«Do Not Do¼ recommendations for retinopathies: A mixed consensus study.

PURPOSE: Among the main causes of blindness and severe vision loss are age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular oedema, and retinal vein occlusion. The «Do Not Do¼ recommendations are strategies to improve quality of care and optimise healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to establish, by consensus, practices of low value in the above-mentioned pathologies, in addition to estimating their occurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mixed methods study including a first phase of consensus of a multidisciplinary panel of experts using the Nominal Group technique. In the second phase, a retrospective observational study was conducted, by conducting a review of medical records. RESULTS: A total of 7 recommendations were established for age-related macular degeneration, 4 for diabetic macular oedema, and 5 for retinal vein occlusion. A total of 1,012 medical records were reviewed by the 4 participating hospitals. The review of medical records revealed that agreed «Do Not Do's¼ occurred in a range between 0.6% and 31.4% of the cases included in the study. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified «Do Not Do¼ recommendations in these pathologies that occur relatively often in clinical practice. It is necessary to review the healthcare processes that will enable these practices to be eradicated, and the quality of care to be improved.

Frequency of outpatient care adverse events in an occupational mutual insurance company in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Occupational mutual insurance companies (OMICs), in collaboration with the Spanish Social Security System, provide healthcare and manage the economic benefits for the workers in Spain. They have ambulatory care centers that attend outpatient trauma pathology, although most of the studies published have focused on surgical and hospital activity. The aim of this study was to detect adverse events (AEs) in outpatient trauma care in the context of an OMIC. METHODS: A cohort study designed to identify harmful safety incidents (adverse events, AEs) in 2017 was conducted. A random sample of 313 medical records among patients who were visited more than 3 medical and nursing attendances during their outpatient process. The AEs detected were classified according to category, severity and preventability. RESULTS: We identified 48 AEs (15.3% of medical records, 95% CI 11.3-19.3), most of them procedure-related, while 27 (56.2%) were preventable and 46 mild (95.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The AEs identified are double than those found in primary care general consultations in Spain and are close to the lower range of studies on surgical AEs in traumatology and orthopedics. Preventable AEs were within expected limits. Over half of AEs are preventable, within that group, the mild AEs have an increased rate of preventability. These results highlight the relevance of research of patient safety in the outpatient care of trauma and orthopaedic procedures in an OMIC for patient safety and contribute to introduce improvements in outpatient care.

Bed 13 is not worse than any other. A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Risk management and patient safety are closely related, following this premise some industries have adopted measures to omit number 13. Healthcare is not left behind, in some hospital the day of surgery's or bed numbering avoid number 13. The objective was to assess whether it is necessary to redesign the safety policies implemented in hospitals based on avoiding 13 in the numbering of rooms/beds. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Mortality and the number of adverse events suffered by patients admitted to rooms/beds numbering 13 (bad chance) or 7 (fair chance) over a two-year period to Intensive Care Unit, Medicine, Gastroenterology, Surgery, and Paediatric service were registered and compared. RESULTS: A total of 8553 admissions were included. They had similar length-of-stay and Charlson Index scores (p-value=0.435). Mortality of bed 13 was 268 (6.2%, 95% CI 5.5-6.9) and 282 in bed 7 (6.7%, 95% CI 5.9-7.5) (p-value=0.3). A total of 422 adverse events from 4342 admissions (9.7%, 95% CI 8.9-10.6) occurred in bed 13, while in bed 7 the count of adverse events was 398 in 4211 admissions (9.4%, 95% CI 8.6-10.4) (p-value=0.6). Odds Ratio for mortality was equal to 0.9 (95% CI 0.8-1.1) and suffering adverse events when admitted to bed 13 versus bed 7 was 1.03 (95% CI 0.9-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Bed 13 is not a risk factor for patient safety. Hospitals should pay attention to causes and interventions to avoid adverse events based on evidence rather than beliefs or myths.

