Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Indicators for implementation outcome monitoring of reporting and learning systems in hospitals: an underestimated need for patient safety.
Kuske, Silke; Willmeroth, Tabea; Schneider, Jörg; Belibasakis, Sandra; Roes, Martina; Borgmann, Sandra Olivia; Cartes Febrero, Maria Ines.
Affiliation
  • Kuske S; Fliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany kuske@fliedner-fachhochschule.de.
  • Willmeroth T; Fliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
  • Schneider J; Fliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
  • Belibasakis S; Fliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
  • Roes M; German Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Witten, Germany.
  • Borgmann SO; Fliedner Fachhochschule Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
  • Cartes Febrero MI; Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
BMJ Open Qual ; 11(2)2022 04.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35437258
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

We aimed to investigate the perception of the implementation success of reporting and learning systems in German hospitals, the perceived relevance of the implementation outcomes and whether and how these implementation outcomes are monitored. An reporting and learning system is a tool used worldwide for patient safety that identifies and analyses critical events, errors, risks and near misses in healthcare.

METHODS:

A pretested exploratory cross-sectional online survey was conducted with reporting and learning system experts from 51 acute care hospitals. For communicative validation, the results were discussed in person in an expert panel discussion (N=23).

RESULTS:

Fifty-three per cent (n=27) of the participants (N=51) of the online survey perceived that their reporting and learning system was being comprehensively and successfully implemented. However, no service or patient outcomes were reported to ultimately capture the concept of implementation success. Most of the participants reported a (high) relevance of the implementation outcomes' acceptability and sustainability. In total, 44 measures were provided to monitor implementation outcomes. However, most of the quantitative measures were based on the (relative) number of entered reports. Qualitative measures were reported in relation to the 'quality of the report'. In general, the measures were poorly specified.

CONCLUSION:

There is an underestimated need to develop validated 'implementation patient safety indicator(s) (sets)' to monitor implementation outcomes of reporting and learning systems. We also identified a potential need to facilitate awareness of the concept of implementation success and its relevance for patient safety. Drafts of indicators that could be used as a starting point for the further development of 'implementation patient safety indicators' were provided.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Patient Safety / Hospitals Type of study: Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BMJ Open Qual Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Germany

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Patient Safety / Hospitals Type of study: Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: BMJ Open Qual Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Germany