Improving quality and patient safety in surgical care through standardisation and harmonisation of perioperative care (SAFEST project): A research protocol for a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse events in health care affect 8% to 12% of patients admitted to hospitals in the European Union (EU), with surgical adverse events being the most common types reported. AIM: SAFEST project aims to enhance perioperative care quality and patient safety by establishing and implementing widely supported evidence-based perioperative patient safety practices to reduce surgical adverse events. METHODS: We will conduct a mixed-methods hybrid type III implementation study supporting the development and adoption of evidence-based practices through a Quality Improvement Learning Collaborative (QILC) in co-creation with stakeholders. The project will be conducted in 10 hospitals and related healthcare facilities of 5 European countries. We will assess the level of adherence to the standardised practices, as well as surgical complications incidence, patient-reported outcomes, contextual factors influencing the implementation of the patient safety practices, and sustainability. The project will consist of six components: 1) Development of patient safety standardised practices in perioperative care; 2) Guided self-evaluation of the standardised practices; 3) Identification of priorities and actions plans; 4) Implementation of a QILC strategy; 5) Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness; 6) Patient empowerment for patient safety. Sustainability of the project will be ensured by systematic assessment of sustainability factors and business plans. Towards the end of the project, a call for participation will be launched to allow other hospitals to conduct the self-evaluation of the standardized practices. DISCUSSION: The SAFEST project will promote patient safety standardized practices in the continuum of care for adult patients undergoing surgery. This project will result in a broad implementation of evidence-based practices for perioperative care, spanning from the care provided before hospital admission to post-operative recovery at home or outpatient facilities. Different implementation challenges will be faced in the application of the evidence-based practices, which will be mitigated by developing context-specific implementation strategies. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and will be available in an online platform.

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).

Developing the University of Tartu in Estonia into a well-networked Patient Safety Research Centre (PATSAFE): A study protocol.

Background: Patient safety (PS) is a serious global public health problem affecting all countries. Estimates show that around 10 percent of the patients are harmed during hospital care, resulting in 23 million disability-adjusted life years lost per year. Experts emphasize research advancements as a key precondition for safer care. Aim: The Patient Safety Research Centre (PATSAFE) project enhances the Institute of Clinical Medicine of the University of Tartu's (ICM-UT) research potential and capacities in PS in order to improve and strengthen knowledge and skills in methods, techniques and experience for PS research. Methods: A strategic partnership with Avedis Donabedian Research Institute in Spain, and IQ Healthcare in the Netherlands, both international leaders in PS research, enables the development of a long-lasting knowledge exchange, allowing the ICM-UT to capitalise on its current achievements and to overcome gaps in scientific excellence in the field of PS research. These twining activities will strengthen and raise the research profile of the ICM-UT academic staff and early-stage researchers (ESRs), by implementing the hands-on training on methods, techniques, and experience in PS research. The project also encourages the active participation of ESRs in PS research by increasing their soft skills, to ensure the continuity and sustainability of PS research in ICM-UT. Finally, development of the research strategy on PS contributes to the long-term sustainability of PS research in Estonia. To implement these activities, PATSAFE foresees a comprehensive strategy consisting of knowledge exchange, soft research skills capacity building, strategic planning, and strong dissemination and exploitation efforts. Expected results: As a result of the project, ICM-UT will have the capacity to carry out PS research using the appropriate methodology and the competences to apply state-of-the-art evidence-based strategies for PS research.

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.

Reducing work pressure and IT problems and facilitating IT integration and audit & feedback help adherence to perioperative safety guidelines: a survey among 95 perioperative professionals.

BACKGROUND: To improve perioperative patient safety, guidelines for the preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative phase were introduced in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013. To help the implementation of these guidelines, we aimed to get a better understanding of the barriers and drivers of perioperative guideline adherence and to explore what can be learned for future implementation projects in complex organizations. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire survey based on the theoretical framework of Van Sluisveld et al. for classifying barriers and facilitators. The questionnaire contained 57 statements derived from (a) an instrument for measuring determinants of innovations by the Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research, (b) interviews with quality and safety policy officers and perioperative professionals, and (c) a publication of Cabana et al. The target group consisted of 232 perioperative professionals in nine hospitals. In addition to rating the statements on a five-point Likert scale (which were classified into the seven categories of the framework: factors relating to the intervention, society, implementation, organization, professional, patients, and social factors), respondents were invited to rank their three most important barriers in a separate, extra open-ended question. RESULTS: Ninety-five professionals (41%) completed the questionnaire. Fifteen statements (26%) were considered to be barriers, relating to social factors (N = 5), the organization (N = 4), the professional (N = 4), the patient (N = 1), and the intervention (N = 1). An integrated information system was considered an important facilitator (70.4%) as well as audit and feedback (41.8%). The Barriers Top-3 question resulted in 75 different barriers in nearly all categories. The most frequently reported barriers were as follows: time pressure (16% of the total number of barriers), emergency patients (8%), inefficient IT structure (4%), and workload (3%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a wide range of barriers that are believed to hinder the use of the perioperative safety guidelines, while an integrated information system and local data collection and feedback will also be necessary to engage perioperative teams. These barriers need to be locally prioritized and addressed by tailored implementation strategies. These results may also be of relevance for guideline implementation in general in complex organizations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry: NTR3568.

