. All costs were recalculated to 2020 euro to correct for inflation and reported as medians with interquartile range. RESULTS: A total of 25 hospitals (47%) participated in the study. Additional investments and direct operational costs for a first accreditation cycle amounted to 879.45 euro (interquartile range: 794.81) per bed and 3.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) per hospital additional new staff members were recruited for coordination and implementation of the trajectory. A second accreditation survey costed remarkably less with a total cost of extra investments and direct operational cost of 222.88 euro (interquartile range: 244.04) per bed and less investment in additional staff (1.50 FTE). Most of the costs were situated in consulting costs and investments in infrastructure. The median total extra cost (direct operational cost and additional investments) amounted to 0.2% of the hospital's operating income for a first accreditation cycle and 0.05% for a second cycle. CONCLUSION: A first accreditation cycle requires a strong financial commitment of hospitals, as many costs result from the preparation in the years prior to an accreditation survey. A second survey is less expensive for hospitals, but still requires a considerable effort in terms of budget and staff. Policy makers should be aware of these significant costs as hospitals are operating with public resources and budget is scarce. The identification of these costs is a necessary building block to evaluate cost-effectiveness of accreditation versus other quality improvement systems and the continuation of these accreditation systems and their costs needs further study and a thorough debate.

Cornerstones of a sustainable national quality policy: A qualitative study based on international expert opinions.

BACKGROUND: National initiatives launched to improve the quality of care have grown exponentially over the last decade. Public reporting, accreditation and governmental inspection form the basis for quality in Flemish (Belgian) hospitals. Due to the lack of evidence for these national initiatives and the questions concerning their sustainability, our research aims to identify cornerstones of a sustainable national quality policy for acute-care hospitals based on international expert opinion. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using in-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 renowned international quality and patient safety experts selected by purposive sampling. Interviews focussed on participants' perspectives and their recommendations for a future, sustainable quality policy. Inductive analysis was carried out with themes being generated from the data using the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Three major and five minor themes were identified and integrated into a framework as a basis for national quality policies. Quality culture, minimum requirements for quality education and quality control as well as continuous learning and improvement act as cornerstones of this framework. CONCLUSIONS: Complementary to the current national policy, this study demonstrated the need for profound attention to quality cultures in acute-care hospitals. Policymakers need to provide a control system and minimum requirements for quality education for all healthcare workers. A model for continuous learning and improvement with data feedback loops has to be installed in each hospital to obtain a sustainable quality system. This framework can inspire policymakers to further develop bottom-up initiatives in co-governance with all relevant stakeholders adapted to individual hospitals' context.

Individualised care in Flemish and Dutch hospitals: Comparing patients' and nurses' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred care has been recognised as vital for today's healthcare quality. This type of care puts patients at the centre, contributing to positive patient outcomes such as patient autonomy. Empirical research comparing nurses' and patients' perceptions of the support and provision of patient-centred care is limited and focuses solely on nurses and patients working and staying on surgical wards. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Comparing patients' and nurses' perceptions of patient-centred care on different types of hospital wards, and exploring if patient empowerment, health literacy, and certain sociodemographic and context-related variables are associated with these perceptions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. METHODS: Data were collected in ten Flemish (February-June 2016) and two Dutch (December 2014-May 2015) hospitals using the Individualised Care Scale (ICS). A linear mixed model was fitted. Data from 845 patients and 569 nurses were analysed. As the ICS was used to measure the concept of patient-centred care, it is described using the term 'individualised care.' RESULTS: Nurses perceived that they supported and provided individualised care more compared with patients as they scored significantly higher on the ICS compared with patients. Patients with higher empowerment scores, higher health literacy, a degree lower than bachelor, a longer hospital stay, and patients who were employed and who were admitted to Dutch hospitals scored significantly higher on some of the ICS subscales/subsections. Nurses who were older and more experienced and those working in Dutch hospitals, regional hospitals and maternity wards scored significantly higher on some of the ICS subscales/subsections. CONCLUSION: Nurses perceived that they supported and provided individualised care more compared with patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Creating a shared understanding towards the support and provision of individualised care should be a priority as this could generate more effective nursing care that takes into account the individuality of the patient.

Encouraging Digital Patient Portal Use in Ambulatory Surgery: A Mixed Method Research of Patients and Health Care Professionals Experiences and Perceptions.

