[How to assess health outcomes in chronic non-cancer pain? Qualitative research]. / ¿Cómo evaluar los resultados en salud en el dolor crónico no oncológico? Investigación cualitativa.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of indicators that evaluate the health results of the non-cancer chronic pain (NCCP). The objective of this study was to agree on how to evaluate health outcomes in NCCP in Spain, as well as to propose lines of action to have an optimal evaluation framework not only for patients, but for healthcare professionals and managers as well. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a qualitative research study through directed group interviews which followed a script based on structured questions using the PICO methodology. RESULTS: More than the intensity of pain, the main points to be measured are pain-free time, improved rest/sleep, improved mood, recovery of daily activities and adherence to treatment, in addition to -in the scope of management- resource consumption. The therapeutic objective must be defined individually, based on the adjustment of expectations between the healthcare professional and the patients, taking into account their preferences and involving them in the therapeutic process. Patients and caregivers must be informed and trained with special emphasis on the psycho-emotional sphere of pain. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to evaluate the health outcomes in NCCP in Spain. Lines of action are proposed that might provide an adequate assessment framework for the patient, the healthcare professionals and the health managers.

Adverse events: an expensive and avoidable hospital problem.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse healthcare-related events (AE) entail reduced patient safety. Estimating their frequency, characteristics, avoidability and impact is a means to identify targets for improvement in the quality of care. METHODS: This was a descriptive observational study conducted within the Patient Safety Incident Study in Hospitals in the Community of Madrid (ESHMAD). The study was conducted in a high-complexity hospital in May 2019 through a two-phase electronic medical record review: (1) AE screening and epidemiological and clinical data collection and (2) AE review and classification and analysis of their impact, avoidability, and associated costs. RESULTS: A total of 636 patients were studied. The prevalence of AE was 12.4%. Death during the stay was associated with the presence of AE (OR [CI95%]: 2.15 [1.07 to 4.52]) versus absence and emergency admission (OR [CI95%]: 17.11[6.63 to 46.26]) versus scheduled. A total of 70.2% of the AEs were avoidable. Avoidable AEs were associated with the presence of pressure ulcers (OR [CI95%]: 2.77 [1.39 to 5.51]), central venous catheter (OR [CI95%]: 2.58 [1.33 to 5.00]) and impaired mobility (OR [CI95%]: 2.24[1.35 to 3.71]), versus absences. They were associated too with the stays in the intensive care unit (OR [CI95%]: 2.75 [1.07 to 7.06]) versus medical service. AEs were responsible for additional costs of €909,716.8 for extra days of stay and €12,461.9 per patient with AE. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AEs was similar to that found in other studies. AEs led to worse patient outcomes and were associated with the patient's death. Although avoidable AEs were less severe, their higher frequency produced a greater impact on the patient and healthcare system.Key messagesAdverse events are one of the main problems in healthcare delivery and patients who suffer from at least one AE are double as likely to die during hospitalization.Avoidable adverse events are the most frequent in health care and they are a good target where achieve improvement areas that allow getting optimal patient safety and quality of care levels.Patients hospitalized in the ICU, with the previous presence of pressure ulcers, central venous catheter, or impaired mobility were associated with the development of avoidable AE, so optimal management of these patients would reduce the impact of AE.

Psychometric Properties of the Functional Impairment Checklist (FIC) as a Disease-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) in Previously Hospitalized COVID-19 Survivors with Long-COVID.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus is associated with a plethora of long-lasting symptoms (long-COVID). The presence of long-COVID symptoms causes decreased functionality. This study described the psychometric properties of the Functional Impairment Checklist (FIC), a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used for evaluating the functional consequences of SARS in previously hospitalized COVID-19 survivors with long-COVID symptoms. The LONG-COVID-EXP-CM is a multicenter cohort study including patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic in five hospitals in Madrid. A total of 1969 (age: 61 ± 16 years, 46.4% women) COVID-19 survivors with long-COVID completed the FIC at a long-term follow-up after hospitalization (mean: 8.4 ± 1.5 months). Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha value), reliability (item-internal consistency, item-discriminant validity), construct validity (exploratory factor analysis), floor effect and ceiling effect were calculated. The mean time for fulfilling the FIC was 62 ± 11 s. The Cronbach's alpha values reflecting the internal consistency reliability were 0.864 for FIC-symptoms and 0.845 for FIC-disability. The correlation coefficient between the FIC-symptoms and FIC-disability scale was good (r: 0.676). The ceiling effect ranged from 2.29% to 9.02%, whereas the floor effect ranged from 38.56% to 80.19%. The exploratory factor analysis showed factor loadings from 0.514 to 0.866, supporting good construct validity. Women exhibited greater limitations in all physical symptoms and disability-related domains of the FIC compared with men (all, p < 0.001). Further, younger patients (those aged <45 years) self-reported lower physical symptoms and disability-related domains than older patients. In conclusion, this study indicates that the FIC has good psychometric properties to be used as a specific-disease PROM to measure function and disability in COVID-19 survivors with long-COVID.

Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the EuroQol-5D-5L in previously hospitalized COVID-19 survivors with long COVID.

The EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) is a generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) used for evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL). No data on its psychometric properties in COVID-19 survivors is available. We aimed to describe internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of the EQ-5D-5L in people with long-COVID. Ninety-three (n = 93) individuals previously hospitalized due to COVID-19 with post-COVID symptoms completed the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire twice one year after hospital discharge in a three-week interval. Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha and Omega value), test-retest reliability (kappa and ICC2,1) and construct validity (factor analysis), and floor/ceiling effects were calculated. No ceiling effect was observed in any dimension whereas the floor effect ranged from 53.76 to 94.62%. The overall Cronbach's α value was 0.75 (95%CI 0.64-0.83) and the Omega ω value was 0.77 (95%CI 0.66-0.84), showing good internal consistency of the questionnaire. Further, Cronbach's alpha values the of each dimension ranged from 0.63 to 0.77 whereas those for Omega values ranged from 0.70 to 0.79. The test-retest reliability of the total score was excellent (ICC2,1 0.86, 95%CI 0.798-0.911). The agreement percentage ranged from 85.13 to 96.77%; but kappa coefficients ranged from fair (κ: 0.37) to good (κ: 0.61). The factor analysis showed factor loadings from 0.585 to 0.813 supporting good construct validity. The EQ-5D-5L has good psychometric properties to be used as a PROM to assess HRQoL in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors with long-COVID.

Surgery Is in Itself a Risk Factor for the Patient.

(1) Background: Adverse events (AE) affect about 1 in 10 hospitalised patients, and almost half are related to surgical care. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of AE in operated and non-operated patients in surgical departments in order to determine whether surgical treatment is a risk factor for AE. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional design that included 3123 patients of 34 public hospitals in the Community of Madrid determining the prevalence of AEs in operated and non-operated patients in surgical departments. (3) Results: The prevalence of AE in non-operated patients was 8.7% and in those operated was 15.8%. The frequency of AE was higher in emergency surgery (20.6% vs. 12.4%). The 48.3% of AEs led to an increase in hospital stay, and surgery was involved in 92.4% of cases. The most frequent AEs were related to hospital-acquired infection (42.63%), followed by those related to a procedure (37.72%). In the multivariate analysis, being operated on represented 2.3 times the risk of developing an AE. (4) Conclusions: Surgical sites are particularly vulnerable to AE. Surgical intervention alone is a risk factor for AE, and we must continue to work to improve the safety of both patient care and the working environment of surgical professionals.

[Patient Safety Culture and teaching: an ins- trument to evaluate knowledge and perceptions among different health professionals of the Madrid Region health system]. / Cultura de Seguridad del Paciente y Docencia: un instrumento para evaluar conocimientos y percepciones en profesionales del sistema sanitario de la Comunidad de Madrid

OBJECTIVE: The patient safety culture (PSC) in health institutions depends on various organizational and human factors. Our aim was to evaluate, as a teaching strategy, the knowledge in patient safety and perceptions about the PSC. METHODS: A convenience sample, with 122 health professionals from Regional Minister of Health's patient safety courses attendees in 2015. Be- fore each course, were delivered a knowledge questionnaire about patient safety (own elaboration) and a validated PSC questionnaire (estimating 3 dimensions: managerial support, perception of safety and expectations / actions). Valuations on CSP were recategorized in positive, negative and neutral, identifying strengths (greater than or equal to 75% of positive evaluations) and opportunities for improvement (greater than or equal to 50% of negative evaluations). At the end of each course an anonymous satisfaction questionnaire was delivered. RESULTS: 60% responded correctly to questions about knowledge in patient safety, identifying areas for improvement in safe practices (hand hygiene and microorganisms resistant to antibiotics, with 66% and 61% of incorrect answers, respectively), and in management of health risks (investigation and identification of adverse events, with 62% and 56% of incorrect answers, respectively). 80% considered the institutional PSC positive, and the perception of safety as an opportunity for improvement (63.9% of negative evaluations). Thus, 88% admitted worrying about patient safety only after adverse incidents, and 65% felt afraid to talk about them. The satisfaction with the teaching methodology was 9.3 points out of 10. CONCLUSIONS: The overall assessment of PSC was mostly positive, identifying specific areas for improvement that allowed orienting the training in patient safety, motivating the participants and suggesting intervention strategies to improve patient safety in our organizations.

OBJETIVO: La cultura de seguridad del paciente (CSP) en las instituciones sanitarias depende de diversos factores organizativos y humanos. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar, como estrategia docente, los conocimientos y percepciones sobre la CSP. METODOS: Muestra de conveniencia, con 122 profesionales sanitarios y no sanitarios, que asistieron en 2015 a cursos sobre seguridad del paciente organizados por la Consejería de Sanidad de Madrid. Antes de cada curso, autocompletaron un cuestionario de conocimientos sobre seguridad del paciente (elaboración propia) y otro cuestionario validado sobre CSP (estimando 3 dimensiones: apoyo directivo, percepción de seguridad y expectativas/ acciones). Las valoraciones sobre la CSP se recategorizaron en positivas, negativas y neutras, identificando fortalezas (mayor o igual al 75% de valoraciones positivas) y oportunidades de mejora (mayor o igual al 50% de valoraciones negativas). Al finalizar cada curso, cumplimentaron un cuestionario anónimo de satisfacción. RESULTADOS: El 60% respondió correctamente a las preguntas sobre conocimientos en seguridad del paciente, identificando áreas de mejora en prácticas seguras (higiene de manos y microorganismos resistentes a antibióticos, con 66% y 61% de respuestas incorrectas, respectivamente), y en gestión de riesgos sanitarios (investigación e identificación de eventos adversos, con el 62% y 56% de respuestas incorrectas, respectivamente). El 80% consideró positiva la CSP institucional, y la percepción de seguridad como oportunidad de mejora (63,9% de valoraciones negativas). Así, el 88% reconocía preocuparse por la seguridad del paciente sólo tras incidentes adversos, y el 65% sentía miedo a hablar sobre estos. La satisfacción con la metodología docente fue de 9,3 puntos sobre 10. CONCLUSIONES: La valoración global de la CSP fue mayoritariamente positiva, identificándose áreas de mejora específicas utilizadas como estrategia docente para ilustrar conceptos, motivar a los participantes y sugerir estrategias de intervención para mejorar la cultura de seguridad del paciente en nuestras organizaciones.

Cultura de Seguridad del Paciente y Docencia: un instrumento para evaluar conocimientos y percepciones en profesionales del sistema sanitario de la Comunidad de Madrid / Patient Safety Culture and teaching: an instrument to evaluate knowledge and perceptions among different health professionals of the Madrid Region health system

Fundamentos: La cultura de seguridad del paciente (CSP) en las instituciones sanitarias depende de diversos factores organizativos y humanos. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar, como estrategia docente, los conocimientos y percepciones sobre la CSP. Métodos: Muestra de conveniencia, con 122 profesionales sanitarios y no sanitarios, que asistieron en 2015 a cursos sobre seguridad del paciente organizados por la Consejería de Sanidad de Madrid. Antes de cada curso, autocompletaron un cuestionario de conocimientos sobre seguridad del paciente (elaboración propia) y otro cuestionario validado sobre CSP (estimando 3 dimensiones: apoyo directivo, percepción de seguridad y expectativas/acciones). Las valoraciones sobre la CSP se recategorizaron en positivas, negativas y neutras, identificando fortalezas (≥75% de valoraciones positivas) y oportunidades de mejora (≥50% de valoraciones negativas). Al finalizar cada curso, cumplimentaron un cuestionario anónimo de satisfacción. Resultados: El 60% respondió correctamente a las preguntas sobre conocimientos en seguridad del paciente, identificando áreas de mejora en prácticas seguras (higiene de manos y microorganismos resistentes a antibióticos, con 66% y 61% de respuestas incorrectas, respectivamente), y en gestión de riesgos sanitarios (investigación e identificación de eventos adversos, con el 62% y 56% de respuestas incorrectas, respectivamente). El 80% consideró positiva la CSP institucional, y la percepción de seguridad como oportunidad de mejora (63,9% de valoraciones negativas). Así, el 88% reconocía preocuparse por la seguridad del paciente sólo tras incidentes adversos, y el 65% sentía miedo a hablar sobre estos. La satisfacción con la metodología docente fue de 9,3 puntos sobre 10. Conclusiones: La valoración global de la CSP fue mayoritariamente positiva, identificándose áreas de mejora específicas utilizadas como estrategia docente para ilustrar conceptos, motivar a los participantes y sugerir estrategias de intervención para mejorar la cultura de seguridad del paciente en nuestras organizaciones

Background: The patient safety culture (PSC) in health institutions depends on various organizational and human factors. Our aim was to evaluate, as a teaching strategy, the knowledge in patient safety and perceptions about the PSC. Methods: A convenience sample, with 122 health professionals from Regional Minister of Health's patient safety courses attendees in 2015. Before each course, were delivered a knowledge questionnaire about patient safety (own elaboration) and a validated PSC questionnaire (estimating 3 dimensions: managerial support, perception of safety and expectations / actions). Valuations on CSP were recategorized in positive, negative and neutral, identifying strengths (≥75% of positive evaluations) and opportunities for improvement (≥50% of negative evaluations). At the end of each course an anonymous satisfaction questionnaire was delivered. Results: 60% responded correctly to questions about knowledge in patient safety, identifying areas for improvement in safe practices (hand hygiene and microorganisms resistant to antibiotics, with 66% and 61% of incorrect answers, respectively), and in management of health risks (investigation and identification of adverse events, with 62% and 56% of incorrect answers, respectively). 80% considered the institutional PSC positive, and the perception of safety as an opportunity for improvement (63.9% of negative evaluations). Thus, 88% admitted worrying about patient safety only after adverse incidents, and 65% felt afraid to talk about them. The satisfaction with the teaching methodology was 9.3 points out of 10. Conclusions: The overall assessment of PSC was mostly positive, identifying specific areas for improvement that allowed orienting the training in patient safety, motivating the participants and suggesting intervention strategies to improve patient safety in our organizations

Evolución histórica de la seguridad del paciente en España / No disponible

No disponible

Breastfeeding promotion plan in Madrid, Spain.