[The perception of care received by patients with actinic keratosis]. / La percepción del proceso asistencial de pacientes con queratosis actínica.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse barriers limiting an integral approach in the care process of patients with actinic keratosis, and to validate a questionnaire of their perception in order to assess this approach. METHOD: A qualitative study (Focus Group) was conducted to assess the perception of the healthcare process of professionals (dermatologists, family doctors, nurses, pharmacists and managers), and patients. A validation study of a new tool was conducted, defining the scope and contents of a questionnaire of perceived quality. Reliability, consistency and validity were analysed after inviting a convenience sample of 225 patients to respond. RESULTS: Underdiagnosis in primary care, a higher variability in resources, and access to the health care circuit, together with gaps in patient information about actinic keratosis, are relevant barriers to achieve comprehensive care in this disease condition. The result of the focus groups advised to elaborate 14 reactive items. A total of 224 patients responded (mean age 71.6, SD 11.1), of which 153 (68%) were men. Two factors were isolated including 12 items (explained variance of 58%). The consistency of this factorial solution was .87, the split-half reliability being .76, with the scores in the factors showing an adequate predictive capacity. CONCLUSIONS: The coordination between levels and to reduce to variability in equipment and clinical decision making in Primary Care are the most prominent barriers. The questionnaire has appropriate metric properties and it explores the information and care by the medical staff and the information and advice provided by the pharmacist.

[How do primary care patients perceive information for involving themselves in self-care?]. / ¿Cómo perciben los pacientes de las consultas de Atención Primaria la información para implicarse en su autocuidado?

BACKGROUND: Analyze if patients receive information from their GPs to engage in self-management (medication,physical exercise or diet). METHODS: A descriptive study in which 2,401 randomly selected, primary care patients were interviewed by telephone. A short scale of 6 questions was used to analyze if they received information for self-care. Statistics included analyzing differences according to age,sex, occurrence of security incidents, whether they regularly attended the physician's surgery and length of consultation time. RESULTS: A total of 2,350 patients responded (97.9%response rate). A total of 1,253 (34.6%) of respondents obtained 5 or more points on the scale (percentile 50).Receiving information about foreseeable prognosis increased satisfaction (OR 11.2 (95% 8.3-15.3). Consultation time length (p<0.01), regularly visiting physicians(p<0.01), and not suffering an adverse event (p<0.01)were associated with higher scores on the scale. CONCLUSIONS: Patients report they receive directions for the proper management of medication at home, but claim that they receive less information to engage in healthy behaviors.

[Assessment of two applications of medication self-management in older patients. Qualitative study]. / Valoración de dos aplicaciones para la autogestión de la medicación en pacientes mayores. Estudio cualitativo.

INTRODUCTION: The aging population and the growing use of technology are two realities of modern society. Developing tools to support medication self-management to polymedicated elderly may contribute to increase their safety. OBJECTIVE: To know how patients polymedicated and older than 64 years manage dose their medication and assessment the utility of two medication self-management applications, specifically analyzing management systems, medication errors and positive and improvable aspects of each of the tools presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven focal groups with 59 patients from associations and health departments were conducted. In such meetings, they received the applications and they were encouraged to use it. Then, a several group questions were asked them about their health status, how they managed their medication and their assessment about the applications. RESULTS: Most participants reported to use memory strategies to take correctly their medication. They assessed positively the applications although some of them showed resistance to incorporate it in their daily routine. The simple interface and ease of use were the characteristics of the applications most appreciated by patients. CONCLUSIONS: Is possible to foster among elderly patients the use of technological tools to support the proper administration of medications with purpose is to decrease errors and increase safety. When designing health applications is necessary to take into account the preferences of those who are targeted.

[Results assessment of the Valencian Community Cancer Plan: the point of view of patients, relatives, citizens and professionals]. / Valoración de los resultados del Plan Oncológico 2007-2010 de la Comunidad Valenciana: el punto de vista de los pacientes, familiares, ciudadanos y profesionales.

OBJECTIVE: To assess stakeholders' perceptions (i.e. patients, relatives, the public, and professionals) about results of the Valencian Community Cancer Plan (POCV). METHODS: Qualitative analysis (34 participants in 2 interview groups, and 37 participants in 4 focus groups) and quantitative analysis (470 opinion surveys) was combined in a descriptive study. RESULTS: The POCV's existence is highlighted as a positive factor. It has managed to send the message that "cancer can be cured" to the population. The key aims have been defined, criteria have been unified, and there have been achieved the Tumor Committees contribute most to make a multidisciplinary care. The plan is considered innovative, especially because the Genetic Counseling Program was included. Citizens leaders and patient associations find the Breast Cancer Program as the best known and the most valued, while the Colorectal Cancer Program is the least known. In both methodologies, qualitative groups and the online survey conducted on the professionals, it is concluded that the Tumor Committees, the vaginal cytology recommendation for cervical cancer prevention, and the message transmission that "cancer can be cured" are positively assessed. CONCLUSIONS: POCV 07-10 assessments are generally positive, with occasional exceptions that are clearly identified. The qualitative and quantitative information obtained in the different analyses is almost coincident.

