Increased adherence to perioperative safety guidelines associated with improved patient safety outcomes: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: National Dutch guidelines have been introduced to improve suboptimal perioperative care. A multifaceted implementation programme (IMPlementatie Richtlijnen Operatieve VEiligheid [IMPROVE]) has been developed to support hospitals in applying these guidelines. This study evaluated the effectiveness of IMPROVE on guideline adherence and the association between guideline adherence and patient safety. METHODS: Nine hospitals participated in this unblinded, superiority, stepped-wedge, cluster RCT in patients with major noncardiac surgery (mortality risk ≥1%). IMPROVE consisted of educational activities, audit and feedback, reminders, organisational, team-directed, and patient-mediated activities. The primary outcome of the study was guideline adherence measured by nine patient safety indicators on the process (stop moments from the composite STOP bundle, and timely administration of antibiotics) and on the structure of perioperative care. Secondary safety outcomes included in-hospital complications, postoperative wound infections, mortality, length of hospital stay, and unplanned care. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 1934 patients. The IMPROVE programme improved one stop moment: 'discharge from recovery room' (+16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9-23%). This stop moment was related to decreased mortality (-3%; 95% CI, -4% to -1%), fewer complications (-8%; 95% CI, -13% to -3%), and fewer unscheduled transfers to the ICU (-6%; 95% CI, -9% to -3%). IMPROVE negatively affected one other stop moment - 'discharge from the hospital' - possibly because of the limited resources of hospitals to improve all stop moments together. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed implementation effects of IMPROVE were found. We found some positive associations between guideline adherence and patient safety (i.e. mortality, complications, and unscheduled transfers to the ICU) except for the timely administration of antibiotics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR3568 (Dutch Trial Registry).

Complexity and involvement as implementation challenges: results from a process analysis.

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to analyse the implementation challenges experienced in carrying out the IMPROVE programme. This programme was designed to implement checklist-related improvement initiatives based on the national perioperative guidelines using a stepped-wedge trial design. A process analysis was carried out to investigate the involvement in the implementation activities. METHODS: An involvement rating measure was developed to express the extent to which the implementation programme was carried out in the hospitals. This measure reflects the number of IMPROVE-implementation activities executed and the estimated participation in these activities in all nine participating hospitals. These data were compared with prospectively collected field notes. RESULTS: Considerable variation between the hospitals was found with involvement ratings ranging from 0 to 6 (mean per measurement = 1.83 on a scale of 0-11). Major implementation challenges were respectively the study design (fixed design, time planning, long duration, repeated measurements, and data availability); the selection process of hospitals, departments and key contact person(s) (inadequately covering the entire perioperative team and stand-alone surgeons); the implementation programme (programme size and scope, tailoring, multicentre, lack of mandate, co-interventions by the Inspectorate, local intervention initiatives, intervention fatigue); and competitive events such as hospital mergers or the introduction of new IT systems, all reducing involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The process analysis approach helped to explain the limited and delayed execution of the IMPROVE-implementation programme. This turned out to be very heterogeneous between hospitals, with variation in the number and content of implementation activities carried out. The identified implementation challenges reflect a high complexity with regard to the implementation programme, study design and setting. The involvement of the target professionals was put under pressure by many factors. We mostly encountered challenges, but at the same time we provide solutions for addressing them. A less complex implementation programme, a less fixed study design, a better thought-out selection of contact persons, as well as more commitment of the hospital management and surgeons would likely have contributed to better implementation results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568 , retrospectively registered on 2 August 2012.