BACKGROUND: Promotion and protection of breastfeeding is a public health objective. In April 2009, health authorities in the Madrid region in central Spain signed a collaboration agreement with The United Nations Children's Fund and created a breastfeeding committee. OBJECTIVE: To report the creation and implementation of a plan to promote and improve the quality of breastfeeding care in public hospitals in the region of Madrid, according to the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) standards. METHODS: The action plan included institutional commitment; creation of a breastfeeding committee in each hospital; outcome analyses, staff training, creation of educational materials; and dissemination of activities. The plan was adopted by the 19 non-BFHI-designated public maternity units in the Madrid region. Each hospital completed a modified version of the World Health Organization self-assessment questionnaire in 2009 (pre-intervention) and again in 2011. RESULTS: Thirteen maternity units (68.4%) established a breastfeeding committee, and 32 months after implementation of the plan, the other 6 hospitals have created one. Nine training courses have been carried out to train professional experts on breastfeeding as trainers. The 271 trainers provided 18-hour breastfeeding courses for 1423 professionals. In 2009, there was only 1 BFHI-accredited hospital. Currently, 52.6% of the other 19 hospitals have some level of accreditation, and 2 are fully accredited. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention to improve the quality of breastfeeding care based on an organized regional approach to the BFHI was useful for BFHI implementation.

Análisis de los Indicadores de Seguridad del Paciente de la Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality de los hospitales públicos de la Comunidad de Madrid / Analysis of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators in public hospitals of the Autonomous Region of Madrid (Spain)

Objetivo: Identificar la variabilidad de los Indicadores de Seguridad del Paciente (PSI) de la Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) entre hospitales y por nivel de hospital en el ámbito del Servicio Madrileño de Salud (SERMAS) y evaluar la contribución de los registros del Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos (CMBD) a la variabilidad observada. Métodos: Se analizaron los datos procedentes del Sistema de Información de Atención Especializada (SIAE) y del CMBD del año 2006 procedentes de 20 hospitales públicos y concertados del SERMAS. Los indicadores AHRQ se obtuvieron del Área de Información Sanitaria de la Consejería de Sanidad de Madrid. Para el análisis estadístico se utilizó el coeficiente de correlación y la regresión lineal múltiple. Resultados: Las complicaciones quirúrgicas y las relacionadas con cuidados médicos o posquirúrgicos presentaron diferencias significativas por hospital y por nivel de hospital. Además mostraron asociación positiva con algunos registros del CMBD. Se encontraron coeficientes de correlación superiores a 0,78 entre úlceras de decúbito y peso medio de Grupos Relacionados con el Diagnóstico (GRD) médicos, y entre mortalidad en pacientes con complicaciones durante el ingreso, estancia media y peso medio total. La variabilidad de úlceras de decúbito, éxitus en GRD de baja mortalidad y mortalidad en pacientes con complicaciones durante el ingreso se explicaba significativamente por tres o más de las variables estudiadas. Conclusiones: La variabilidad encontrada en el SERMAS para los PSI es alta y está asociada a determinados registros del CMBD. Convendría confirmar estos hallazgos con estudios sucesivos y en otros territorios, y evaluar la posible aportación de algunas variables del CMBD a esta variabilidad (AU)

Objective: To identify variability in the Patient Safety Indicators (PSI) of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) among hospitals and by hospital level in the Madrid Health Service and to evaluate the contribution of the minimum basic data set (MBDS) records to the variability observed. Methods: Data on healthcare resources were obtained from the Specialized Care Information System and from MBDS records for 2006 from 20 public and state-assisted hospitals within the Madrid Health System. AHRQ PSI were obtained from the Health Information Area of the Madrid Health Council. Data analysis included correlation coefficients and multiple linear regression. Results: Surgical complications and complications due to medical or postsurgical care showed significant differences among hospitals and by hospital level. These differences were positively associated with values in some of the MBDS records. We found correlations above 0.78 between decubitus ulcer and the average weight of medical diagnosis-related groups (DRG) and between failure to rescue and average length of hospital stay and the overall average weight. At least three of the variables analyzed explained the variability in decubitus ulcer, death in low-mortality DRGs and failure to rescue. Conclusions: The variability found in the Madrid Health System for the PSI is high and is associated with certain records of the MBDS. These findings should be confirmed in successive studies and in other regions, and the possible contribution of some variables of the MBDS to this variability should be assessed (AU)