Behavioral sciences applied to acute care teams: a research agenda for the years ahead by a European research network.

BACKGROUND: Multi-disciplinary behavioral research on acute care teams has focused on understanding how teams work and on identifying behaviors characteristic of efficient and effective team performance. We aimed to define important knowledge gaps and establish a research agenda for the years ahead of prioritized research questions in this field of applied health research. METHODS: In the first step, high-priority research questions were generated by a small highly specialized group of 29 experts in the field, recruited from the multinational and multidisciplinary "Behavioral Sciences applied to Acute care teams and Surgery (BSAS)" research network - a cross-European, interdisciplinary network of researchers from social sciences as well as from the medical field committed to understanding the role of behavioral sciences in the context of acute care teams. A consolidated list of 59 research questions was established. In the second step, 19 experts attending the 2020 BSAS annual conference quantitatively rated the importance of each research question based on four criteria - usefulness, answerability, effectiveness, and translation into practice. In the third step, during half a day of the BSAS conference, the same group of 19 experts discussed the prioritization of the research questions in three online focus group meetings and established recommendations. RESULTS: Research priorities identified were categorized into six topics: (1) interventions to improve team process; (2) dealing with and implementing new technologies; (3) understanding and measuring team processes; (4) organizational aspects impacting teamwork; (5) training and health professions education; and (6) organizational and patient safety culture in the healthcare domain. Experts rated the first three topics as particularly relevant in terms of research priorities; the focus groups identified specific research needs within each topic. CONCLUSIONS: Based on research priorities within the BSAS community and the broader field of applied health sciences identified through this work, we advocate for the prioritization for funding in these areas.

Evaluation of an infection control link nurse program: an analysis using the RE-AIM framework.

BACKGROUND: Important elements of programs that train and support infection control link nurses (ICLN) are the engagement of stakeholders, support from hospital and ward management and a structure for iterative improvement. The effects of programs, that combine all these elements, are unknown. We evaluated such a comprehensive program to explore its impact on link nurses and infection prevention practices and routines. METHODS: We used the RE-AIM framework, a robust, evidence-based framework within the field of Implementation Science, to evaluate the impact of our ICLN training and support program. We used a mixed methods approach and organized the outcomes along its five dimensions: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, on average 91% of the inpatient wards and 58% of the outpatient clinics participated in the program (Reach) and impacted guideline adherence in inpatient wards. Link nurses felt engaged and empowered, and perceived their contribution to these results as pivotal. Ward managers confirmed the value of ICLN to help with implementing IPC practices (Effectiveness). The program was adopted both at the hospital and at the ward level (Adoption). Based on ongoing evaluations, the program was adapted by refining education, training and support strategies with emphasis on ward specific aspects (Implementation). The ICLN program was described as a key component of the infection prevention policy to sustain its effects (Maintenance). CONCLUSIONS: Our infection control link nurse program helped ICLN to improve infection prevention practices, especially in inpatient wards. The key to these improvements lay within the adaptability of our link nurse program. The adjustments to the program led to a shift of focus from hospital goals to goals tailored to the ward level. It allowed us to tailor activities to align them with the needs specific to each ward.

A pragmatic approach for implementation of value-based healthcare in Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The emphasis on implementation of value-based healthcare (VBHC) has increased in the Dutch healthcare system. Yet, the translation of the theoretical principles of VBHC towards actual implementation in daily practice has been rarely described. Our aim is to present a pragmatic step-by-step approach for VBHC implementation, developed and applied in Amsterdam UMC, to share our key elements. The approach may inspire others and can be used as a template for implementing VBHC principles in other hospitals. METHODS: The local approach is developed in a major academic hospital in the Netherlands, based at two locations with 15,000 employees in total. Experience-based co-design is used, building on our learning experiences from implementing VBHC for 14 specific patient groups. The described steps and activities devolved from iterative and participative co-design sessions with various experienced stakeholders involved in the implementation of one or more VBHC pathways. RESULTS: The approach includes five phases; preparation, design (team introduction, outcome selection, action agenda), building (outcome set integration in daily practice), implementation (training, outcome registration and implementation) and the continuous improvement cycle. We described two cases for illustration of the approach; the Cleft Lip and Palate and the Chronic Kidney Disease patient groups. For a good start, involvement of a clinical leader as driving force, ensuring participation of patient representatives and sufficient resources are needed. CONCLUSION: We have experienced that several defining features of the development and implementation of this approach may have contributed to its completeness and applicability. Key elements for success have been organisational readiness and clinical leadership. In conclusion, the approach has provided a first step towards VBHC in our hospital. Further research is needed for evaluation of its effectiveness including impact on value for patients.

How do studies assess the preventability of readmissions? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: A large number of articles examined the preventability rate of readmissions, but comparison and interpretability of these preventability rates is complicated due to the large heterogeneity of methods that were used. To compare (the implications of) the different methods used to assess the preventability of readmissions by means of medical record review. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PUBMED and EMBASE using "readmission" and "avoidability" or "preventability" as key terms. A consensus-based narrative data synthesis was performed to compare and discuss the different methods. RESULTS: Abstracts of 2504 unique citations were screened resulting in 48 full text articles which were included in the final analysis. Synthesis led to the identification of a set of important variables on which the studies differed considerably (type of readmissions, sources of information, definition of preventability, cause classification and reviewer process). In 69% of the studies the cause classification and preventability assessment were integrated; meaning specific causes were predefined as preventable or not preventable. The reviewers were most often medical specialist (67%), and 27% of the studies added interview as a source of information. CONCLUSION: A consensus-based standardised approach to assess preventability of readmission is warranted to reduce the unwanted bias in preventability rates. Patient-related and integrated care related factors are potentially underreported in readmission studies.

Using PROMs during routine medical consultations: The perspectives of people with Parkinson's disease and their health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), such as quality of life or symptoms like pain or fatigue, is increasingly embraced within patient-centred care and shared decision making. OBJECTIVES: To investigate: (a) how patients and health professionals think about using PROMs during routine medical consultations; (b) for which purpose(s), patients and health professionals want to use PROMs during those consultations; and (c) how patients interpret PROMs information presented in various formats. People with Parkinson's disease and their health professionals served as case example. METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with patients (N = 13) and professionals (N = 7 neurologists; N = 7 physiotherapists). We also used a survey in which patients (N = 115) were shown six figures displaying different information types. Presentation formats of this information varied (line/bar graphs). Interpretation by patients, perceived usefulness of information, attitude towards using information during routine medical consultations and (hypothetical) decisions were assessed. FINDINGS: Patients and professionals were generally positive about using PROMs during medical consultations. Professionals stressed the opportunity to monitor changes in individual PROMs over time. Patients were primarily positive about aggregated PROMs to make treatment decisions. This information was also most often interpreted correctly, especially when presented through a line graph (90.1% correct). Professionals thought patients should take the initiative in discussing PROMs, whereas patients thought professionals should do so. CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION: When used in routine medical consultations, PROMs seem to have potential to support shared decision making and facilitate patient-professional communication. However, training seems needed for both patients and professionals to facilitate actual discussion and proper interpretation.

Interruptions during intravenous medication administration: A multicentre observational study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and cause of interruptions during intravenous medication administration, which factors are associated with interruptions and to what extent interruptions influence protocol compliance. BACKGROUND: Hospital nurses are frequently interrupted during medication administration, which contributes to the occurrence of administration errors. Errors with intravenous medication are especially worrisome, given their immediate therapeutic effects. However, knowledge about the extent and type of interruptions during intravenous medication administration is limited. DESIGN: Multicentre observational study. METHODS: Data were collected during two national evaluation studies (2011 - 2012 & 2015 - 2016). Nurses were directly observed during intravenous medication administration. An interruption was defined as a situation where a break during the administration was needed or where a nurse was distracted but could process without a break. Interruptions were categorized according to source and cause. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the associations between explanatory variables and interruptions or complete protocol compliance. RESULTS: In total, 2,526 intravenous medication administration processes were observed. During 291 (12%) observations, nurses were interrupted 321 times. Most interruptions were externally initiated by other nurses (19%) or patients (19%). Less interruptions occurred during the evening (odds ratio: 0.23 [95% confidence interval: 0.08-0.62]). Do-not-disturb vests were worn by 61 (2%) nurses. No significant association was found between being interrupted and complete protocol compliance. CONCLUSION: An interruption occurred in every eight observed intravenous medication administration, mainly caused by other nurses or patients. One needs to consider critically which strategies effectively improve safety during the high-risk nursing-task of intravenous medication administration.