PURPOSE: As more complex surgery is performed in 1-day admissions there is a growing demand for appropriate postoperative follow-up. A digital patient portal (DPP) is a promising tool to support this and increase patients' quality of recovery. However, both patients and health care professionals have not fully embraced this eHealth technology. This study investigates the extent to which a patient portal is used in a tertiary ambulatory surgical care unit and assesses usability, applicability and user-friendliness both for the patient and health care worker. DESIGN: Mixed method research design combining qualitative and quantitative methods. METHODS: Four hundred and fifteen patients undergoing knee arthroscopic surgery or endonasal sinus surgery were included. Quantitative log data from the patient platform, clinical outcome measures and a patient questionnaire were used. Additionally, qualitative data was collected through interviews (with patients, n = 13; involved caregivers and physicians, n = 7) and observations (first introduction to patient with platform and team meetings, n = 15). FINDINGS: Forty percent of the included patients effectively used the patient platform (≥1 login). The patients mainly used the platform for gathering information; 62% of the active patients on the platform registered questionnaires initiated from the surgery center (eg, preoperative questionnaire) or diaries (e.g, daily follow-up using the Quality of Recovery Scale). Different barriers and facilitators toward DPP implementation were noted. Attention should be paid to the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for using the portal and to the added value of the portal for the patient and health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceptions of the DPP were positive and an increase in DPP use was observed during the study due to adjustments (eg, technical adjustments). However, a decline over time was noticed. The role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of all included parties needs to be further corroborated.

Ethical issues in managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an immense and worldwide impact. In light of future pandemics or subsequent waves of COVID-19 it is crucial to focus on the ethical issues that were and still are raised in this COVID-19 crisis. In this paper, we look at issues that are raised in the testing and tracing of patients with COVID-19. We do this by highlighting and expanding on an approach suggested by Fineberg that could serve as a public health approach. In this way, we highlight several ethical issues. As regards testing, questions are raised such as whether it is ethical to use less reliable tests in order to increase testing capacity or minimize harm for patients. Another issue is how wide testing should be and whether selective testing is in accordance with principles of social justice. Patients who have recovered from COVID-19 might have some degree of immunity but attributing certain 'immunopriviliges' raises ethical questions. The use of various tracing methodologies (mobile apps or databases and trained tracers) raised evident questions of social justice and privacy. We argue why it is key to always uphold a test of proportionality where a fair balance must be sought.

Prediction of hospital bed capacity during the COVID- 19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of the necessary capacity of beds by ward type (e.g. ICU) is essential for planning purposes during epidemics, such as the COVID- 19 pandemic. The COVID- 19 taskforce within the Ghent University hospital made use of ten-day forecasts on the required number of beds for COVID- 19 patients across different wards. METHODS: The planning tool combined a Poisson model for the number of newly admitted patients on each day with a multistate model for the transitions of admitted patients to the different wards, discharge or death. These models were used to simulate the required capacity of beds by ward type over the next 10 days, along with worst-case and best-case bounds. RESULTS: Overall, the models resulted in good predictions of the required number of beds across different hospital wards. Short-term predictions were especially accurate as these are less sensitive to sudden changes in number of beds on a given ward (e.g. due to referrals). Code snippets and details on the set-up are provided to guide the reader to apply the planning tool on one's own hospital data. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to achieve a fast setup of a planning tool useful within the COVID- 19 pandemic, with a fair prediction on the needed capacity by ward type. This methodology can also be applied for other epidemics.

A decade of commitment to hospital quality of care: overview of and perceptions on multicomponent quality improvement policies involving accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives such as accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance are increasingly being implemented globally. In Flanders, Belgium, a government policy for acute-care hospitals incorporates aforementioned initiatives. Currently, questions are raised on the sustainability of the present policy. OBJECTIVE: First, to summarise the various initiatives hospitals have adopted under government encouragement between 2008 and 2019. Second, to study the perspectives of healthcare stakeholders on current government policy. METHODS: In this multi-method study, we collected data on QI initiative implementation from governmental and institutional sources and through an online survey among hospital quality managers. We compiled an overview of QI initiative implementation for all Flemish acute-care hospitals between 2008 (n = 62) and 2019 (n = 53 after hospital mergers). Stakeholder perspectives were assessed via a second survey available to all healthcare employees and a focus group with healthcare policy experts was consulted. Variation between professions was assessed. RESULTS: QI initiatives have been increasingly implemented, especially from 2016 onwards, with the majority (87%) of hospitals having obtained a first accreditation label and all hospitals publicly reporting performance indicators, receiving regular inspections and having entered the pay-for-performance initiative. On the topic of external international accreditation, overall attitudes within the survey were predominantly neutral (36.2%), while 34.5% expressed positive and 29.3% negative views towards accreditation. In examining specific professional groups in-depth, we learned 58% of doctors regarded accreditation negatively, while doctors were judged to be the largest contributors to quality according to the majority of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals have demonstrated increased efforts into QI, especially since 2016, while perceptions on currently implemented QI initiatives among healthcare stakeholders are heterogeneous. To assure quality of care remains a top-priority for acute-care hospitals, we recommend a revision of the current multicomponent quality policy where the adoption of all initiatives is streamlined and co-created bottom-up.

