Frequency and estimated costs of ten low-value practices in the Spanish primary care: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of low-value practices (LVPs) in the healthcare system is a worldwide challenge. This study aimed to evaluate the LVPs trend in Spanish primary care (PC), its frequency in both sexes, and estimate its related extra cost. METHODS: A multicentric, retrospective, and national research project was conducted. Ten LVPs highly frequent and potentially harmful for patients were analyzed (majority of them related to prescription). Algorithms were applied to collect the data from 28,872,851 episodes registered into national databases (2015-2017). RESULTS: LVPs registered a total of 7,160,952 (26.5%) episodes plus a total of 259,326 avoidable PSA screening tests. In adults, a high frequency was found for inadequate prescription of paracetamol antibiotics, and benzodiazepines . Women received more jeopardizing practices (p ≤ 0.001). Pediatrics presented a downward of antibiotic and paracetamol-ibuprofen prescription combination. The estimated extra cost was close to €292 million (2.8% of the total cost in PC). CONCLUSION: LVPs reduction during the analyzed period was moderate compared to studies following 'Choosing Wisely list' of LVPs and must improve to reduce patient risk and the extra related costs.

SOBRINA Spanish study-analysing the frequency, cost and adverse events associated with overuse in primary care: protocol for a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Several institutions and quality national agencies have fostered the creation of recommendations on what not to do to reduce overuse in clinical practice. In primary care, their impact has hardly been studied. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) associated with doing what must not be done has not been analysed, either. The aim of this study is to measure the frequency of overuse and AEs associated with doing what must not be done (commission errors) in primary care and their cost. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A coordinated, multicentric, national project. A retrospective cohort study using computerised databases of primary care medical records from national agencies and regional health services will be conducted to analyse the frequency of the overuse due to ignore the do-not-do recommendations, and immediately afterwards, depending on their frequency, a representative random sample of medical records will be reviewed with algorithms (triggers) that determine the frequency of AEs associated with these recommendations. Cost will determine by summation of the direct costs due to the consultation, pharmacy, laboratory and imaging activities according to the cases. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Primary Care Research of the Valencian Community. We aim to disseminate the findings through international peer-reviewed journals and on the website (http://www.nohacer.es/). Outcomes will be used to incorporate algorithms into the electronic history to assist in making clinical decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03482232; Pre-results.

Low-value clinical practices and harm caused by non-adherence to 'do not do' recommendations in primary care in Spain: a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the non-adherence to the primary care 'do not do' recommendations (DNDs) and their likelihood to cause harm. DESIGN: Delphi study. SETTING: Spanish National Health System. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 128 professionals were recruited (50 general practitioners [GPs], 28 pediatricians [PEDs], 31 nurses who care for adult patients [RNs] and 19 pediatric nurses [PNs]). INTERVENTIONS: A selection of 27 DNDs directed at GPs, 8 at PEDs, 9 at RNs and 4 at PNs were included in the Delphi technique. A 10-point scale was used to assess whether a given practice was still present and the likelihood of it causing of an adverse event. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Impact calculated by multiplying an event's frequency and likelihood to cause harm. RESULTS: A total of 100 professionals responded to wave 1 (78% response rate) and 97 of them to wave 2 (97% response rate). In all, 22% (6/27) of the practices for GPs, 12% (1/8) for PEDs, 33% (3/9) for RNs and none for PNs were cataloged as frequent. A total of 37% (10/27) of these practices for GPs, 25% (2/8) for PEDs, 33% (3/9) for RNs and 25% (1/4) for PNs were considered as potential causes of harm. Only 26% (7/27) of the DNDs for GPs showed scores equal to or higher than 36 points. The impact measure was higher for ordering benzodiazepines to treat insomnia, agitation or delirium in elderly patients (mean = 57.8, SD = 25.3). CONCLUSIONS: Low-value and potentially dangerous practices were identified; avoiding these could improve care quality.

Drivers and strategies for avoiding overuse. A cross-sectional study to explore the experience of Spanish primary care providers handling uncertainty and patients' requests.

OBJECTIVES: Identify the sources of overuse from the point of view of the Spanish primary care professionals, and analyse the frequency of overuse due to pressure from patients in addition to the responses when professionals face these demands. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary care in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: A non-randomised sample of 2201 providers (general practitioners, paediatricians and nurses) was recruited during the survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency, causes and responsibility for overuse, the frequency that patients demand unnecessary tests or procedures, the profile of the most demanding patients, and arguments for dissuading the patient. RESULTS: In all, 936 general practitioners, 682 paediatricians and 286 nurses replied (response rate 18.6%). Patient requests (67%) and defensive medicine (40%) were the most cited causes of overuse. Five hundred and twenty-two (27%) received requests from their patients almost every day for unnecessary tests or procedures, and 132 (7%) recognised granting the requests. The lack of time in consultation, and information about new medical advances and treatments that patients could find on printed and digital media, contributed to the professional's inability to adequately counter this pressure by patients. Clinical safety (49.9%) and evidence (39.4%) were the arguments that dissuaded patients from their requests the most. Cost savings was not a convincing argument (6.8%), above all for paediatricians (4.3%). General practitioners resisted more pressure from their patients (x2=88.8, P<0.001, percentage difference (PD)=17.0), while nurses admitted to carrying out more unnecessary procedures (x2=175.7, P<0.001, PD=12.3). CONCLUSION: Satisfying the patient and patient uncertainty about what should be done and defensive medicine practices explains some of the frequent causes of overuse. Safety arguments are useful to dissuade patients from their requests.

Lessons learned for reducing the negative impact of adverse events on patients, health professionals and healthcare organizations.

PURPOSE: To summarize the knowledge about the aftermath of adverse events (AEs) and develop a recommendation set to reduce their negative impact in patients, health professionals and organizations in contexts where there is no previous experiences and apology laws are not present. DATA SOURCES: Review studies published between 2000 and 2015, institutional websites and experts' opinions on patient safety. STUDY SELECTION: Studies published and websites on open disclosure, and the second and third victims' phenomenon. Four Focus Groups participating 27 healthcare professionals. DATA EXTRACTION: Study characteristic and outcome data were abstracted by two authors and reviewed by the research team. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen publications and 16 websites were reviewed. The recommendations were structured around eight areas: (i) safety and organizational policies, (ii) patient care, (iii) proactive approach to preventing reoccurrence, (iv) supporting the clinician and healthcare team, (v) activation of resources to provide an appropriate response, (vi) informing patients and/or family members, (vii) incidents' analysis and (viii) protecting the reputation of health professionals and the organization. CONCLUSION: Recommendations preventing aftermath of AEs have been identified. These have been designed for the hospital and the primary care settings; to cope with patient's emotions and for tacking the impact of AE in the second victim's colleagues. Its systematic use should help for the establishment of organizational action plans after an AE.

The Second Victim Phenomenon After a Clinical Error: The Design and Evaluation of a Website to Reduce Caregivers' Emotional Responses After a Clinical Error.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (incidents that harm a patient) can also produce emotional hardship for the professionals involved (second victims). Although a few international pioneering programs exist that aim to facilitate the recovery of the second victim, there are no known initiatives that aim to raise awareness in the professional community about this issue and prevent the situation from worsening. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to design and evaluate an online program directed at frontline hospital and primary care health professionals that raises awareness and provides information about the second victim phenomenon. METHODS: The design of the Mitigating Impact in Second Victims (MISE) online program was based on a literature review, and its contents were selected by a group of 15 experts on patient safety with experience in both clinical and academic settings. The website hosting MISE was subjected to an accreditation process by an external quality agency that specializes in evaluating health websites. The MISE structure and content were evaluated by 26 patient safety managers at hospitals and within primary care in addition to 266 frontline health care professionals who followed the program, taking into account its comprehension, usefulness of the information, and general adequacy. Finally, the amount of knowledge gained from the program was assessed with three objective measures (pre- and posttest design). RESULTS: The website earned Advanced Accreditation for health websites after fulfilling required standards. The comprehension and practical value of the MISE content were positively assessed by 88% (23/26) and 92% (24/26) of patient safety managers, respectively. MISE was positively evaluated by health care professionals, who awarded it 8.8 points out of a maximum 10. Users who finished MISE improved their knowledge on patient safety terminology, prevalence and impact of adverse events and clinical errors, second victim support models, and recommended actions following a severe adverse event (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The MISE program differs from existing intervention initiatives by its preventive nature in relation to the second victim phenomenon. Its online nature makes it an easily accessible tool for the professional community. This program has shown to increase user's knowledge on this issue and it helps them correct their approach. Furthermore, it is one of the first initiatives to attempt to bring the second victim phenomenon closer to primary care.

What, who, when, where and how to inform patients after an adverse event: a qualitative study. / Qué, quién, cuándo, dónde y cómo informar a los pacientes tras un evento adverso: un estudio cualitativo.

OBJECTIVE: To explore suggestions and recommendations for conducting open disclosure with a patient after an adverse event in a setting without professionals' legal privileges. METHOD: Qualitative study conducting focus groups/Metaplan. This study was conducted with physicians and nurses from Primary Care and Hospitals working in the public health system in Spain. RESULTS: Twenty-seven professionals were involved 8-30 years of experience, 15 (56%) medical and 12 (44%) nurses, 13 (48%) worked in hospitals. Consensus was obtained on: how (honesty and open and direct language), where (avoid corridors, with privacy), and when to disclose (with agility but without precipitation, once information is obtained, and after reflecting on the most suitable according to the nature of the AE). There was controversy as to what to say to the patient when the AE had serious consequences and doubts about what type of incidents must be reported; who should be required to disclose (the professional involved in the AE or other professional related to the patient, the role of the staff and the management team); and in which cases an apology can be a problem. CONCLUSIONS: The severity of the AE determines who should talk with the patient in both hospital and primary care. The most appropriate way to convey an apology to the patient depends of the AE. An early, direct, empathetic and proactive action accompanied by information about compensation for the harm suffered could reduce the litigation intention.

Type-2 diabetes primary prevention program implemented in routine primary care: a process evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Process evaluation studies are recommended to improve our understanding of underlying mechanisms related to clinicians, patients, context and intervention delivery that may impact on trial or program results and on their potential transferability to practice. This paper aims to document the translation of a type-2 diabetes (T2D) prevention program into the routine context of several primary care centers, assessing process indicators related to clinician adoption, patient recruitment, exposure to the intervention components and baseline characteristics. METHODS: An observational descriptive process evaluation study was conducted of the 2.5-year implementation of the Prevention of Diabetes in Euskadi cluster randomized trial in 14 primary care centers of the Basque Health Service (Osakidetza). The clinical intervention consisted of three components: (1) risk screening, (2) an educational intervention promoting healthy lifestyles, and (3) remote support (follow-up). A passive dissemination strategy of providing training and materials was used to translate the intervention into practice. All non-diabetic patients aged 45 to 70 years who were identified as being at high risk of developing T2D were eligible for study inclusion. The RE-AIM framework guided the process evaluation. RESULTS: Overall, 31.4 % of family physicians and 57.6 % of nurses participated in the study, while 4170 out of 67,293 (6.2 %) targeted patients who attended the centers during the implementation period were reached through the screening. Around half of the screened patients were identified as being at high risk of developing T2D (FINDRISC score ≥14). The rate of refusal to participate and the proportion of women were higher in the intervention group. Finally, 634 and 454 non-diabetic 45- to 70-year-old patients who were at high risk of T2D were included in the control and intervention group centers (intervention reach = 48 %). Significant variability in most process indicators was observed at center level. CONCLUSION: The passive dissemination strategy has produced modest process indicators related to the adoption, reach and implementation of the intervention program, and reduced the possibility of its standardized application in heterogeneous contexts. The resulting different procedures and strategies used by the centers were associated with process outcomes. Context-specific variability and possible confounding will require rigorous procedures for analysis of the intervention effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01365013 ). Registered on June 2011.

Interventions in health organisations to reduce the impact of adverse events in second and third victims.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AE) are also the cause of suffering in health professionals involved. This study was designed to identify and analyse organization-level strategies adopted in both primary care and hospitals in Spain to address the impact of serious AE on second and third victims. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in healthcare organizations assessing: safety culture; health organization crisis management plans for serious AE; actions planned to ensure transparency in communication with patients (and relatives) who experience an AE; support for second victims; and protective measures to safeguard the institution's reputation (the third victim). RESULTS: A total of 406 managers and patient safety coordinators replied to the survey. Deficient provision of support for second victims was acknowledged by 71 and 61% of the participants from hospitals and primary care respectively; these respondents reported there was no support protocol for second victims in place in their organizations. Regarding third victim initiatives, 35% of hospital and 43% of primary care professionals indicated no crisis management plan for serious AE existed in their organization, and in the case of primary care, there was no crisis committee in 34% of cases. The degree of implementation of second and third victim support interventions was perceived to be greater in hospitals (mean 14.1, SD 3.5) than in primary care (mean 11.8, SD 3.1) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Many Spanish health organizations do not have a second and third victim support or a crisis management plan in place to respond to serious AEs.

The aftermath of adverse events in Spanish primary care and hospital health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) cause harm in patients and disturbance for the professionals involved in the event (second victims). This study assessed the impact of AEs in primary care (PC) and hospitals in Spain on second victims. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted. We carried out a survey based on a random sample of doctors and nurses from PC and hospital settings in Spain. A total of 1087 health professionals responded, 610 from PC and 477 from hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 430 health professionals (39.6%) had informed a patient of an error. Reporting to patients was carried out by those with the strongest safety culture (Odds Ratio -OR- 1.1, 95% Confidence Interval -CI- 1.0-1.2), nurses (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.3), those under 50 years of age (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and primary care staff (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9). A total of 381 (62.5%, 95% CI 59-66%) and 346 (72.5%, IC95% 69-77%) primary care and hospital health professionals, respectively, reported having gone through the second-victim experience, either directly or through a colleague, in the previous 5 years. The emotional responses were: feelings of guilt (521, 58.8%), anxiety (426, 49.6%), re-living the event (360, 42.2%), tiredness (341, 39.4%), insomnia (317, 38.0%) and persistent feelings of insecurity (284, 32.8%). In doctors, the most common responses were: feelings of guilt (OR 0.7 IC95% 0.6-0.8), re-living the event (OR 0.7, IC95% o.6-0.8), and anxiety (OR 0.8, IC95% 0.6-0.9), while nurses showed greater solidarity in terms of supporting the second victim, in both PC (p = 0.019) and hospital (p = 0.019) settings. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events cause guilt, anxiety, and loss of confidence in health professionals. Most are involved in such events as second victims at least once in their careers. They rarely receive any training or education on coping strategies for this phenomenon.