EXPLORING MEDICAL DEVICES: THE USE OF RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND THEIR LINK WITH TRAINING IN HOSPITALS.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the risk assessment tools and criteria used to assess the risk of medical devices in hospitals, and to explore the link between the risk of a medical device and how those risks impact or alter the training of staff. METHODS: Within a broader questionnaire on implementation of a national guideline, we collected quantitative data regarding the types of risk assessment tools used in hospitals and the training of healthcare staff. RESULTS: The response rate for the questionnaire was 81 percent; a total of sixty-five of eighty Dutch hospitals. All hospitals use a risk assessment tool and the biggest cluster (40 percent) use a tool developed internally. The criteria used to assess risk most often are: the function of the device (92 percent), the severity of adverse events (88 percent) and the frequency of use (77 percent). Forty-seven of fifty-six hospitals (84 percent) base their training on the risk associated with a medical device. For medium- and high-risk devices, the main method is practical training. As risk increases, the amount and type of training and examination increases. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch hospitals use a wide range of tools to assess the risk of medical devices. These tools are often based on the same criteria: the function of the device, the potential severity of adverse events, and the frequency of use. Furthermore, these tools are used to determine the amount and type of training required for staff. If the risk of a device is higher, then the training and examination is more extensive.

Development and validation of a model for the adoption of structured and standardised data recording among healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals provide care to patients and during that process, record large quantities of data in patient records. Data in an Electronic Health Record should ideally be recorded once and be reusable within the care process as well as for secondary purposes. A common approach to realise this is to let healthcare providers record data in a standardised and structured way at the point of care. Currently, it is not clear to what extent this structured and standardised recording has been adopted by healthcare professionals and what barriers to their adoption exist. Therefore, we developed and validated a multivariable model to capture the concepts underlying the adoption of structured and standardised recording among healthcare professionals. METHODS: Based on separate models from the literature we developed a new theoretical model describing the underlying concepts of the adoption of structured and standardised recording. Using a questionnaire built upon this model we gathered data to perform a summative validation of our model. Validation was done through partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The quality of both levels defined in PLS-SEM analysis, i.e., the measurement model and the structural model, were assessed on performance measures defined in literature. RESULTS: The theoretical model we developed consists of 29 concepts related to information systems as well as organisational factors and personal beliefs. Based on these concepts, 59 statements with a 5 point Likert-scale (fully disagree to fully agree) were specified in the questionnaire. We received 3584 responses. The validation shows our model is supported to a large extent by the questionnaire data. Intention to record in a structured and standardised way emerged as a significant factor of reported behaviour (ß = 0.305, p < 0.001). This intention is influenced most by attitude (ß = 0.512, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This model can be used to measure the perceived level of adoption of structured and standardised recording among healthcare professionals and further improve knowledge on the barriers and facilitators of this adoption.

A baseline assessment by healthcare professionals of Dutch pharmacotherapeutic care for the elderly with polypharmacy.

Background: Polypharmacy is common in the elderly population and is associated with an increased risk of adverse drug events. To diminish this risk, the guideline 'Polypharmacy in the Elderly' has been developed in 2012. This study examines, to what extent Dutch pharmacotherapeutic practice amongst elderly with polypharmacy mirrors the best practice described in this guideline and which barriers threaten it. Methods: An observational study was conducted in 2013/14 using a questionnaire distributed amongst Dutch healthcare professionals and elderly patients with polypharmacy. Healthcare professionals were asked about their current practice and the presence of five significant barriers, selected through a literature review and from expert opinion. These barriers are: inadequate transfer of patient records; insufficient documentation of prescribed drugs; a lack of collaboration between professionals; a failure to take a full control of the medication and insufficient involvement of the patient. The patients were asked about their experience with pharmacotherapeutic care. Results: No more than 26% of the healthcare professionals indicated that they use the guideline. The five barriers threatening the pharmacotherapeutic care were found to be present. Forty-three percent of the patients mentioned that their medication was assessed last year. Conclusion: The guideline is not used frequently by the healthcare professionals, but there is a will to improve the care by following this guideline. However, the presence of the five barriers hampers its implementation. Good management of those barriers is necessary in order to improve the collaboration between primary and secondary care and to enhance the documentation of prescribed drugs.