Effects of patient safety auditing in hospital care: results of a mixed-method evaluation (part 1).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of internal auditing in hospital care focussed on improving patient safety. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A before-and-after mixed-method evaluation study was carried out in eight departments of a university medical center in the Netherlands. INTERVENTION(S): Internal auditing and feedback focussed on improving patient safety. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The effect of internal auditing was assessed 15 months after the audit, using linear mixed models, on the patient, professional, team and departmental levels. The measurement methods were patient record review on adverse events (AEs), surveys regarding patient experiences, safety culture and team climate, analysis of administrative hospital data (standardized mortality rate, SMR) and safety walk rounds (SWRs) to observe frontline care processes on safety. RESULTS: The AE rate decreased from 36.1% to 31.3% and the preventable AE rate from 5.5% to 3.6%; however, the differences before and after auditing were not statistically significant. The patient-reported experience measures regarding patient safety improved slightly over time (P < 0.001). The SMR, patient safety culture and team climate remained unchanged after the internal audit. The SWRs showed that medication safety and information security were improved (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Internal auditing was associated with improved patient experiences and observed safety on wards. No effects were found on adverse outcomes, safety culture and team climate 15 months after the internal audit.

Process evaluation of the effects of patient safety auditing in hospital care (part 2).

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that explain the observed effects of internal auditing on improving patient safety. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A process evaluation study within eight departments of a university medical centre in the Netherlands. INTERVENTION(S): Internal auditing and feedback for improving patient safety in hospital care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Experiences with patient safety auditing, percentage implemented improvement actions tailored to the audit results and perceived factors that hindered or facilitated the implementation of improvement actions. RESULTS: The respondents had positive audit experiences, with the exception of the amount of preparatory work by departments. Fifteen months after the audit visit, 21% of the intended improvement actions based on the audit results were completely implemented. Factors that hindered implementation were short implementation time: 9 months (range 5-11 months) instead of the 15 months' planned implementation time; time-consuming and labour-intensive implementation of improvement actions; and limited organizational support for quality improvement (e.g. insufficient staff capacity and time, no available quality improvement data and information and communication technological (ICT) support). CONCLUSIONS: A well-constructed analysis and feedback of patient safety problems is insufficient to reduce the occurrence of poor patient safety outcomes. Without focus and support in the implementation of audit-based improvement actions, quality improvement by patient safety auditing will remain limited.

Important factors for effective patient safety governance auditing: a questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: Audits are increasingly used for patient safety governance purposes. However, there is little insight into the factors that hinder or stimulate effective governance based on auditing. The aim of this study is to quantify the factors that influence effective auditing for hospital boards and executives. METHODS: A questionnaire of 32 factors was developed using influencing factors found in a qualitative study on effective auditing. Factors were divided into four categories. The questionnaire was sent to the board of directors, chief of medical staff, nursing officer, medical department head and director of the quality and safety department of 89 acute care hospitals in the Netherlands. RESULTS: We approached 522 people, of whom 211 responded. Of the 32 factors in the questionnaire, 30 factors had an agreement percentage higher than 50%. Important factors per category were 'audit as an improvement tool as well as a control tool', 'department is aware of audit purpose', 'quality of auditors' and 'learning culture at department'. We found 14 factors with a significant difference in agreement between stakeholders of at least 20%. Amongst these were 'medical specialist on the audit team', 'soft signals in the audit report', 'patients as auditors' and 'post-audit support'. CONCLUSION: We found 30 factors for effective auditing, which we synthesised into eight recommendations to optimise audits. Hospitals can use these recommendations as a framework for audits that enable boards to become more in control of patient safety in their hospital.