Challenges in turning a great idea into great health policy: the case of integrated care.

BACKGROUND: In the organization of health care and health care systems, there is an increasing trend towards integrated care. Policy-makers from different countries are creating policies intended to promote cooperation and collaboration between health care providers, while facilitating the integration of different health care services. Hopes are high, as such collaboration and integration of care are believed to save resources and improve quality. However, policy-makers are likely to encounter various challenges and limitations when attempting to turn these great ideas into effective policies. In this paper, we look into these challenges. MAIN BODY: We argue that the organization of health care and integrated care is of public concern, and should thus be of crucial interest to policy-makers. We highlight three challenges or limitations likely to be encountered by policy-makers in integrated care. These are: (1) conceptual challenges; (2) empirical/methodological challenges; and (3) resource challenges. We will argue that it is still unclear what integrated care means and how we should measure it. 'Integrated care' is a single label that can refer to a great number of different processes. It can describe the integration of care for individual patients, the integration of services aimed at particular patient groups or particular conditions, or it can refer to institution-wide collaborations between different health care providers. We subsequently argue that health reform inevitably possesses a political context that should be taken into account. We also show how evidence supporting integrated care may not guarantee success in every context. Finally, we will discuss how promoting collaboration and integration might actually demand more resources. In the final section, we look at three different paradigmatic examples of integrated care policy: Norway, the UK's NHS, and Belgium. CONCLUSIONS: There seems widespread agreement that collaboration and integration are the way forward for health care and health care systems. Nevertheless, we argue that policy-makers should remain careful; they should carefully consider what they hope to achieve, the amount of resources they are willing to invest, and how they will evaluate the success of their policy.

The impact of bedside handovers on relevant clinical indicators: A matched-controlled multicentre longitudinal study.

AIM: To investigate the effects of bedside handover, as contrasted with traditional handovers, on length of hospital stay, unplanned readmission, hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs), patient falls, unscheduled intravenous reinfusion and pain. DESIGN: A multicentre matched-controlled longitudinal design. METHOD: Bedside handover was implemented at five intervention wards in a convenience sample of four hospitals (three surgical/medical wards and two wards for medical rehabilitation). Four control wards continued to use their traditional handover (two surgical-medical wards, one medical rehabilitation ward and one mixed surgical-medical rehabilitation ward; one for each hospital). Patient records, including reports on individual patients in the electronic incident reporting systems, were consulted (N intervention = 509; N control = 265). The study was carried out between May 2016-February 2018 and data were collected between March 2018-June 2018. The data were analysed using generalized linear mixed-model analysis. RESULTS: No significant differences in length of stay, unplanned readmission, HAPUs, unnecessary intravenous drips, pain or patients falls could be attributed to the use of bedside handovers, whether over time or between the intervention and the control groups. CONCLUSION: No long-term effects were found on patient safety arising from bedside handover. This lack of significance possibly indicates that: (a) caution is needed when generalizing the results of previous smaller-scale studies; and that (b) bedside handovers do not create hazardous situations for patients. IMPACT: Nurses traditionally perform change-of-shift handovers without the patient. However, the growth in attention paid to reducing adverse events and the demand for more participative and patient-centred approaches in health care both suggest that bedside handovers might be a logical intervention. This study could not confirm the positive results found in the international literature on the impact of bedside handovers on patient safety. Bedside handover should thus be considered as an equally safe, more patient-centred alternative to traditional handover models. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02714582).