Association of admission and patient characteristics with quality of discharge letters: posthoc analysis of a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: A complete, correct and timely discharge letter can communicate important information from the hospital to the general practitioner. The adequacy of the letter may vary with the patient and admission characteristics of the patient. Insight in the association between these characteristics and the presence and quality of the discharge letter will give rise to improvement activities for a better continuity of care after discharge. The objective was to determine the presence, correctness and timeliness of admission information in discharge letters and to determine the association between patient and admission characteristics, including unplanned readmissions and the quality of the discharge letter. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of a two-staged retrospective patient record review study was performed in 4048 patient records in a random sample of 20 hospitals. RESULTS: Nearly ten percent of the discharge letters are lacking in patient records in Dutch hospitals. In 59.1% of the discharge letters, one or more relevant components are missing. Important laboratory results, relevant information about consultations, answers to the questions of the referrer, changes in medication and follow up are often lacking. Discharge letters are more likely to be missing in elective patient admissions to a hospital, with a shorter length of stay, less comorbidity, and in readmissions. There was a significant variation in missing discharge letters between hospitals and between hospital departments. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of discharge letters varies with patient and admission characteristics.

Excess length of stay and economic consequences of adverse events in Dutch hospital patients.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the average and extrapolated excess length of stay and direct costs of adverse events (AEs) and preventable AEs in Dutch hospitals, and to evaluate patient characteristics associated with excess length of stay and costs. METHODS: Data of a large retrospective patient record review study on AEs was used. A stratified sample of 20 Dutch hospitals was included. Excess length of stay and costs attributable to AEs and preventable AEs were calculated and extrapolated to a national estimate. The association between patient characteristics and excess length of stay (and costs thereof) attributable to AEs and preventable AEs was investigated through multilevel linear regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2975 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 325 experienced one or more AEs. Hospital patients experiencing an AE stayed 5.11 (95% CI 3.91-6.30) more days in hospital and cost €2600 (95% CI €1968-€3232) more compared to those without an AE. There was no significant difference in days and costs between preventable and non-preventable AEs. Extrapolated to a national level, AEs cost more than €300 million, which was 1.3% of the national hospital care budget. Patients with hospital-acquired infections had a statistically significant longer length of stay compared to the reference group (patients with AEs on the cardiovascular system). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that AEs lead to substantial excess length of stay and increased costs. Special attention should be paid to patients with AEs due to an hospital-acquired infection.

Exploring the treatment delay in the care of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing acute percutaneous coronary intervention: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A short delay between diagnosis and treatment for patients diagnosed with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is vital to prevent cardiac damage and mortality. The objective of this study was to explore the treatment delay and associated factors in the management of patients diagnosed with STEMI going for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In a cross-sectional multicenter study, the treatment delay (time between first electrocardiogram and start of PCI procedure) of STEMI patients in seven PCI centers in the Netherlands was measured. Data were analyzed by means of multivariable generalized linear models, accounting for a non-normally distributed outcome and clustering of patients within centers. RESULTS: In total, 1017 patient charts were included. The majority of the patients (78.7%) were treated within the guideline recommended time target of 90 min. Overall, the median treatment delay was 64 min (interquartile range 47-82). A significantly prolonged delay was found among patients of whom their first electrocardiogram was performed at a general practitioner's practice (+23.9 min; 95% confidence interval 9.9-40.8) or in-hospital (+9.5 min; 95% confidence interval 2.5-17.3), patients requiring interhospital transfer (+14.6 min; 95% confidence interval 7.6-22.4) or presenting with acute heart failure on admission (+17.6 min; 95% confidence interval 7.9-28.7). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a short median delay between first electrocardiogram and PCI, the time targets are occasionally exceeded for patients diagnosed with STEMI. To further improve the process of care, PCI centers should focus on improving regional STEMI care networks, involving general practitioners, emergency departments and referring hospitals.