[Patients informing of adverse events. Results in diabetes and kidney disease]. / Pacientes como informadores de eventos adversos. Resultados en diabetes y enfermedad renal.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes and kidney disease are risk factors for adverse events (AE). There are no other studies on the perception of risk in these patients. This study analyzes the frequency of adverse event triggers reported by diabetic and renal patients and their perception of the risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive study based on interviews with randomly selected patients. Field study conducted between February and May 2010 in three health centers and two hospitals in Alicante and Madrid. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients answered, 98 diabetic patients and 101 renal patients. Renal patients accumulated more AE triggers (21.8% referred to an AE trigger, 17.8% two AE triggers and 3% referred to > 3 AE triggers) than diabetic patients (16.3% referred to one AE trigger, 7.1% to two AE triggers and 7.1% referred to > 3 AE triggers). During the last year 6/98 diabetic patients and 10/101 renal patients required additional treatment due to a clinical error. The probability of the patient being the victim of a clinical error with serious consequences was 1:10. Women with renal illness believed themselves to have a greater probability of suffering an error (Chi2=12.7, p=0.002). Errors were attributed to a lack of time to attend to all patients and a lack of means and resources, without statistically significant differences between the subsamples. Interviewed patients considered that the risks of suffering a traffic accident or robbery were similar to the risk of an error with serious consequences. CONCLUSION: Information provided by patients can help improve safety procedures.

[Quality assurance in cancer. Acceptable delays in deciding the therapeutic plan in breast cancer and colorectal cancer]. / Calidad de la atención al paciente oncológico. Tiempos asistenciales recomendables entre sospecha clínica y definición del plan terapéutico en cáncer.

BACKGROUND: To determine recommended delays for treatment once there is well-founded clinical suspicion in care processes for breast and colorectal cancer, taking into account resources and the psychological well-being of the patients. METHOD: A qualitative study among professionals. The study was conducted in two phases. Firstly, during 4 sessions (N=19) we conducted a revision of the care processes of breast cancer and colorectal cancer and fixed desirable times. Secondly, through a modification of the Delphi technique (N=49), the proposed times for each care process were validated. RESULTS: Delphi response rates of 69% and 58% for colorectal and breast processes respectively. The recommended time in the case of non-invasive breast cancer was 5 to 6 weeks. If the cancer was invasive and nuclear medicine was used for sentinel node study or axillary clearance 5 to 7 weeks were recommended. In the case of cancer of the colon and rectum 7 to 13 weeks were considered necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer treatment should be started before six weeks. In colorectal cancer up to three months could be required. An interdisciplinary review of care processes relying on professionals is useful for establishing realistic quality standards.

[Quality of information on adverse events provided by the surgical patient]. / Calidad de la información que proporciona el paciente quirúrgico sobre eventos adversos.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients are a good information source on the occurrence of adverse events (AE). DESIGN: Analytical retrospective study using in-depth interviews in a double-blind protocol, and in parallel, to ensure whether the patient had actually suffered an AE. The Harvard method was also applied to review the medical records using a screening guide. Agreement between the physician and patient point of view of the surgery outcome was also estimated. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 28 randomly selected surgical patients discharged from a general hospital were interviewed. Ten patients (28% of the total suffering an AE yearly) who had experienced an AE, confirmed after a medical record review, and 18 patients who did not suffer an AE. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient for the agreement between the medical criterion and the patient point of view was 0.35 (95% CI; 0.2-0.6), and the number of correct classifications was 20/28 (71%, 95% CI; 51-86). Reporting an error reduces the likelihood of the hospital being considered as safe (Fisher's exact p=0.012). Errors were attributed to workload and to the intrinsic randomness of human activity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients can contribute in identifying an AE affecting them in a reasonable manner, providing us with additional information for enhancing patient safety and the quality of medical records.

What makes hospitalized patients more vulnerable and increases their risk of experiencing an adverse event?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between the appearance of adverse events (AEs) and both patient comorbidities and the use of medical devices. DESIGN: Retrospective medical records review study. SETTING: Twenty-four Spanish public hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Clinical records of 5624 discharged patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of AEs. RESULTS: Patients aged >65 have 2.4 times the risk of experiencing an AE compared with those aged <65. The presence of certain comorbidities and devices (neoplasia, chronic hepatic alteration, cardiac insufficiency, coronary disease, high blood pressure, urethral catheterization, catheterization of a vessel, tracheostomy or stay of >7 days) were associated with developing an AE during hospitalization. There is a trend effect if we consider the number of comorbidities and the number of devices used. Thus, the risk of an AE in subjects who present no comorbidities was 3.2%, which rose to 9.9% in those with one intrinsic risk factor, 16.7% in those with two and 29.3% in those with three or more. Similarly, subjects without extrinsic risk factor experienced an AE in 4.4% of cases, which rose to 9.6% when there was one risk factor, to 13.4% when there were two and to 33.0% when there were three or more risk factors. The effect of some of these pathologies and that associated with age disappeared on adjusting in line with other variables. CONCLUSIONS: The true risk resides in the number of exposures to potentially iatrogenic actions, rather than being intrinsic to age or the presence of certain comorbidities.