Improving the implementation of perioperative safety guidelines using a multifaceted intervention approach: protocol of the IMPROVE study, a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: This study is initiated to evaluate the effects, costs, and feasibility at the hospital and patient level of an evidence-based strategy to improve the use of Dutch perioperative safety guidelines. Based on current knowledge, expert opinions and expertise of the project team, a multifaceted implementation strategy has been developed. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial including nine representative hospitals across The Netherlands. Hospitals are stratified into three groups according to hospital type and geographical location and randomized in terms of the period for receipt of the intervention. All adult surgical patients meeting the inclusion criteria are assessed for patient outcomes. The implementation strategy includes education, audit and feedback, organizational interventions (e.g., local embedding of the guidelines), team-directed interventions (e.g., multi-professional team training), reminders, as well as patient-mediated interventions (e.g., patient safety cards). To tailor the implementation activities, we developed a questionnaire to identify barriers for effective guideline adherence, based on (a) a theoretical framework for classifying barriers and facilitators, (b) an instrument for measuring determinants of innovations, and (c) 19 semi-structured interviews with perioperative key professionals. Primary outcome is guideline adherence measured at the hospital (i.e., cluster) and patient levels by a set of perioperative Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), which was developed parallel to the perioperative guidelines. Secondary outcomes at the patient level are in-hospital complications, postoperative wound infections and mortality, length of hospital stay, and unscheduled transfer to the intensive care unit, non-elective readmission to the hospital and unplanned reoperation, all within 30 days after the initial surgery. Also, patient safety culture and team climate will be studied as potential determinants. Finally, a process evaluation is conducted to identify the compliance with the implementation strategy, as well as an economic evaluation to assess the costs. Data sources are registered clinical data and surveys. There is no form of blinding. DISCUSSION: The perioperative setting is an unexplored area with respect to implementation issues. This study is expected to yield important new evidence about the effects of a multifaceted approach on guideline adherence in the perioperative care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial registry: NTR3568.

Internet guidance in oncology practice: determinants of health professionals' Internet referral behavior.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients turn to the Internet to obtain information on their disease. This digital quest is often motivated by a perceived discrepancy between the information received from health professionals and patients' actual informational needs. This discrepancy may be reduced by supplementing standard patient education with reliable online information sources. This study investigates health professionals' opinions, cognitions, and behavior regarding referring cancer patients to Internet-based information. METHODS: Online and written questionnaires were distributed among Dutch oncology nurses and medical specialists, measuring perception of patients' informational needs, prompted and unprompted Internet referral, and socio-cognitive factors regarding referral behavior. RESULTS: Health professionals (N = 130) positively appraised Internet use among cancer patients. Despite recognizing patients' needs for additional information (84%) and need for referral to reliable websites (67%), only 20% frequently referred patients to Internet-based information. Prompted Internet referral was higher (64%). Motives for nonreferral included unfamiliarity with websites and uncertainty about information quality. Intentions towards future referral were moderate to high. To translate intentions into referral, health professionals need reminder tools and information on reliability and content of websites. Cognitive determinants of referral behavior included professionals' attitude, self-efficacy, and intentions regarding referral. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of patients' information needs does not culminate in Internet referral among health professionals in cancer care. High intentions to change, however, indicate good prospects for future referral. This study yields valuable insights into behavioral determinants of health professionals' Internet referral behavior. Targeting determinants and barriers in future interventions will provide opportunities for optimization of educational practices.

From the Garden of Eden to the land of plenty. Restriction of fruit and sweets intake leads to increased fruit and sweets consumption in children.

Overweight is increasing rapidly in children, compelling researchers to seek for determinants of adverse food intake. In a previous experiment it was found that manipulating the restriction of attractive snacks increased the desirability and intake of these snacks. In the present study, we tested whether this paradoxical restricting effect is also seen in relatively less attractive but healthy food, i.e. fruit. Will fruit become more desirable through restriction, and will children eat more forbidden fruit than non-forbidden fruit? Two groups of young children were forbidden to eat fruits and sweets, respectively, whereas a control group was invited to eat everything. Desire for sweets remained high in the sweets-prohibition condition, whereas it decreased in the fruit-prohibition and no-prohibition conditions. No group differences were found regarding the desire for fruit. With respect to intake, children in both the fruit- and the sweets-prohibition condition consumed more of the formerly forbidden food during a taste session as compared to the no-prohibition condition. In addition, total food intake was higher in the two prohibition conditions than in the no-prohibition condition. These data indicate that the adverse effects of restriction apply to both attractive unhealthy and relatively less attractive but healthy food.