Understanding factors that influence the use of risk scoring instruments in the management of patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the Netherlands: a qualitative study of health care practitioners' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac risk scores estimate a patient's risk of future cardiac events or death. They are developed to inform treatment decisions of patients diagnosed with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Despite recommending their use in guidelines and evidence of their prognostic value, they seem underused in practice. The purpose of the study was to gain insight in the motivation for implementing cardiac risk scores, and perceptions of health care practitioners towards the use of these instruments in clinical practice. METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 31 health care practitioners at 11 hospitals throughout the Netherlands. Participants were approached through purposive sampling to represent a broad range of participant- and hospital characteristics, and included cardiologists, medical residents, medical interns, nurse practitioners and an emergency physician. The Pettigrew and Whipp Framework for strategic change was used as a theoretical basis. Data were initially analysed through open coding to avoid forcing data into categories predetermined by the framework. RESULTS: Cardiac risk score use was dependent on several factors, including IT support, clinical relevance for daily practice, rotation of staff and workload. Both intrinsic and extrinsic drivers for implementation were identified. Reminders, feedback and IT solutions were strategies used to improve and sustain the use of these instruments. The scores were seen as valuable support systems in improving uniformity in treatment practices, educating interns, conducting research and quantifying a practitioner's own risk assessment. However, health care practitioners varied in their perceptions regarding the influence of cardiac risk scores on treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Health care practitioners disagree on the value of cardiac risk scores for clinical practice. Practitioners driven by intrinsic motivations predominantly experienced benefits in policy-making, education and research. Practitioners who were forced to use cardiac risk scores were less likely to take into account the risk score in their treatment decisions. The results of this study can be used to develop strategies that stimulate or sustain cardiac risk score use in practice, while taking into account barriers that affect cardiac risk score use, and possibly reduce practice variation in the management of unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

The ecometric properties of a measurement instrument for prospective risk analysis in hospital departments.

BACKGROUND: Safety management systems have been set up in healthcare institutions to reduce the number of adverse events. Safety management systems use a combination of activities, such as identifying and assessing safety risks in the organizational processes through retrospective and prospective risk assessments. A complementary method to already existing prospective risk analysis methods is Tripod, which measures latent risk factors in organizations through staff questionnaires. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether Tripod can be used as a method for prospective risk analysis in hospitals and whether it can assess differences in risk factors between hospital departments. METHODS: Tripod measures risk factors in five organizational domains: (1) Procedures, (2) Training, (3) Communication, (4) Incompatible Goals and (5) Organization. Each domain is covered by 15 items in the questionnaire. A total of thirteen departments from two hospitals participated in this study. All healthcare staff working in the participating departments were approached. The multilevel method ecometrics was used to evaluate the validity and reliability of Tripod. Ecometrics was needed to ensure that the differences between departments were attributable to differences in risk at the departmental level and not to differences between individual perceptions of the healthcare staff. RESULTS: A total of 626 healthcare staff completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 61.7%. Reliability coefficients were calculated for the individual level and department level. At the individual level, reliability coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.87, at the departmental level they ranged from 0.55 to 0.73. Intraclass correlations at the departmental level ranged from 3.7% to 8.5%, which indicate sufficient clustering of answers within departments. At both levels the domains from the questionnaire were positively interrelated and all significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that Tripod can be used as a method for prospective risk analysis in hospitals. Results of the questionnaire provide information about latent risk factors in hospital departments. However, this study also shows that there are indications that the method is not sensitive enough to detect differences between hospital departments. Therefore, it is important to be careful when interpreting differences in potential risks between departments when using Tripod.