Building a patient-centered and interprofessional training program with patients, students and care professionals: study protocol of a participatory design and evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: A common approach to enhance patient-centered care is training care professionals. Additional training of patients has been shown to significantly improve patient-centeredness of care. In this participatory design and evaluation study, patient education and medical education will be combined by co-creating a patient-centered and interprofessional training program, wherein patients, students and care professionals learn together to improve patient-centeredness of care. METHODS: In the design phase, scientific literature regarding interventions and effects of student-run patient education will be synthesized in a scoping review. In addition, focus group studies will be performed on the preferences of patients, students, care professionals and education professionals regarding the structure and content of the training program. Subsequently, an intervention plan of the training program will be constructed by combining these building blocks. In the evaluation phase, patients with a chronic disease, that is rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and hypertension, and patients with an oncologic condition, that is colonic cancer and breast cancer, will learn together with medical students, nursing students and care professionals in training program cycles of three months. Process and effect evaluation will be performed using the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) method to evaluate and optimize the training program in care practice and medical education. A modified control design will be used in PDSA-cycles to ensure that students who act as control will also benefit from participating in the program. DISCUSSION: Our participatory design and evaluation study provides an innovative approach in designing and evaluating an intervention by involving participants in all stages of the design and evaluation process. The approach is expected to enhance the effectiveness of the training program by assessing and meeting participants' needs and preferences. Moreover, by using fast PDSA cycles and a modified control design in evaluating the training program, the training program is expected to be efficiently and rapidly implemented into and adjusted to care practice and medical education.

Involving Medical Students in Providing Patient Education for Real Patients: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that involving students in patient education can contribute to the quality of care and medical education. Interventions and outcomes in this field, however, have not yet been systematically reviewed. The authors examined the scientific literature for studies on interventions and outcomes of student-provided patient education. METHODS: Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO) were searched for studies reporting patient education, undergraduate medical students, and outcomes of patient education, published between January 1990 and October 2015. Facilitators of and barriers to educational interventions were assessed using the Learning Transfer System Inventory. The learning yield, impact on quality of care, and practical feasibility of the interventions were rated by patients, care professionals, researchers, and education professionals. RESULTS: The search resulted in 4991 hits. Eighteen studies were included in the final synthesis. Studies suggested that student-provided patient education improved patients' health knowledge, attitude, and behavior (nine studies), disease management (three studies), medication adherence (one study), and shared decision-making (one study). In addition, involving students in patient education was reported to enhance students' patient education self-efficacy (four studies), skills (two studies), and behavior (one study), their relationships with patients (two studies), and communication skills (two studies). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that student-provided patient education-specifically, student-run patient education clinics, student-provided outreach programs, student health coaching, and clerkships on patient education-has the potential to improve quality of care and medical education. To enhance the learning effectiveness and quality of student-provided patient education, factors including professional roles for students, training preparation, constructive supervision, peer support on organizational and individual levels, and learning aids should be taken into account. Future research should focus on further investigating the effects found in this study with high-level evidence.

Reactive Rather than Proactive Diabetes Management in the Perioperative Period.

As perioperative hyperglycemia is associated with poor postoperative patient outcomes, clinical guidelines provide recommendations for optimal perioperative glucose control. It is unclear to what extent recommended glucose levels are met in daily practice, and little is known about factors that influence these levels. We describe blood glucose levels throughout the hospital care pathway in 375 non-critically ill patients with diabetes who underwent major surgery (abdominal, cardiac, or orthopedic) in 6 hospitals, examine determinants of these levels including adherence to 9 quality indicators for optimal perioperative diabetes care, and perform qualitative interviews to identify barriers for optimal care. Virtually all patients (95%) experienced at least one hyperglycemic value (>10 mmol/l); 9% had at least one value <4 mmol/l. Mean glucose increased from preoperative to postoperative day (POD) 1 (+2.3 mmol/l, 5-95% CI 1.9-2.7), and then gradually decreased on POD 2-14 (+1.8 mmol/l, 5-95% CI 1.4-2.2). Insulin-treated patients (with or without oral agents) had higher glucose levels (+1.7 mmol/l, 5-95% CI 0.5-3.0, and +1.2 mmol/l, -0.1 to -2.5) than patients using oral agents only. Indicator adherence tended to be associated with higher glucose levels. Barriers for optimal care included a lack of formalized agreements on target glucose levels, absence of directly obvious disadvantages of hyperglycemia, and concern about inducing hypoglycemia. Hyperglycemia is common after major surgery, in particular on POD1 and in insulin-treated patients. Our results suggest that perioperative diabetes care is reactive rather than proactive, and that current emphasis of professionals is on treating instead of preventing postoperative hyperglycemia.

Barriers and facilitators to improve safety and efficiency of the ICU discharge process: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that suboptimal clinical handover from the intensive care unit (ICU) to general wards leads to unnecessary ICU readmissions and increased mortality. We aimed to gain insight into barriers and facilitators to implement and use ICU discharge practices. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was conducted, using 1) 23 individual and four focus group interviews, with post-ICU patients, ICU managers, and nurses and physicians working in the ICU or general ward of ten Dutch hospitals, and 2) a questionnaire survey, which contained 27 statements derived from the interviews, and was completed by 166 ICU physicians (21.8%) from 64 Dutch hospitals (71.1% of the total of 90 Dutch hospitals). RESULTS: The interviews resulted in 66 barriers and facilitators related to: the intervention (e.g., feasibility); the professional (e.g., attitude towards checklists); social factors (e.g., presence or absence of a culture of feedback); and the organisation (e.g., financial resources). A facilitator considered important by ICU physicians was a checklist to structure discharge communication (92.2%). Barriers deemed important were lack of a culture of feedback (55.4%), an absence of discharge criteria (23.5%), and an overestimation of the capabilities of general wards to care for complex patients by ICU physicians (74.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the barriers and facilitators found in this study, improving handover communication, formulating specific discharge criteria, stimulating a culture of feedback, and preventing overestimation of the general ward are important to effectively improve the ICU discharge process.

Variation in rates of ICU readmissions and post-ICU in-hospital mortality and their association with ICU discharge practices.

BACKGROUND: Variation in intensive care unit (ICU) readmissions and in-hospital mortality after ICU discharge may indicate potential for improvement and could be explained by ICU discharge practices. Our objective was threefold: (1) describe variation in rates of ICU readmissions within 48 h and post-ICU in-hospital mortality, (2) describe ICU discharge practices in Dutch hospitals, and (3) study the association between rates of ICU readmissions within 48 h and post-ICU in-hospital mortality and ICU discharge practices. METHODS: We analysed data on 42,040 admissions to 82 (91.1%) Dutch ICUs in 2011 from the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry to describe variation in standardized ICU readmission and post-ICU mortality rates using funnel-plots. We send a questionnaire to all Dutch ICUs. 75 ICUs responded and their questionnaire data could be linked to 38,498 admissions in the NICE registry. Generalized estimation equations analyses were used to study the association between ICU readmissions and post-ICU mortality rates and the identified discharge practices, i.e. (1) ICU discharge criteria; (2) bed managers; (3) early discharge planning; (4) step-down facilities; (5) medication reconciliation; (6) verbal and written handover; (7) monitoring of post-ICU patients; and (8) consulting ICU nurses. In all analyses, the outcomes were corrected for patient-related confounding factors. RESULTS: The standardized rate of ICU readmissions varied between 0.14 and 2.67 and 20.8% of the hospitals fell outside the 95% control limits and 3.6% outside the 99.8% control limits. The standardized rate of post-ICU mortality varied between 0.07 and 2.07 and 17.1% of the hospitals fell outside the 95% control limits and 4.9% outside the 99.8% control limits. We could not demonstrate an association between the eight ICU discharge practices and rates of ICU readmissions or post-ICU in-hospital mortality. Implementing a higher number of ICU discharge practices was also not associated with better patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found both variation in patient outcomes and variation in ICU discharge practices between ICUs. However, we found no association between discharge practices and rates of ICU readmissions or post-ICU mortality. Further research is necessary to find factors, which may influence these patient outcomes, in order to improve quality of care.

Rationing in the intensive care unit in case of full bed occupancy: a survey among intensive care unit physicians.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there is no consensus on how to best deal with admission requests in cases of full ICU bed occupancy. Knowledge about the degree of dissension and insight into the reasons for this dissension is lacking. Information about the opinion of ICU physicians can be used to improve decision-making regarding allocation of ICU resources. The aim of this study was to: Assess which factors play a role in the decision-making process regarding the admission of ICU patients; Assess the adherence to a Dutch guideline pertaining to rationing of ICU resources; Investigate factors influencing the adherence to this guideline. METHODS: In March 2013, an online questionnaire was sent to all ICU physician members (n = 761, in 90 hospitals) of the Dutch Society for Intensive Care. RESULTS: 166 physicians (21.8 %) working in 64 different Dutch hospitals (71.1 %) completed the questionnaire. Factors associated with a patient's physical condition and quality of life were generally considered most important in admission decisions. Scenario-based adherence to the Dutch guideline "Admission request in case of full ICU bed occupancy" was found to be low (adherence rate 50.0 %). There were two main reasons for this poor compliance: unfamiliarity with the guideline and disagreement with the fundamental approach underlying the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch ICU physicians disagree about how to deal with admission requests in cases of full ICU bed occupancy. The results of this study contribute to the discussion about the fundamental principles regarding admission of ICU patients in case of full bed occupancy.

Key-interventions derived from three evidence based guidelines for management and follow-up of patients with HFE haemochromatosis.

BACKGROUND: HFE-related hereditary haemochromatosis (HH) is a common autosomal recessive disorder with clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic disease to possible life-threatening complications. Cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, diabetes mellitus or osteoporosis can develop in HH patients not treated or monitored optimally. The purpose of this study was to develop key-interventions (KI's) to measure and improve the quality of care delivered to patients diagnosed with HH. METHODS: A RAND-Modified Delphi method was used to develop KI's. In the first round of a scoring form to prioritize the recommendations extracted from evidence-based guidelines was circulated between experts. The results of this survey were discussed in a consensus meeting, followed by a final appraisal of the selected recommendations. This resulted in a list of measurable KI's. RESULTS: Initially, 41 key recommendations on screening, diagnosis and treatment/management were extracted from three existing guidelines on HH (European Association for the Study of the Liver, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and Dutch guideline on HH). Finally, a core set of 24 recommendations resulted in 15 KI's. CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript presents the results of the process to develop KI's to measure and improve the quality of care for patients with HH.

Ethical problems in intensive care unit admission and discharge decisions: a qualitative study among physicians and nurses in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: There have been few empirical studies into what non-medical factors influence physicians and nurses when deciding about admission and discharge of ICU patients. Information about the attitudes of healthcare professionals about this process can be used to improve decision-making about resource allocation in intensive care. To provide insight into ethical problems that influence the ICU admission and discharge process, we aimed to identify and explore ethical dilemmas healthcare professionals are faced with. METHODS: This was an explorative, descriptive study using qualitative methods (individual and focus group interviews). We conducted 19 individual interviews and 4 focus group interviews with nurses and physicians working in the ICU or the general ward of 10 Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: The ethical problems in the context of ICU admission and discharge can be divided into problems concerning full bed occupancy and problems related to treatment decisions. The gap between the high level of care the ICU can provide and the lower care level in the general ward sometimes leads to mutual misunderstandings. Our results indicate that when professionals of different wards feel there is a collective responsibility and effort to solve a problem, this helps to prevent or alleviate moral distress. ICU patients' wishes are often unknown, causing healthcare professionals to err on the side of more treatment. Additionally, the highly technological nature of intensive care appears to encourage over-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for ICUs and general wards to communicate and cooperate well, since there is a mutual dependency for optimal patient flow between the different departments. Interventions that improve the understanding and cooperation between these wards may help mitigate ethical problems. The nature of the ICU environment makes it important for healthcare professionals to be aware of the risk of over-treatment, reflect on why they do what they do, and be mindful of a possible negative impact of over-treatment on their patients. Early discussion of a patient's wishes with regard to treatment options is important in preventing over-treatment.

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.

Organizational culture: an important context for addressing and improving hospital to community patient discharge.

