[Oral health competence and its communication in "talking dentistry"]. / Mundgesundheitskompetenz und deren Vermittlung in der "sprechenden Zahnmedizin".

The concept of health literacy has received much attention in recent years. Essential approaches are the provision of health information, teaching through educational programs, and transfer via communication techniques. From a dental point of view, the individual discussion between patient and dentist is of particular importance ("talking dentistry").The aim of our article is to present the current state of knowledge on the relationship between oral health literacy and talking dentistry, to present existing concepts for teaching communicative competencies, and to identify the further need for action from the point of view of the German Dental Association. Several health psychology models emphasize a positive relationship between oral health literacy, oral health behavior, and oral health. Further determinants seem to be the patient's self-efficacy beliefs and the individual interaction with the dentist. Therefore, it seems purposeful to intervene in an occasion-related manner in the sense of talking dentistry. The personal conversation between dentist and patient can cover counselling, education, motivation, and practical guidance and can lead to participatory decision-making.Offers for learning and deepening communication techniques represent important aids for the practice. Some are presented in this article as examples. However, in order to establish talking dentistry on a broad level, more far-reaching offers and incentives are needed. Through our suggestions, we would like to show ways in which talking dentistry can be further promoted and consolidated as an integral part of dental care.

Correction to: Healthcare professionals' perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study.

In the original publication of this article [1], the authors missed that reverse coding was necessary for the item "Do you work separate from your colleagues?" before calculating the scale 'social relations'. So they corrected the analysis accordingly. The results with the revised scale show that there are no longer any significant differences between nurses and physicians with regard to this scale.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Promoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics have mainly been studied independently from each other. The present study investigated hospital staffs' perceptions of four different topics: (1) psychosocial working conditions, (2) leadership, (3) patient safety climate, and (4) occupational safety climate. We present results from a survey in two German university hospitals aiming to detect differences between nurses and physicians. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using a standardized paper-based questionnaire. The survey was conducted with nurses and physicians to assess the four topics. The instruments mainly consisted of scales of the German version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), one scale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), scales to assess leadership and transformational leadership, scales to assess patient safety climate using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), and analogous items to assess occupational safety climate. RESULTS: A total of 995 completed questionnaires out of 2512 distributed questionnaires were returned anonymously. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The sample consisted of 381 physicians and 567 nurses. We found various differences with regard to the four topics. In most of the COPSOQ and the HSPSC-scales, physicians rated psychosocial working conditions and patient safety climate more positively than nurses. With regard to occupational safety, nurses indicated higher occupational risks than physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The WorkSafeMed study combined the assessment of the four topics psychosocial working conditions, leadership, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate in hospitals. Looking at the four topics provides an overview of where improvements in hospitals may be needed for nurses and physicians. Based on these results, improvements in working conditions, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate are required for health care professionals in German university hospitals - especially for nurses.

A cross-national comparison of incident reporting systems implemented in German and Swiss hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to empirically compare incident reporting systems (IRS) in two European countries and to explore the relationship of IRS characteristics with context factors such as hospital characteristics and characteristics of clinical risk management (CRM). DESIGN: We performed exploratory, secondary analyses of data on characteristics of IRS from nationwide surveys of CRM practices. SETTING: The survey was originally sent to 2136 hospitals in Germany and Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Persons responsible for CRM in 622 hospitals completed the survey (response rate 29%). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Differences between IRS in German and Swiss hospitals were assessed using Chi2, Fisher's Exact and Freeman-Halton-Tests, as appropriate. To explore interrelations between IRS characteristics and context factors (i.e. hospital and CRM characteristics) we computed Cramer's V. RESULTS: Comparing participating hospitals across countries, Swiss hospitals had implemented IRS earlier, more frequently and more often provided introductory IRS training systematically. German hospitals had more frequently systematically implemented standardized procedures for event analyses. IRS characteristics were significantly associated with hospital characteristics such as hospital type as well as with CRM characteristics such as existence of strategic CRM objectives and of a dedicated position for central CRM coordination. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to an improved understanding of differences in the way IRS are set up in two European countries and explores related context factors. This opens up new possibilities for empirically informed, strategic interventions to further improve dissemination of IRS and thus support hospitals in their efforts to move patient safety forward.