Resource use and costs of type 2 diabetes patients receiving managed or protocolized primary care: a controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of diabetes is associated with increased health care use and costs. Innovations to improve the quality of care, manage the increasing demand for health care and control the growth of health care costs are needed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the care process and costs of managed, protocolized and usual care for type 2 diabetes patients from a societal perspective. METHODS: In two distinct regions of the Netherlands, both managed and protocolized diabetes care were implemented. Managed care was characterized by centralized organization, coordination, responsibility and centralized annual assessment. Protocolized care had a partly centralized organizational structure. Usual care was characterized by a decentralized organizational structure. Using a quasi-experimental control group pretest-posttest design, the care process (guideline adherence) and costs were compared between managed (n = 253), protocolized (n = 197), and usual care (n = 333). We made a distinction between direct health care costs, direct non-health care costs and indirect costs. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate differences in costs adjusted for confounding factors. Because of the skewed distribution of the costs, bootstrapping methods (5000 replications) with a bias-corrected and accelerated approach were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the differences in costs. RESULTS: Compared to usual and protocolized care, in managed care more patients were treated according to diabetes guidelines. Secondary health care use was higher in patients under usual care compared to managed and protocolized care. Compared to usual care, direct costs were significantly lower in managed care (€-1.181 (95% CI: -2.597 to -334)) while indirect costs were higher (€ 758 (95% CI: -353 to 2.701), although not significant. Direct, indirect and total costs were lower in protocolized care compared to usual care (though not significantly). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, managed care was significantly associated with better process in terms of diabetes care, fewer secondary care consultations and lower health care costs. The same trends were seen for protocolized care, however they were not statistically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled trials: ISRCTN66124817.

Is culture associated with patient safety in the emergency department? A study of staff perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the patient safety culture of Dutch emergency departments (EDs), to examine associations between safety culture dimensions and patient safety grades as reported by ED staff and to compare these associations between nurses and physicians. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted in 2007. SETTING: Thirty-three non-academic EDs in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and eighty nurses, 159 physicians and 91 other professionals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Self-reported level of patient safety. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, all dimensions of safety culture were positively associated with the reported level of patient safety and six of these associations with patient safety were statistically significant after adjustment ('teamwork across units', 'frequency of event reporting', communication openness', 'feedback about and learning from errors', 'hospital management support for patient safety'). Differences between nurses and physicians were found on two dimensions ('frequency of event reporting' and ' hospital management support for patient safety'). Physicians tended to grade patient safety higher than nurses whilst having equal judgements on these two dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Staff identified several dimensions of safety culture that are associated with staff-reported safety in the ED. Physicians and nurses identified distinct dimensions of safety culture as associated with reported level of patient safety.

Compiling a Set of Actionable Quality Indicators for Medical Practitioners in Dutch Nursing Homes: A Delphi Study.

Most quality indicators (QIs) currently used in nursing homes reflect the care delivered by the entire multidisciplinary team and are not specific for medical practitioners. International experts have proposed a set of QIs that specifically reflect the quality of medical care in nursing homes. The objective of the Delphi study described here was to compile a set of actionable QIs tailored for medical practitioners working within Dutch nursing homes. This was achieved through the evaluation of 15 existing national QIs and 35 international QIs by a panel of medical practitioners, comprising medical specialists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, who are working in Dutch nursing homes. Panelists rated each QI on (1) level of direct control by medical practitioners and (2) its relevance to the quality of medical care. QIs progressing to subsequent rounds required panel agreement on both direct control (≥70% ≥3 points on a 4-point scale) and relevance (≥70% ≥8 on a 10-point scale). In the last round, each panelist selected the 5 most relevant QIs and arranged them in order of importance. These top 5 rankings were converted into points for an overall final ranking. There was consensus on 42 QIs being under the control of medical practitioners, and 21 of these QIs were considered relevant for quality of care. Most of the 21 QIs originated from the international QI set. This finding supports the transferability of the internationally developed QIs to the Dutch nursing home context and provides opportunities to compare the quality of medical care in nursing homes across countries. In the final ranking, the QI related to new medication prescriptions received the highest rating, followed by 3 QIs related to advance care planning. Future research should focus on evaluating the feasibility of measuring the selected QIs and assessing their measurement properties before implementing them in professional learning and quality improvement initiatives for medical practitioners in nursing homes.

