Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
1.
Can J Urol ; 27(6): 10431-10436, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33325343

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION To assess the perception of patient safety culture and the infrastructure to support patient safety (PS) education within American and Canadian urological residency programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A needs assessment was developed by experts in patient safety. The survey contained items about prior PS education, perceived value of learning PS, components of an ideal PS curriculum, and desired resources to facilitate PS education. Select items from the validated AHRQ Survey on Patient Safety Culture (SOPS) were also included. The survey was distributed electronically (12/2018-2/2019) to all urology residents (RES) and program directors (PD) of urological residency programs via the Society of Academic Urologists. All responses were anonymous. RESULTS: A total of 26 PD (18.3%; 26/142) and 100 RES (6.7%; 100/1,491) completed the survey. Nearly all RES received PS training (79%), but this was lower for PD (42%). The majority of RES and PD felt that PS was an important educational competency (RES = 83%; PD = 89%) and a pathway for academic success (RES 74%; PD 84%). Both groups desired an online PS curriculum (RES = 69%; PD = 68%) with error causation models (RES = 42%; PD = 52%) as the primary topic to cover. Assessment of safety culture confirmed safety is a priority, but only 1 PD (5%; 1/19) and 25 RES (25%; 25/100) rated their residency program's overall safety grade as 'excellent'. CONCLUSIONS: PS education remains a priority for program directors and urological trainees. Both groups called for additional resources from urological professional societies for this education. To that end, an online, centralized, freely accessible PS curriculum is under development.


Assuntos
Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Internato e Residência , Segurança do Paciente , Gestão da Segurança , Urologia/educação , Canadá , Currículo , Humanos , Autorrelato , Estados Unidos
2.
Can J Urol ; 27(1): 10087-10092, 2020 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32065864

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: A shared professional culture focused on patient safety is critical to delivering high-quality care. There is a need for objective metrics to help identify target areas for improvement in patient safety culture. The Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture (SOPS) was developed and validated by the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to measure patient safety culture in the ambulatory setting. In this study we report on safety culture and practices in six academic urology clinics utilizing this validated questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SOPS was administered to all staff in ambulatory urology practices affiliated with participating centers. Percent positive responses were calculated for each of 10 validated composite domains and were compared between sites and respondent roles. Nonparametric statistical analyses were performed to identify differences between groups. RESULTS: The survey was administered to 185 staff members, with an overall response rate of 66%. Within each domain there was substantial variability between sites, with significant differences observed in staff training (p = 0.034), office processes/standardization (p = 0.008), patient care tracking (p = 0.047), communication about errors (p = 0.001), and organizational learning (p = 0.015). Similar variation was seen between respondent roles with significant differences for patient care tracking (p = 0.002) and communication about errors (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: The SOPS is a clinically useful tool to identify issues impacting a practice's safety culture. Substantial variability was observed within each composite domain at the levels of practice site and respondent role. Comparing composite domain results between clinics will allow leadership to identify gaps and evaluate policies and resources of higher performing peer sites.


Assuntos
Assistência Ambulatorial/normas , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Segurança do Paciente/normas , Gestão da Segurança , Urologia/normas , Centros Médicos Acadêmicos , Humanos , Melhoria de Qualidade
3.
J Urol ; 188(6 Suppl): 2455-63, 2012 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23098785

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of non-neurogenic overactive bladder (OAB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary source of evidence for this guideline is the systematic review and data extraction conducted as part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 187 titled Treatment of Overactive Bladder in Women (2009). That report searched PubMed, MEDLINE®, EMBASE and CINAHL for English-language studies published from January 1966 to October 2008. The AUA conducted additional literature searches to capture treatments not covered in detail by the AHRQ report and relevant articles published between October 2008 and December 2011. The review yielded an evidence base of 151 treatment articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate) or C (low). Additional treatment information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions when insufficient evidence existed. RESULTS: The evidence-based guideline statements are provided for diagnosis and overall management of the adult with OAB symptoms as well as for various treatments. The panel identified first through third line treatments as well as non-FDA approved, rarely applicable and treatments that should not be offered. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based statements are provided for diagnosis and overall management of OAB, as well as for the various treatments. Diagnosis and treatment methodologies can be expected to change as the evidence base grows and as new treatment strategies become obtainable.


Assuntos
Bexiga Urinária Hiperativa/diagnóstico , Bexiga Urinária Hiperativa/terapia , Adulto , Algoritmos , Feminino , Humanos
4.
Turk J Urol ; 45(1): 27-30, 2019 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30461379

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of transurethral microwave therapy (TUMT) in the management of high-risk catheter-dependent men, although few have assessed safety in high-risk patients, including those continuing anticoagulation therapy during treatment. Our goal was to assess the safety and effectiveness of TUMT in a population of high-risk catheter-dependent men. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent TUMT at a single Veterans Affairs facility for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia was completed. The primary outcome was 30-day postprocedural complications by Clavien-Dindo grade, including bleeding events. The secondary outcome was success in catheter removal. RESULTS: We performed TUMT in 157 men, 105 of whom had urinary retention-requiring an indwelling urethral catheter or clean intermittent catheterization. Overall, 86% of patients underwent TUMT while on anticoagulant therapy and 25% were treated while taking warfarin. The median age of the patients was 76.9 years (95% CI 74.9-78.8) median ASA-score was 3, and median follow-up was 26 months (range 1-65). Only two men experienced hematuria requiring treatment postoperatively and no transfusions were required. Only two patients (1.9%) required readmission within 30 days after treatment. There were 24 (22.9%) Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complications without grade III or higher complications. Urinary retention resolved in 63.7% of men after treatment. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that TUMT is a safe and reasonably effective treatment for high-risk catheter-dependent men. Furthermore, the low incidence of adverse bleeding events suggests that TUMT is a safe treatment modality for men requiring uninterrupted anticoagulation.

5.
Urol Pract ; 5(5): 398-404, 2018 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37312350

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: A key physician competency outlined in the Urology Milestone Project is engagement in quality improvement. Despite this mandate little is known about the attitudes of urology residency program directors regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. Therefore, we performed a national survey of program directors. METHODS: A 25-item survey was developed to investigate program director knowledge and training in quality improvement methodology, participation in quality improvement related activities, curriculum support for resident quality improvement educational activities, and attitudes regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. The survey was sent via e-mail (November 1, 2016) to all program directors affiliated with the Society of Academic Urologists (sample size 116 of 134, 87% of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs). RESULTS: A total of 36 program directors returned a completed survey for a response rate of 31%. Only 22% (8) of program directors reported receiving formal education or training in quality improvement methodology. Overall 44% (16) of program directors reported that their program offers formal education or a curriculum in quality improvement methodology for their trainees. Program directors expressed a strong desire for residents to learn quality improvement methodology (positive response 32 of 36, 89%) and understand how to apply it to conduct a quality improvement project (positive response 30 of 35, 86%). Program directors strongly believe that a urology oriented quality improvement curriculum would be a valuable resource (positive response 31 of 36, 86%) with a need for support from our professional society (positive response 29 of 36, 81%). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of programs have quality improvement education available for residents. However, program directors agree that quality improvement is an integral part of residency training that should be promoted by our profession.

6.
Urol Pract ; 8(3): 347, 2021 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37145680
7.
Urol Pract ; 4(4): 301, 2017 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37592677
8.
Urol Pract ; 4(4): 283-284, 2017 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37592642
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA