Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0272853, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35972977

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Global Trigger Tool (GTT) has become a worldwide used method for estimating adverse events through a retrospective patient record review. However, little is known about the facilitators and the challenges in the GTT-implementation process. Thus, this study followed two aims: First, to apply a comprehensive set of feasibility criteria to qualitatively and systematically assess the GTT-implementation process in three departments of German university hospitals. Second, to identify the facilitators and the obstacles met in the GTT-implementation process and to derive recommendations for supporting other hospitals in implementing the GTT in clinical practice. METHODS: The study used a qualitative documentary method based on process documentation, with written and verbal feedback from the reviewer, as well as evaluating the study sites during the implementation process. The study was conducted in three departments, each in a different German university hospital. The authors applied a comprehensive set of 22 feasibility criteria assessing the level of challenge in GTT implementation. The results were synthesized and they focused on the facilitators and the challenges. RESULTS: Of these 22 feasibility criteria, nine were assessed as a low-level challenge, eleven regarded as a moderate-level challenge, and two with a problematic level of challenge. In particular, the lack of time and staff resources, the quality of the information in the patient records, organizational procedures, and local issues, posed major challenges in the implementation process. By contrast, the use of local coordinators and an external expert made important contributions to the GTT implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the facilitators and the obstacles beforehand may help with the implementation of the GTT in routine practice. In particular, early and effective planning can reduce or prevent critical challenges in terms of time, staff resources, and organizational aspects.


Subject(s)
Medical Records , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Precipitating Factors , Retrospective Studies
2.
Travel Med Infect Dis ; 40: 101982, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33545394

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Medical emergencies frequently occur in commercial airline flights, but valid data on causes and consequences are rare. Therefore, optimal extent of onboard emergency medical equipment remains largely unknown. Whereas a minimum standard is defined in regulations, additional material is not standardized and may vary significantly between airlines. METHODS: European airlines operating aircrafts with at least 30 seats were selected and interviewed with a 5-page written questionnaire including 81 items. Besides pre-packed and required emergency medical material, drugs, medical devices, and equipment lists were queried. If no reply was received, airlines were contacted up to three times by email and/or phone. Descriptive analysis was used for data interpretation. RESULTS: From a total of 305 European airlines, 253 were excluded from analysis (e.g., no passenger transport). 52 airlines were contacted and data of 22 airlines were available for analysis (one airline was excluded due to insufficient data). A first aid kit is available on all airlines. 82% of airlines (18/22) reported to have a "doctor's kit" (DK) or an "Emergency Medical Kit" (EMK) onboard. 86% of airlines (19/22) provide identical equipment in all aircraft of the fleet, and 65% (14/22) airlines provide an automated external defibrillator. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas minimal required material according to European aviation regulations is provided by all airlines for medical emergencies, there are significant differences in availability of the additional material. The equipment of most airlines is not sufficient for treatment of specific emergencies according to published in-flight medical guidelines (e.g., for CPR or acute myocardial infarction).


Subject(s)
Aerospace Medicine , Aviation , Aircraft , Emergencies , First Aid , Humans
3.
J Patient Saf ; 16(4): e340-e351, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33215895

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and potential of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) for identifying adverse events (AEs) in different specialties in German hospitals. METHODS: A total of 120 patient records were randomly selected from two surgical and one neurosurgery departments of three university hospitals in Germany for a period of 2 months per department between January and July 2017. The records were reviewed using an adaptation of the German version of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement GTT. RESULTS: Thirty-nine records (32.5%) contained at least one AE. A total of 53 AEs were found in these 39 records. The incidences of AEs were 18.9% and 35.9% in the two surgical departments and 45.3% in neurosurgery. This corresponded to AE rates of 25.5 to 72.1 per 1000 patient-days and from 25.0 to 60.0 per 100 admissions across the three departments. A total of 71.7% of all identified AEs resulted in temporary harm (category E), 26.4% in temporary harm, requiring prolonged hospitalization (category F), and 1.9% in permanent patient harm. We also identified practical challenges, such as the necessary adaptation of the GTT relative to the respective department. CONCLUSIONS: The application of the GTT is feasible and represents an effective instrument for quality measurement when adapted to the departmental specifics. The trigger detection with the GTT is a valuable addition for proactive analyses of high-risk processes.


Subject(s)
General Surgery/standards , Medical Errors/statistics & numerical data , Neurosurgery/methods , Patient Safety/standards , Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards , Risk Management/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Germany , Humans , Retrospective Studies
4.
Intern Emerg Med ; 13(8): 1305-1322, 2018 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29730774

ABSTRACT

By the end of the year 2016, approximately 3 billion people worldwide travelled by commercial air transport. Between 1 out of 14,000 and 1 out of 50,000 passengers will experience acute medical problems/emergencies during a flight (i.e., in-flight medical emergency). Cardiac arrest accounts for 0.3% of all in-flight medical emergencies. So far, no specific guideline exists for the management and treatment of in-flight cardiac arrest (IFCA). A task force with clinical and investigational expertise in aviation, aviation medicine, and emergency medicine was created to develop a consensus based on scientific evidence and compiled a guideline for the management and treatment of in-flight cardiac arrests. Using the GRADE, RAND, and DELPHI methods, a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed. Specific recommendations have been developed for the treatment of IFCA. A total of 29 specific recommendations for the treatment and management of in-flight cardiac arrests were generated. The main recommendations included emergency equipments as well as communication of the emergency. Training of the crew is of utmost importance, and should ideally have a focus on CPR in aircraft. The decision for a diversion should be considered very carefully.


Subject(s)
Air Travel , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/standards , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Aerospace Medicine/organization & administration , Aircraft , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Consensus , Germany , Guidelines as Topic , Humans
5.
Open Access Emerg Med ; 9: 31-35, 2017.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28260956

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data on the incidence of in-flight medical emergencies on-board civil aircraft are uncommon and rarely published. Such data could provide information regarding required medical equipment on-board aircraft and requisite training for cabin crew. The aim of the present study was to gather data on the incidences, nature, and medical equipment for in-flight medical emergencies by way of a survey of physician members of a German aerospace medical society. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using unipark.de (QuestBack GmbH, Cologne, Germany), an online survey was developed and used to gather specific information. Members of the German Society for Aviation and Space Medicine (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrtmedizin e.V.; DGLRM) were invited to participate in the survey during a 4-week period (21 March 2015 to 20 April 2015). Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis (p<0.05 was considered significant). RESULTS: Altogether, 121 members of the society responded to the survey (n=335 sent out). Of the 121 respondents, n=54 (44.6%) of the participants (89.9% male and 10.1% female; mean age, 54.1 years; n=121) were involved in at least one in-flight medical emergency. Demographic parameters in this survey were in concordance with the society members' demographics. The mean duration of flights was 5.7 hours and the respondents performed 7.1 airline flights per year (median). Cardiovascular (40.0%) and neurological disorders (17.8%) were the most frequent diagnoses. The medical equipment (78.7%) provided was sufficient. An emergency diversion was undertaken in 10.6% of the cases. Although using a different method of data acquisition, this survey confirms previous data on the nature of emergencies and gives plausible numbers. CONCLUSION: Our data strongly argue for the establishment of a standardized database for recording the incidence and nature of in-flight medical emergencies. Such a database could inform on required medical equipment and cabin crew training.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...