Urinary Tract Infection Guideline Adherence in a Dutch Sentinel Nursing Home Surveillance Network.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate guideline adherence 3 years after the introduction of a national guideline on urinary tract infections (UTIs) in frail older adults. Appropriate use of urine dipstick tests, treatment decisions, and antibiotic drug choices in residents with (suspected) UTIs without a catheter were examined. DESIGN: Observational prospective study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen nursing homes participating in a Dutch Sentinel Nursing Home Surveillance Network. METHODS: As of September 2021, for a 3-month period, medical practitioners recorded additional clinical information in the electronic health record in case of a (suspected) UTI. Based on this information, adherence to guideline recommendations was assessed. Nonadherence was classified into 2 categories: (1) "intentional nonadherence" as reported by practitioners and (2) "nonadherence otherwise" applied to all other cases where the recorded information was discordant with the guideline recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 532 cases of (suspected) UTIs from 469 residents were analyzed. In 455 cases (86%), dipsticks were used. For the 231 cases where clinical signs and symptoms already indicated no UTI treatment according to the guideline, a dipstick was still inappropriately ordered in 196 cases (85%). The decision to prescribe or withhold antibiotics was in 69% of the cases adherent, in 6% intentionally nonadherent, and in 25% nonadherent otherwise. The type of prescribed antibiotic was adherent to the recommended antibiotics for cystitis in 88% and for UTIs with signs of tissue invasion in 48%. Overall, for 40% of suspected UTIs, adherence to all relevant recommendations could be established, and in 9% practitioners reported intentional nonadherence to the guideline. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is considerable room for improvement in all clinical stages of managing a suspected UTI in Dutch nursing homes, particularly with regard to the importance of patient's clinical signs and symptoms for appropriate dipstick use and antibiotic UTI treatments.

Information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in shared decision making regarding adjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment: A survey study.

PURPOSE: To assess information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in Shared Decision Making about adjuvant systemic treatment of primary breast cancer and identify key decision-relevant information accordingly. METHODS: Patients (N = 122) and professionals working with breast cancer patients (N = 118), of whom 38 were nurse practitioners and 32 nurses, were recruited using convenience sampling, and surveyed about information/communication aspects key to decision-making, using ranking assignments. We further posed a simple open question, questions about receiving population-based statistics versus personalized statistics concerning treatment outcomes, and their attitude and experience concerning Shared Decision Making. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and a qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Both patients and professionals prioritized information about treatment outcomes (i.e., survival, recurrence) as key decision-relevant information for patients. Patients prioritized information about relatively severe treatment side-effects and late effects (e.g., blood clot, stroke), whilst professionals prioritized information about effects that occur relatively often (e.g., hair loss, fatigue). Patients specifically wanted to know if the benefit of treatment is worth the negative impact. Both groups prioritized personalized statistics over population-based statistics. CONCLUSIONS: Some differences between patients and professionals were found in information and communication priorities, specifically related to the different side-effects. It seems worthwhile to precisely address these side-effects in Shared Decision Making concerning adjuvant systemic treatment. Furthermore, it seems important to deliberate together on the question if expected benefit of treatment is worth the potential negative impact for the individual patient.

Scale, nature, preventability and causes of adverse events in hospitalised older patients.

OBJECTIVE: to gain insight into the scale, nature, preventability and causes of adverse events in hospitalised older patients. DESIGN: a three-stage retrospective, structured, medical record review study of 7,917 records of patients admitted in 21 Dutch hospitals in 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: incidence, preventability, clinical process category, consequences and causes of adverse events in hospitalised patients of 65 years and older, compared with patients younger than 65. RESULTS: adverse events and preventable adverse events occur significantly more often in older patients [6.9% (95% CI: 5.9-8.0%) and 2.9% (95% CI: 2.3-3.7%), respectively] than in younger patients [4.8% (95% CI: 4.0-5.7%) and 1.8% (95% CI: 1.3-2.4%), respectively]. In older patients, the adverse events were more often related to medication (20.1 versus 9.6%) (P < 0.01). An exploration of the causes revealed that the inability to apply existing knowledge to a new and complex situation contributes more often to the occurrence of adverse events in older patients than in younger patients (36.4 versus 24.3%) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: to reduce the number of adverse events in older patients in the future, more particular training of hospital staff in geriatric medicine is required, with a specific focus on medication.