Are administrative data valid when measuring patient safety in hospitals? A comparison of data collection methods using a chart review and administrative data.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of German Diagnosis Related Group administrative data to measure indicators of patient safety in comparison to clinical records. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted using chart review (CR) as gold standard and screening of associated administrative data based on DRG coding. SETTING: Three German somatic acute care hospitals for adults. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3000 cases treated between May and December, 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eight indicators were used to analyse the incidence of associated adverse events (AEs): pressure ulcers, catheter-related infections, respiratory failure, deep vein thromboses, hospital-acquired pneumonia, acute renal failure, acute myocardial infarction and wound infections. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and Cohen's Kappa with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Screening of administrative data identified 171 AEs and 456 were identified by CR. A number of 135 identical events were identified by both methods. Sensitivities for the detection of AEs using administrative data ranged from 6 to 100%. Specificities ranged from 99 to 100%. PPV were 33 to 100% and reliabilities were 12 to 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Indicators based on German administrative data deviate widely from indicators based on clinical data. Therefore, hospitals should be cautious to use indicators based on administrative data for quality assurance. However, some might be useful for case findings and quality improvement. The precision of the evaluated indicators needs further development to detect AEs by the valid use of administrative data.

Assessment of Patient and Occupational Safety Culture in Hospitals: Development of a Questionnaire with Comparable Dimensions and Results of a Feasibility Study in a German University Hospital.

(1) Background: Both patient and occupational safety cultures should be considered when promoting safety culture. To our knowledge, there are no studies that capture patient safety culture (PSC) and occupational safety culture (OSC) in hospitals while using a common questionnaire. The aim of this feasibility study in a German university hospital was to develop a questionnaire to assess both issues analogously. In addition to feasibility outcomes, we report results of PSC-OSC comparisons. (2) Methods: To assess PSC, we used the existing Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC) questionnaire. Developing new OSC "twin items" for certain parts of the HSPSC was supported by a previous literature review. Additionally, we developed multiple choice questions to examine knowledge and competencies regarding specific PS/OS aspects. (3) Results: Developing and implementing a combined PSC and OSC assessment instrument was feasible. The overall response rate was 33% (407 nurses, 140 physicians). In general, the statistical reliability of almost all scales was sufficient. Positive PSC perceptions (agreement rates 46⁻87%) were found in 16 out of 18 scales. Of the four twin scales, the PSC values were significantly better. Individual PS- and OS-related knowledge and competencies were lower than expected. (4) Conclusion: The comparative investigation of patient and occupational safety in a large hospital is a promising approach and can be recommended for further studies. We used our experiences that are presented here in an ongoing bicentric study on the associations between working conditions, occupational safety culture, patient safety culture, and patient safety outcomes (WorkSafeMed).

[Transferability of patient safety indicators to the German hospital setting: results of a Delphi survey]. / Übertragbarkeit krankenhausbezogener Patientensicherheitsindikatoren für Deutschland: Ergebnis einer Delphi-Befragung.

AIM: To assess the transferability of 14 evidence-based patient safety indicators (PSI) to the German hospital system. METHODS: A two-staged modified multidisciplinary Delphi process was used, applying the scientific criteria of the QUALIFY instrument. RESULTS: Eleven of the 14 PSI were judged to be transferable to and feasible in the German hospital setting. CONCLUSIONS: The consented PSI are potentially suitable for German quality assurance measurement. Prior to implementation, further operationalisation and empirical validation is recommended.

Impact of sample size on variation of adverse events and preventable adverse events: systematic review on epidemiology and contributing factors.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of the frequency of (preventable) adverse events (AE/PAE) and to analyse contributing factors, such as sample size, settings, type of events, terminology, methods of collecting data and characteristics of study populations. REVIEW METHODS: Search of Medline and Embase from 1995 to 2007. Included were original papers with data on the frequency of AE or PAE, explicit definition of study population and information about methods of assessment. Results were included with percentages of patients having one or more AE/PAE. Extracted data enclosed contributing factors. Data were abstracted and analysed by two researchers independently. RESULTS: 156 studies in 152 publications met our inclusion criteria. 144/156 studies reported AE, 55 PAE (43 both). Sample sizes ranged from 60 to 8,493,876 patients (median: 1361 patients). The reported results for AE varied from 0.1% to 65.4%, and for PAE from 0.1% to 33.9%. Variation clearly decreased with increasing sample size. Estimates did not differ according to setting, type of event or terminology. In studies with fewer than 1000 patients, chart review prevailed, whereas surveys with more than 100,000 patients were based mainly on administrative data. No effect of patient characteristics was found. CONCLUSIONS: The funnel-shaped distribution of AE and PAE rates with sample size is a probable consequence of variation and can be taken as an indirect indicator of study validity. A contributing factor may be the method of data assessment. Further research is needed to explain the results when analysing data by types of event or terminology.