Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Prehosp Emerg Care ; 22(6): 762-772, 2018.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29787325

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A minimal amount of research exists examining the extent to which patient safety events occur within paramedicine and even fewer studies investigating patient safety systems for self-reporting by paramedics. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to paramedic self-reporting of patient safety incidents (PSIs). METHODS: We randomly distributed paper-based surveys among 1,153 paramedics in an Ontario region in Canada. The survey described one of 5 different PSI clinical scenarios (near miss, adverse event, and minor, major or critical patient care variances) and listed 18 potential barriers to self-reporting PSIs as statements presented for rating on a 5-point Likert scale (very significant = 1 - very insignificant = 5). We invited comments on PSI self-reporting with 2 open-ended questions. We analyzed data with descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and Kruskal-Wallis H test. We used an inductive approach to qualitatively analyze emerging themes. RESULTS: We received responses from 1,133 paramedics (98.3%). Almost one third (28.4%) were Advanced Care Paramedics and 45.1% had >10 years' experience. The top 5 barriers to PSI self-reporting (very significant or significant, %) were the fear of being: punished (81.4%), suspended (79.6%), terminated (79.1%), investigated by Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (78.4%), and decertified (78.0%). Overall, 64.1% responded they would self-report a given PSI. Intention to self-report a PSI varied according to scenario (22.8% near miss, 46.6% adverse event, 74.4% minor, 92.6% major, 95.6% critical). No association was found between level of training (p = 0.55) or years of experience (p = 0.10) and intention to self-report a PSI. Seven themes to improve PSI self-reporting by paramedics emerged from the qualitative data. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of fear-based barriers to self-reporting of PSIs exist among this study population. This suggests that a culture change is needed to facilitate the identification of future patient safety threats.


Asunto(s)
Auxiliares de Urgencia , Errores Médicos , Seguridad del Paciente , Autoinforme , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Humanos , Masculino , Ontario , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
2.
Ann Emerg Med ; 54(5): 663-671.e1, 2009 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19394111

RESUMEN

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We designed the Canadian C-Spine Rule for the clinical clearance of the cervical spine, without need for diagnostic imaging, in alert and stable trauma patients. Emergency physicians previously validated the Canadian C-Spine Rule in 8,283 patients. This study prospectively evaluates the performance characteristics, reliability, and clinical sensibility of the Canadian C-Spine Rule when used by paramedics in the out-of-hospital setting. METHODS: We conducted this prospective cohort study in 7 Canadian regions and involved alert (Glasgow Coma Scale score 15) and stable adult trauma patients at risk for neck injury. Advanced and basic care paramedics interpreted the Canadian C-Spine Rule status for all patients, who then underwent immobilization and assessment in the emergency department to determine the outcome, clinically important cervical spine injury. RESULTS: The 1,949 patients enrolled had these characteristics: median age 39.0 years (interquartile range 26 to 52 years), female patients 50.8%, motor vehicle crash 62.5%, fall 19.9%, admitted to the hospital 10.8%, clinically important cervical spine injury 0.6%, unimportant injury 0.3%, and internal fixation 0.3%. The paramedics classified patients for 12 important injuries with sensitivity 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74% to 100%) and specificity 37.7% (95% CI 36% to 40%). The kappa value for paramedic interpretation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule (n=155) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.99). Paramedics conservatively misinterpreted the rule in 320 (16.4%) patients and were comfortable applying the rule in 1,594 (81.7%). Seven hundred thirty-one (37.7%) out-of-hospital immobilizations could have been avoided with the Canadian C-Spine Rule. CONCLUSION: This study found that paramedics can apply the Canadian C-Spine Rule reliably, without missing any important cervical spine injuries. The adoption of the Canadian C-Spine Rule by paramedics could significantly reduce the number of out-of-hospital cervical spine immobilizations.


Asunto(s)
Vértebras Cervicales/lesiones , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/normas , Auxiliares de Urgencia/normas , Traumatismos Vertebrales/diagnóstico , Traumatismos Vertebrales/terapia , Adulto , Canadá , Competencia Clínica , Estudios de Cohortes , Intervalos de Confianza , Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Inmovilización/métodos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Traumatismos del Cuello/diagnóstico , Traumatismos del Cuello/terapia , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Medición de Riesgo , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Procedimientos Innecesarios/estadística & datos numéricos , Heridas no Penetrantes/diagnóstico , Heridas no Penetrantes/terapia
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA