International survey of COVID-19 management strategies.

BACKGROUND: While individual countries have gained considerable knowledge and experience in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) management, an international, comparative perspective is lacking, particularly regarding the measures taken by different countries to tackle the pandemic. This paper elicits the views of health system staff, tapping into their personal expertise on how the pandemic was initially handled. METHODS: From May to July 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, online, purpose-designed survey comprising 70 items. Email lists of contacts provided by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, the Italian Network for Safety in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation were used to access healthcare professionals and managers across the world. We snowballed the survey to individuals and groups connected to these organizations. Key outcome measures were attitudes and information about institutional approaches taken; media communication; how acute hospitals were re-organized; primary health organization; personal protective equipment; and staffing and training. RESULTS: A total of 1131 survey participants from 97 countries across the World Health Organization (WHO) regions responded to the survey. Responses were from all six WHO regions; 57.9% were female and the majority had 10 or more years of experience in healthcare; almost half (46.5%) were physicians; and all other major clinical professional groups participated. As the pandemic progressed, most countries established an emergency task force, developed communication channels to citizens, organized health services to cope and put in place appropriate measures (e.g. pathways for COVID-19 patients, and testing, screening and tracing procedures). Some countries did this better than others. We found several significant differences between the WHO regions in how they are tackling the pandemic. For instance, while overall most respondents (71.4%) believed that there was an effective plan prior to the outbreak, this was only the case for 31.9% of respondents from the Pan American Health Organization compared with 90.7% of respondents from the South-East Asia Region (SEARO). Issues with swab testing (e.g. delay in communicating the swab outcome) were less frequently reported by respondents from SEARO and the Western Pacific Region compared with other regions. CONCLUSION: The world has progressed in its knowledge and sophistication in tackling the pandemic after early and often substantial obstacles were encountered. Most WHO regions have or are in the process of responding well, although some countries have not yet instituted widespread measures known to support mitigation, for example, effective swab testing and social control measures.

Improving patient discharge and reducing hospital readmissions by using Intervention Mapping.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing impetus to reorganize the hospital discharge process to reduce avoidable readmissions and costs. The aim of this study was to provide insight into hospital discharge problems and underlying causes, and to give an overview of solutions that guide providers and policy-makers in improving hospital discharge. METHODS: The Intervention Mapping framework was used. First, a problem analysis studying the scale, causes, and consequences of ineffective hospital discharge was carried out. The analysis was based on primary data from 26 focus group interviews and 321 individual interviews with patients and relatives, and involved hospital and community care providers. Second, improvements in terms of intervention outcomes, performance objectives and change objectives were specified. Third, 220 experts were consulted and a systematic review of effective discharge interventions was carried out to select theory-based methods and practical strategies required to achieve change and better performance. RESULTS: Ineffective discharge is related to factors at the level of the individual care provider, the patient, the relationship between providers, and the organisational and technical support for care providers. Providers can reduce hospital readmission rates and adverse events by focusing on high-quality discharge information, well-coordinated care, and direct and timely communication with their counterpart colleagues. Patients, or their carers, should participate in the discharge process and be well aware of their health status and treatment. Assessment by hospital care providers whether discharge information is accurate and understood by patients and their community counterparts, are important examples of overcoming identified barriers to effective discharge. Discharge templates, medication reconciliation, a liaison nurse or pharmacist, regular site visits and teach-back are identified as effective and promising strategies to achieve the desired behavioural and environmental change. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive guiding framework for providers and policy-makers to improve patient handover from hospital to primary care.