Barriers and enablers for the implementation of a hospital communication tool for patient participation: A qualitative study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate potential barriers and enablers prior to the implementation of the Tell-us card. BACKGROUND: Patient participation has the potential to improve quality of care and has a positive effect on health outcomes. To enhance participation of patients, adequate communication between patients, their relatives and healthcare professionals is vital. Communication is considered as a fundament of care according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. A strategy to improve patient participation is the use of the Tell-us card; a communication tool that patients and relatives can use during hospitalisation to point out what is important for them during their admission and before discharge. Investigating barriers and enablers is needed before implementation. DESIGN: A qualitative study. METHODS: Semistructured, individual interviews with (head)nurses, nurse assistants and midwifes. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the framework analysis method. The COREQ checklist has been used. RESULTS: The need to maintain control over care, reluctance to engage in in-depth conversations, fear of being seen as unprofessional by patients, fear of repercussions from physicians, the lack of insight in the meaning of patient participation and the lack of appreciation of the importance of patient participation appeared to be majors barriers. Participants also elaborated on several prerequisites for successful implementation and regarded the cooperation of the multidisciplinary team as an essential enabler. CONCLUSION: The identified barriers and enablers revealed that nurses and midwives are rather reluctant towards patient participation and actively facilitating that by using the Tell-us card communication tool. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: A number of issues will have to be factored into the implementation plan of the communication tool. Tailored implementation strategies will be crucial to overcome barriers and to accomplish a successful and sustainable implementation of the Tell-us card.

The effectiveness of bedside handovers: A multilevel, longitudinal study of effects on nurses and patients.

AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness of bedside handovers. For nurses, effects on nurse-patient communication, individualized care, coordination of the care process, job satisfaction, intention to leave, patient participation and work interruptions were measured. For patients, effects on patient activation, individualized care and quality of care were measured. DESIGN: This is a longitudinal, controlled, multicentred study on 13 nursing wards in five hospitals. The seven interventional wards consisted of two medical rehabilitation, two geriatric and three surgical/medical wards. METHODS: A questionnaire for patients and nurses at baseline (May-June 2016), 3 (July-August 2017) and 9 months (December 2017-January 2018) after implementation was completed by 799 patients and 165 nurses. Per protocol analysis was used in combination with linear mixed models analysis. RESULTS: With exception for work interruptions and patient participation for nurses, no overall effects could be found for both patients and nurses. For nurses, patient participation increased, and work interruptions decreased in the intervention group. Individualized care remained stable in the intervention group, whereas it decreased in the control group. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that bedside handover can be regarded as superior to more commonly used handover models as it enhances patient participation and decreases work interruptions. However, the positive image of bedside handovers, mostly based on observational, short-term and single-centred experiences, cannot be confirmed as there were no effects on any of the other measured parameters. As bedside handovers put patient participation on the agenda and negative effects are absent, implementing bedside handovers should be considered a mean for more patient-centeredness instead of a goal itself.

Analysis of failed discharge after ambulatory surgery: unanticipated admission.

BACKGROUND: Advantages of ambulatory surgery are lost when patients need an unplanned admission. This retrospective cohort study investigated reasons for failed discharge and unanticipated admission of adult patients after day surgery. METHODS: Ambulatory patients (n = 145) requiring unanticipated admission were compared to patients (n = 4980) not requiring admission and timely discharged from a total of 5156 ambulatory surgical procedures. Demographic data, organisational data, reason for admission, type of anesthesia, surgical discipline, length of procedure, ASA classification, surgical completion time and severity of illness score were collected from both groups. Reason for admission was classified according to four subtypes. Logistic regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Incidence of unanticipated admission following day care surgery was 2.89%. The reasons for admission were mainly organisational issues (45.52%), time of completion surgery in the afternoon between 12 pm and 3 pm (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.05-2.86) and surgery that ends after 3 pm (OR 6.52; 95% CI 4.11-10.34). Surgical factors associated with unanticipated admission (38.62%) were length of surgery of one to three hours (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.27-3.29), length of surgery more than three hours (OR 8.31; 95% CI 3.56-19.40). Additionally, anaesthetic (10.34%) and medical (5.52%) reasons were found, e.g. ASA class II (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.06-2.44), ASA class III (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.10-4.34); moderate severity of illness score (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.03-2.88) and major of severity of illness score (OR 7.85; 95% CI 2.31-26.62). CONCLUSIONS: Unanticipated admissions following day surgery occur mainly due to social/organisational and surgical reasons. However, medical and anaesthetic reasons also explain 15.86% of the unanticipated admissions.