BACKGROUND: Organizational culture is seen as having a growing impact on quality and safety of health care, but its impact on hospital to community patient discharge is relatively unknown. OBJECTIVES: To explore aspects of organizational culture to develop a deeper understanding of the discharge process. RESEARCH DESIGN: A qualitative study of stakeholders in the discharge process. Grounded Theory was used to analyze the data. SUBJECTS: In 5 European Union countries, 192 individual and 25 focus group interviews were conducted with patients and relatives, hospital physicians, hospital nurses, general practitioners, and community nurses. RESULTS: Three themes emerged representing aspects of organizational culture: a fragmented hospital to primary care interface, undervaluing administrative tasks relative to clinical tasks in the discharge process, and lack of reflection on the discharge process or process improvement. Nine categories were identified: inward focus of hospital care providers, lack of awareness to needs, skills, and work patterns of the professional counterpart, lack of a collaborative attitude, relationship between hospital and primary care providers, providing care in a "here and now" situation, administrative work considered to be burdensome, negative attitude toward feedback, handovers at discharge ruled by habits, and appreciating and integrating new practices. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the data, we hypothesize that the extent to which hospital care providers value handovers and the outreach to community care providers is critical to effective hospital discharge. Community care providers often are insufficiently informed about patient outcomes. Ongoing challenges with patient discharge often remain unspoken with opportunities for improvement overlooked. Interventions that address organizational culture as a key factor in discharge improvement efforts are needed.

Influence of adherence to a systematic care program for caregivers of dementia patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of adherence to the Systematic Care Program for Dementia (SCPD) intervention protocol on patient and caregiver outcomes. DESIGN: Data were drawn from the SCPD study-a single-blind, multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial. Multivariate regression analyses were used to assess the influence of adherence on patient and caregiver outcomes. SETTING: Six community mental health services (CMHSs) across the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight mental health professionals treating 125 patient-caregiver dyads who were referred to the CMHS because of suspected patient dementia. INTERVENTION: Training of professionals in the SCPD and its subsequent use. The SCPD consists of a systematic assessment of caregiver problems and consequent interventions. MEASUREMENTS: The dependent variables were caregiver's sense of competence, caregiver's depressive symptoms, caregiver's distress due to the patient's behavioral problems, and the severity of patient's behavioral problems. The main independent variables were adherence to the SCPD intervention protocol and the intensity of the SCPD interventions. The follow-up lasted 12 months. RESULTS: Caregivers treated by adhering professionals had a better sense of competence than caregivers treated by nonadhering professionals at follow-up. No differences between intervention groups and controls were found for the other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Nonadherence to the intervention protocol might be a reason for the difference found in the sense of competence between the intervention groups. Furthermore, the intensity of the SCPD might have been too low. Moreover, it might be that overburdened caregivers found it difficult to make effective use of the help offered to them. A qualitative process analysis should be executed to explore more in-depth clarifications.

A theoretical lens for revealing the complexity of chronic care.

The increasing prevalence of co-occurring multiple chronic conditions in an aging population has influenced the debate on complexity in chronic care and nowadays provides an impetus to the reform of numerous health systems. This article presents a theoretical lens for understanding the complexity of chronic care based on research and debate conducted in the context of multiple quality improvement programs over the last five years in Belgium and The Netherlands. We consider four major components of complexity in chronic care against a background of complex adaptive systems: (1) case (patient) complexity; (2) care complexity; (3) quality assessment complexity; and (4) health systems complexity. Each of these components represents a range of elements that contribute to the picture of complexity in chronic care. We emphasize that planning for chronic care requires equal attention to the complexity of all four components. It also requires multifaceted interventions and implementation strategies that target improvements in multiple outcomes related to the structural, process, and outcome components of care. Further empirical research is needed to assess the validity of our complexity framework in the health-care environment.

Effects of auditing patient safety in hospital care: design of a mixed-method evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Auditing of patient safety aims at early detection of risks of adverse events and is intended to encourage the continuous improvement of patient safety. The auditing should be an independent, objective assurance and consulting system. Auditing helps an organisation accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluating and improving the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance. Audits are broadly conducted in hospitals, but little is known about their effects on the behaviour of healthcare professionals and patient safety outcomes. This study was initiated to evaluate the effects of patient safety auditing in hospital care and to explore the processes and mechanisms underlying these effects. METHODS AND DESIGN: Our study aims to evaluate an audit system to monitor and improve patient safety in a hospital setting. We are using a mixed-method evaluation with a before-and-after study design in eight departments of one university hospital in the period October 2011-July 2014. We measure several outcomes 3 months before the audit and 15 months after the audit. The primary outcomes are adverse events and complications. The secondary outcomes are experiences of patients, the standardised mortality ratio, prolonged hospital stay, patient safety culture, and team climate. We use medical record reviews, questionnaires, hospital administrative data, and observations to assess the outcomes. A process evaluation will be used to find out which components of internal auditing determine the effects. DISCUSSION: We report a study protocol of an effect and process evaluation to determine whether auditing improves patient safety in hospital care. Because auditing is a complex intervention targeted on several levels, we are using a combination of methods to collect qualitative and quantitative data about patient safety at the patient, professional, and department levels. This study is relevant for hospitals that want to early detect unsafe care and improve patient safety continuously. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR3343.

Quality and safety of hospital discharge: a study on experiences and perceptions of patients, relatives and care providers.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers experienced and perceived at discharge by physicians, nurses, patients and relatives. DESIGN: We developed questionnaires based on focus group interviews with hospital and community care providers, and individual interviews with patients and relatives. A survey was conducted among patients, relatives and related nurses and physicians from hospital and community care. SETTING: One university hospital and the related community care area in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty health-care providers and eight patients and/or relatives participated in focus group and individual interviews. Questionnaires were returned by 344 health-care providers and 206 patients and relatives. RESULTS: Information from the hospital to community care is often incomplete, unclear and delayed. Especially hospital physicians (52%) and general practitioners (GPs; 63%) experience the quality of information exchanged from the hospital to the GP as poor. Coordination of care is often frustrated by a lack of care provider knowledge and collaboration. Hospital physicians (47%) and GPs (71%) feel that hospital physicians are often not sufficiently aware of the patient's home situation. Respectively, 59 and 81% experience that the GP is often not clearly informed about expected tasks and responsibilities at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study that provides a clear picture of the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders regarding handovers at hospital discharge. Lack of knowledge, understanding and interest between hospital and community care providers are important causes for ineffective and unsafe discharge. The study suggests that improvement efforts should be focused more on these aspects, as primary conditions for improving hospital discharge.

Improving patient handovers from hospital to primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that suboptimum handovers at hospital discharge lead to increased rehospitalizations and decreased quality of health care. PURPOSE: To systematically review interventions that aim to improve patient discharge from hospital to primary care. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for studies published between January 1990 and March 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of interventions that aimed to improve handovers between hospital and primary care providers at hospital discharge. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently abstracted data on study objectives, setting and design, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. Studies were categorized according to methodological quality, sample size, intervention characteristics, outcome, statistical significance, and direction of effects. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 36 included studies, 25 (69.4%) had statistically significant effects in favor of the intervention group and 34 (94.4%) described multicomponent interventions. Effective interventions included medication reconciliation; electronic tools to facilitate quick, clear, and structured summary generation; discharge planning; shared involvement in follow-up by hospital and community care providers; use of electronic discharge notifications; and Web-based access to discharge information for general practitioners. Statistically significant effects were mostly found in reducing hospital use (for example, rehospitalizations), improvement of continuity of care (for example, accurate discharge information), and improvement of patient status after discharge (for example, satisfaction). LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of the interventions and study characteristics made meta-analysis impossible. Most studies had diffuse aims and poor descriptions of the specific intervention components. CONCLUSION: Many interventions have positive effects on patient care. However, given the complexity of interventions and outcome measures, the literature does not permit firm conclusions about which interventions have these effects. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The European Union, the Framework Programme of the European Commission.