Benchmarking en la identificación de pacientes: una oportunidad para aprender / Benchmarking in patient identification: an opportunity to learn

Objetivo. Realizar benchmarking sobre la identificación segura de los pacientes en los hospitales integrantes del Club de las 3 «C» (calidez, calidad y cuidados) y elaboración de una ficha común del proceso. Material y métodos. Se trata de un estudio descriptivo de las actividades llevadas a cabo en el proceso de identificación de pacientes en 5 hospitales de media estancia en las unidades de cuidados paliativos y de ictus. Se han seguido las siguientes etapas: recogida de datos en cada hospital, organización y análisis de los datos y elaboración de una ficha común de proceso. Resultados. Los datos obtenidos para el proceso de ictus, del total de pacientes identificados de forma segura fueron: hospital n.° 1 (93%), hospital n.° 2 (93,1%), hospital n.° 3 (100%) y hospital n.° 5 (93,4%). Para el proceso de cuidados paliativos: hospital n.° 1 (93%), hospital n.° 2 (92,3%), hospital n.° 3 (92%), hospital n.° 4 (98,3%) y hospital n.° 5 (85,2%). Conclusiones. El objetivo del trabajo se ha cumplido satisfactoriamente. Se han desarrollado las actividades de benchmarking y compartido conocimientos sobre el proceso de identificación de pacientes. Todos los hospitales han tenido buenos resultados. El hospital n.° 3 destaca en la identificación del proceso de ictus. La identificación de un benchmark es difícil, pero entre los 5hospitales se ha identificado una ficha común útil que recoge las mejores prácticas. Es importante incorporar a la sistemática de las organizaciones la práctica del benchmarking (AU)

Objective. To perform a benchmarking on the safe identification of hospital patients involved in 'Club de las tres C' (Calidez, Calidad y Cuidados) in order to prepare a common procedure for this process. Material and methods. A descriptive study was conducted on the patient identification process in palliative care and stroke units in 5medium-stay hospitals. The following steps were carried out: Data collection from each hospital; organisation and data analysis, and preparation of a common procedure for this process. Results. The data obtained for the safe identification of all stroke patients were: hospital 1 (93%), hospital 2 (93.1%), hospital 3 (100%), and hospital 5 (93.4%), and for the palliative care process: hospital 1 (93%), hospital 2 (92.3%), hospital 3 (92%), hospital 4 (98.3%), and hospital 5 (85.2%). Conclusions. The aim of the study has been accomplished successfully. Benchmarking activities have been developed and knowledge on the patient identification process has been shared. All hospitals had good results. The hospital 3 was best in the ictus identification process. The benchmarking identification is difficult, but, a useful common procedure that collects the best practices has been identified among the 5 hospitals (AU)

[Benchmarking in patient identification: An opportunity to learn]. / Benchmarking en la identificación de pacientes: una oportunidad para aprender.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a benchmarking on the safe identification of hospital patients involved in "Club de las tres C" (Calidez, Calidad y Cuidados) in order to prepare a common procedure for this process. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted on the patient identification process in palliative care and stroke units in 5medium-stay hospitals. The following steps were carried out: Data collection from each hospital; organisation and data analysis, and preparation of a common procedure for this process. RESULTS: The data obtained for the safe identification of all stroke patients were: hospital 1 (93%), hospital 2 (93.1%), hospital 3 (100%), and hospital 5 (93.4%), and for the palliative care process: hospital 1 (93%), hospital 2 (92.3%), hospital 3 (92%), hospital 4 (98.3%), and hospital 5 (85.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The aim of the study has been accomplished successfully. Benchmarking activities have been developed and knowledge on the patient identification process has been shared. All hospitals had good results. The hospital 3 was best in the ictus identification process. The benchmarking identification is difficult, but, a useful common procedure that collects the best practices has been identified among the 5 hospitals.