Is privacy a problem during bedside handovers? A practice-oriented discussion paper.

Bedside handover is the delivery of the nurse-to-nurse handover at the patient's bedside. Although increasingly used in nursing, nurses report many barriers for delivering the bedside handover. Among these barriers is the possibility of breaching the patient's privacy. By referring to this concept, nurses add a legal and ethical dimension to the delivery of the bedside handover, making implementation of the method difficult or even impossible. In this discussion article, the concept of privacy during handovers is being discussed by use of observations, interviews with nurses, and interviews with patients. These findings are combined with international literature from a narrative review on the topic. We provide a practice-oriented answer in which two mutually exclusive possibilities are discussed. If bedside handover does pose problems concerning privacy, this situation is not unique in healthcare and measures can be taken during the bedside handover to safeguard the patient. If bedside handover does not pose problems concerning privacy, privacy is misused by nurses to hide professional uncertainties and/or a reluctance toward patient participation. Therefore, a possible breach of privacy-whether a justified argument or not-is not a reason for not delivering the bedside handover.

Barriers and Facilitators for the Use of NURSING Bedside Handovers: Implications for Evidence-Based Practice.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on bedside handovers have identified nurse-related barriers and facilitators for implementing bedside handovers, but have neglected the existing ward's nursing care system as an important influencing factor. AIMS: To determine the association between the existing nursing care system (i.e., decentralized, two-tier, or centralized) on a ward and the barriers and facilitators of the bedside handover. METHODS: Structured individual interviews (N = 106) on 14 nursing wards in eight hospitals were performed before implementation of bedside handovers. The structured interview guide was based on a narrative review. Direct content analysis was used to determine the nursing care system of a ward and the degree to which barriers and facilitators were present. Pearson's Chi-square analysis was used to determine whether there were associations between the nursing care systems concerning the presence of barriers and facilitators for implementing bedside handovers. RESULTS: Twelve barriers and facilitators were identified, of which three are new to literature: the possible loss of opportunities for socializing, collegiality, and overview; head nurse's role; and role of colleagues. The extent to which barriers and facilitators were present differed across nursing care systems, with the exception of breach of confidentiality (barrier), and an existing structured handover (facilitator). Overall, nurses working in decentralized nursing care systems report fewer barriers against and more facilitators in favor of using bedside handovers than nurses in two-tier or centralized systems. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Before implementing bedside handovers, the context of the nursing care system may be considered to determine the most effective process to implement change. Based on these study findings, implementing bedside handovers could be more challenging on wards with a two-tier or centralized care system.

Development of key interventions and quality indicators for the management of an adult potential donor after brain death: a RAND modified Delphi approach.

BACKGROUND: A substantial degree of variability in practices exists amongst donor hospitals regarding the donor detection, determination of brain death, application of donor management techniques or achievement of donor management goals. A possible strategy to standardize the donation process and to optimize outcomes could lie in the implementation of a care pathway. The aim of the study was to identify and select a set of relevant key interventions and quality indicators in order to develop a specific care pathway for donation after brain death and to rigorously evaluate its impact. METHODS: A RAND modified three-round Delphi approach was used to build consensus within a single country about potential key interventions and quality indicators identified in existing guidelines, review articles, process flow diagrams and the results of the Organ Donation European Quality System (ODEQUS) project. Comments and additional key interventions and quality indicators, identified in the first round, were evaluated in the following rounds and a subsequent physical meeting. The study was conducted over a 4-month time period in 2016. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel of 18 Belgian experts with different relevant backgrounds completed the three Delphi rounds. Out of a total of 80 key interventions assessed throughout the Delphi process, 65 were considered to contribute to the quality of care for the management of a potential donor after brain death; 11 out of 12 quality indicators were validated for relevance and feasibility. Detection of all potential donors after brain death in the intensive care unit and documentation of cause of no donation were rated as the most important quality indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Using a RAND modified Delphi approach, consensus was reached for a set of 65 key interventions and 11 quality indicators for the management of a potential donor after brain death. This set is considered to be applicable in quality improvement programs for the care of potential donors after brain death, while taking into account each country's legislation and regulations regarding organ donation and transplantation.