Adverse events in hospitals: the patient's point of view.

BACKGROUND: The publication of the report "To err is human: building a safer system" by the Institute of Medicine incited a profuse research addressing improvements in healthcare safety. However, there is still little acknowledgement of the key role of the patient in preventing adverse events of medical care. The aim of this review is to analyse and compare studies about patient's perception and opinion about care safety in hospitals. METHODS: We searched 10 databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation, IME, Sociological Abstracts, LILACS and The Cochrane Library) to identify articles and reports on patient's safety perception published between 1989 and 2006. RESULTS: From the 699 articles, 18 were selected: eight determined the frequency of experiences related to adverse events and the safety perception reported by patients, seven focused on the impact of the adverse events regarding the communication to the patient, and three included patient's opinions about the management and disclosure of adverse events and proposals to prevent them. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of adverse events reported by patients was similar to that estimated by other procedures. The patient's concept of adverse events was different from that of the physician. The quality of communication from the physician influenced the patient's perception of adverse events, and the majority wanted adverse events to be disclosed. Patients emphasised emotional consequences of the adverse events. The majority supported system modifications to prevent adverse events and to sanction the physicians when an adverse event occurs.

[How to identify adverse events in emergency services? A guide agreed for the screening]. / ¿Cómo identificar los efectos adversos en urgencias? Una guía consensuada para el cribado.

OBJECTIVE: Since a third of adverse events (AE) occur outside hospital, the Emergency Services are a suitable place to look at their incidence. We considered designing a screening guide, adapted to the conditions of the emergency services, to identify AE. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative technique was applied (nominal group) in which 14 professionals participated. They analysed which factors of intrinsic risk, extrinsic risk, and alert conditions, were suitable for a screening guide of AE in emergency services. The session was chaired by a specialist in these types of techniques. RESULTS: Consensus was high in that the most frequent AE in emergencies were those related to medicines, diagnostic tests and with the correct identification of the reason for emergency. With respect to screening guide, the group proposed adding alcohol abuse, patient social problems, cognitive deterioration, basal autonomy and disability. In relation to extrinsic risk factors, they pointed to the need of including defibrillation, spinal tap or drainage implantation. With respect to the alert conditions form, the professionals agreed in that all the criteria seemed correct and suitable, except for that related to damage relation childbirth or amniocentesis. CONCLUSIONS: By using this technique we have managed to validate materials already recognized, and widely used in our country. The screening guide was considered useful, with slight modifications in some risk factors and alert conditions. The professionals agreed that the MRF2 modular questionnaire is appropriate for the characterisation of AE in emergencies.

[Perceptions of clinical safety after hospital discharge]. / Percepción de seguridad clínica tras el alta hospitalaria.

OBJECTIVE: Patient perception of clinical safety has been scantly studied. This study describes the frequency of clinical errors from a patient point of view, their perception of safety and its relationship with the information received. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive study based on a postal survey to 336 surgical patients, 20 days after the discharge from the hospital (the corrected rate of response is 75.58%, the error is 5.7% for a confidence level of 95%). RESULTS: In the responses, 13.05% (95% CI, 9.16-16.95%) reported suffering a clinical error. Of these, 10.5% had severe complications. This experience decreases the perception of safety in future treatments (p = 0.0001). The risk of being a victim of a medical error with serious consequences is high was considered by 11.9% (95% CI, 7.2-16.6%) of the patients, although less than suffering from a traffic accident, a robbery or a serious illness. A higher frequency in the media related to medical mistakes, decreases the perception of safety (p < .001). The patients who positively value the information received regarding the treatment and who can formulate questions to ask the doctor are those who report less errors (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A total of 1.37% of surgical patients report mistakes with severe consequences, whereas 12% believe that the risk of a mistake with serious consequences is high. Distrust increases after an error. Improving communication with the patient helps to reduce mistakes, which strengthens the role of programs to increase safety that encourage more active patient involvement.