Association of intraosseous and intravenous access with patient outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Here we report the results of a study on the association between drug delivery via intravenous route or intraosseous route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Intraosseous drug delivery is considered an alternative option in resuscitation if intravenous access is difficult or impossible. Intraosseous uptake of drugs may, however, be compromised. We have performed a retrospective cohort study of all Danish patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the years 2016-2020 to investigate whether mortality is associated with the route of drug delivery. Outcome was 30-day mortality, death at the scene, no prehospital return of spontaneous circulation, and 7- and 90-days mortality. 17,250 patients had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. 6243 patients received no treatment and were excluded. 1908 patients had sustained return of spontaneous circulation before access to the vascular bed was obtained. 2061 patients were unidentified, and 286 cases were erroneously registered. Thus, this report consist of results from 6752 patients. Drug delivery by intraosseous route is associated with increased OR of: No spontaneous circulation at any time (OR 1.51), Death at 7 days (OR 1.94), 30 days (2.02), and 90 days (OR 2.29). Intraosseous drug delivery in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with overall poorer outcomes than intravenous drug delivery.

Harnessing patient complaints to systematically monitoring healthcare concerns through disproportionality analysis.

Staff observations are the most common source of data for driving improvements in care. However, the patient perspective should also be considered, and healthcare complaints offer concrete details that health organizations might otherwise overlook and that can highlight areas for learning and improvement in the healthcare system. However, because of the diverse nature of patient complaints, systematic analyses can be challenging. This study aimed to identify and prioritize areas for improvement using a data-driven approach to analysing patient complaints. The Danish version of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool was used to categorize the content of complaint letters. All complaints managed by the national complaints authority, compensation claims to the Patient Compensation Association, and locally managed complaints that were filed directly at Odense University Hospital from 2017 to 2021 were included. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were used to measure and display the top five signals of disproportionality and rank them by excess complaints at the hospital level and when divided into department types. The study included 6366 complaints containing 13 156 problems (on average, 2.1 problems mentioned per complaint letter). Surgical departments had the highest number of complaints (3818), followed by medical (1059), service (439), and emergency departments (239). Signal 1 of disproportionality, relating to quality problems during ward procedures, had the highest excess reporting of 1043 complaints at the hospital level and a PRR of 1.61 and was present in all department types. Signal 2, relating to safety problems during the examination and diagnosis stage, had an excess reporting of 699 problems and a PRR of 1.86 and was also present in all department types. Signal 3, relating to institutional problems during admission, had the highest PRR of 3.54 and was found in most department types. Signals 4 and 5, relating to environmental problems during ward procedures and care on the ward, respectively, had PRRs of 1.5 and 1.84 and were present in most department types. The study found that analysing patient complaints can identify potential areas for hospital improvement. The study identified recurring issues in multiple departments, including quality problems during ward procedures, safety problems during the examination, institutional problems during admission, and environmental problems on the ward. The study highlights disproportionality analysis of complaints as a valuable tool to monitor patient concerns systematically.

Changes in compensation claim contents following reorganization of emergency hospital care.

OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of the reorganization on patient compensation claim contents relating to health care quality and patient safety. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Danish emergency care has developed considerably over the past decades, including a major reorganization to improve health care quality and patient safety through ensuring easier access to specialist treatment. Analysis of compensation claim patterns is used to evaluate the effects of such health care system changes. PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A sample of 1613 compensation claims to the Danish Patient Assurance organization was reviewed using a standardized taxonomy (the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool [HCAT]). Using trend analysis, we compared the proportions of claims categorized under HCAT domains, problem categories and sub-categories before and after the reorganization, with particular emphasis on the 'Clinical problems' domain covering health care quality and patient safety issues. RESULTS: We observed a baseline increase in claims relating to clinical problems (P < 0.01), but this increase was less pronounced following the reorganization. This appeared to be driven mainly by a decrease in claims about clinician skills (P = 0.03) and health care neglects (P = 0.01). However, claims about diagnostic errors and patient outcomes showed a tendency (insignificant) to increase. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency care reorganization apparently has been followed by a shift in claim contents towards fewer claims about health care neglect and staff competencies, although claims about other matters may have become more common. Present analyses of compensation claim trends should be supplemented by effect studies using traditional outcome measures such as mortality and readmission rates.

Accreditation as a management tool: a national survey of hospital managers' perceptions and use of a mandatory accreditation program in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine managers' attitudes towards and use of a mandatory accreditation program in Denmark, the Danish Healthcare Quality Program (Den Danske Kvalitetsmodel [DDKM]) after it was terminated in 2015. METHODS: We designed a nationwide cross-sectional online survey of all senior and middle managers in the 31 somatic and psychiatric public hospitals in Denmark. We elicited managers' attitudes towards and use of DDKM as a management using 5-point Likert scales. Regression analysis examined differences in responses by age, years in current position, and management level. RESULTS: The response rate was 49% with 533 of 1095 managers participating. Overall, managers' perceptions of accreditation were favorable, highlighting key findings about some of the strengths of accreditation. DDKM was found most useful for standardizing processes, improving patient safety, and clarifying responsibility in the organization. Managers were most negative about DDKM's ability to improve their hospitals' financial performance, reshape the work environment, and support the function of clinical teams. Results were generally consistent across age and management level; however, managers with greater years of experience in their position had more favorable attitudes, and there was some variation in attitudes towards and use of DDKM between regions. CONCLUSION: Future attention should be paid to attitudes towards accreditation. Positive attitudes and the effective use of accreditation as a management tool can support the implementation of accreditation, the development of standards, overcoming disagreements and boundaries and improving future quality programs.