Improved FMEA Methods for Proactive Health Care Risk Assessment of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of COVID-19 Remote Patient Telemonitoring.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the need to more effectively harness and leverage digital tools and technology for remote patient monitoring (RPM). RPM gained great popularity given the need to provide effective, safe, efficient, and remote patient care. RPM is based on noninvasive digital technologies aimed at improving the safety and efficiency of health care delivery. We report on an RPM program in which 200 COVID-19 patients were followed remotely to evaluate the effectiveness in treating and monitoring patients in home settings. We analyzed the inherent risks using mixed methods, including failure mode and effect analysis, a prospective, team-based risk management methodology structured to identify high-risk process system failures before they occur in telemonitoring of remote patients. The RPM saved lives and improved decision-making during the pandemic and helped prevent the health system's collapse. The failure mode and effect analysis-based assessment offers important insights and considerations for evaluating future RPM implementation and direction. RPM solutions are technically feasible, staff friendly, and can achieve high adherence rates. Rigorous and ongoing evaluation of devices and platforms is essential to clarifying their value and guiding national health and insurance health coverage decisions and adoption programs.

[Simulation in medicine: first experiences under hemodialysis]. / La simulazione in emodialisi.

Education and practical training in medicine is neglected and pass directly from theory to do on the field, while also each task requires the acquisition of health behaviors that are aware and accountable to the outreach. In hemodialysis is necessary to create synergies and partnerships between different cooperating figures. Addressing organizational and legal protection of the professionals (Clinical Risk). Acquiring operational capabilities of team work. Managing the team roles and functions.It is necessary then to acquire a modern methodology where the simulation represents the main tool, "the mistake" need to "learn" and the acquisition of "awareness" about event handling (in this case on Hemodialysis), in the context of clinical scenarios absolutely realistic.The methodology is based on simulated tasks using past experience as a business tool and innovative research. Debriefing and discussion with those involved and finally debrief collegiate looking for active/latent errors and use of international guidelines. Use of indicators to measure and review of performance during the various events and proactively promoting the reduction of the error.Among the types of participants was clear the minor presence of doctors of hemodialysis, probably for the wrong feeling of being checked and then judged in carrying out of actions made complex by urgency. In addition participating physicians have all stressed the usefulness of simulations of unusual events within the Hemodialysis treatment, but that if not solved can lead to death of the patient.Simulation under hemodialysis, although its first steps, appears to be an effective methodology able to stimulate self-criticism of the operators, but still with hesitations and fears above all by the nephrologists timorous of being judged more on technical skills than on organizational skills and leadership.

Handover process: how to improve quality and safety through an ergonomic solution.

Patient safety practices for enhancing the quality and safety of handover are context sensitive interventions. In this article we explore the use of cultural probes as a qualitative technique with a twofold objective: eliciting implicit activity pattern and tools that may constitute resources for the design of effective handover solutions and prompting health care practitioners' participation and involvement.

The collaborative communication model for patient handover at the interface between high-acuity and low-acuity care.

BACKGROUND: Cross-unit handovers transfer responsibility for the patient among healthcare teams in different clinical units, with missed information, potentially placing patients at risk for adverse events. OBJECTIVES: We analysed the communications between high-acuity and low-acuity units, their content and social context, and we explored whether common conceptual ground reduced potential threats to patient safety posed by current handover practices. METHODS: We monitored the communication of five content items using handover probes for 22 patient transitions of care between high-acuity 'sender units' and low-acuity 'recipient units'. Data were analysed and discussed in focus groups with healthcare professionals to acquire insights into the characteristics of the common conceptual ground. RESULTS: High-acuity and low-acuity units agreed about the presence of alert signs in the discharge form in 40% of the cases. The focus groups identified prehandover practices, particularly for anticipatory guidance that relied extensively on verbal phone interactions that commonly did not involve all members of the healthcare team, particularly nursing. Accessibility of information in the medical records reported by the recipient units was significantly lower than reported by sender units. Common ground to enable interpretation of the complete handover content items existed only among selected members of the healthcare team. CONCLUSIONS: The limited common ground reduced the likelihood of correct interpretation of important handover information, which may contribute to adverse events. Collaborative design and use of a shared set of handover content items may assist in creating common ground to enable clinical teams to communicate effectively to help increase the reliability and safety of cross-unit handovers.