Search

Objective Measurement is an indispensable element of most quality improvement (QI) projects, but it is undertaken to variable standards. We aimed to characterise challenges faced by clinical teams in undertaking measurement in the context of a safety QI programme that encouraged local selection of measures. Methods Drawing on an independent evaluation of a multisite improvement programme (Safer Clinical Systems), we combined a qualitative study of participating teams' experiences and perceptions of measurement with expert review of measurement plans and analysis of data collected for the programme. Multidisciplinary teams of frontline clinicians at nine UK NHS sites took part across the two phases of the programme between 2011 and 2016. Results Developing and implementing a measurement plan against which to assess their improvement goals was an arduous task for participating sites. The operational definitions of the measures that they selected were often imprecise or missed important details. Some measures used by the teams were not logically linked to the improvement actions they implemented. Regardless of the specific type of data used (routinely collected or selected ex novo), the burdensome nature of data collection was underestimated. Problems also emerged in identifying and using suitable analytical approaches. Conclusion Measurement is a highly technical task requiring a degree of expertise. Simply leveraging individual clinicians' motivation is unlikely to defeat the persistent difficulties experienced by clinical teams when attempting to measure their improvement efforts. We suggest that more structural initiatives and broader capability-building programmes should be pursued by the professional community. Improving access to, and ability to use repositories of validated measures, and increasing transparency in reporting measurement attempts, is likely to be helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients often carry medication lists to mitigate information loss across healthcare settings. We aimed to identify mechanisms by which these lists could be used to support safety, key supporting features, and barriers and facilitators to their use. Methods We used a mixed-methods design comprising two focus groups with patients and carers, 16 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals, 60 semistructured interviews with people carrying medication lists, a quantitative features analysis of tools available for patients to record their medicines and usability testing of four tools. Findings were triangulated using thematic analysis. Distributed cognition for teamwork models were used as sensitising concepts. Results We identified a wide range of mechanisms through which carrying medication lists can improve medication safety. These included improving the accuracy of medicines reconciliation, allowing identification of potential drug interactions, facilitating communication about medicines, acting as an aide-mémoire to patients during appointments, allowing patients to check their medicines for errors and reminding patients to take and reorder their medicines. Different tools for recording medicines met different needs. Of 103 tools examined, none met the core needs of all users. A key barrier to use was lack of awareness by patients and carers that healthcare information systems can be fragmented, a key facilitator was encouragement from healthcare professionals. Conclusion Our findings suggest that patients and healthcare professionals perceive patient-held medication lists to have a wide variety of benefits. Interventions are needed to raise awareness of the potential role of these lists in enhancing patient safety. Such interventions should empower patients and carers to identify a method that suits them best from a range of options and avoid a 'one size fits all' approach [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Because of fundamental differences in healthcare systems, US readmission data cannot be extrapolated to the European setting: To investigate the opinions of readmitted patients, their carers, nurses and physicians on predictability and preventability of readmissions and using majority consensus to determine contributing factors that could potentially foresee (preventable) readmissions. Design Prospective observational study. Readmitted patients, their carers, and treating professionals were surveyed during readmission to assess the discharge process and the predictability and preventability of the readmission. Cohen's Kappa measured pairwise agreement of considering readmission as predictable/preventable by patients, carers and professionals. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regressionidentified factors associated with predictability/preventability. Setting 15 hospitals in four European countries Participants 1398 medical patients readmitted unscheduled within 30 days Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) (1) Agreement between the interviewed groups on considering readmissions likely predictable or preventable;® Factors distinguishing predictable from non-predictable and preventable from non-preventable readmissions. Results The majority deemed 27.8% readmissions potentially predictable and 14.4% potentially preventable. The consensus on predictability and preventability was poor, especially between patients and professionals (kappas ranged from 0.105 to 0.173). The interviewed selected different factors as potentially associated with predictability and preventability. When a patient reported that he was ready for discharge during index admission, the readmission was deemed less likely by the majority (predictability: OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.75; preventability: OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.49). Conclusions There is no consensus between readmitted patients, their carers and treating professionals about predictability and preventability of readmissions, nor associated risk factors. A readmitted patient reporting not feeling ready for discharge at index admission was strongly associated with preventability/predictability. Therefore, healthcare workers should question patients' readiness to go home timely before discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the context of widespread opportunistic chlamydia screening among young adults, we aimed to quantify chlamydia testing and diagnosis among 16-24 year olds in Britain in relation to risk factors for prevalent chlamydia infection.Methods: Using data from sexually experienced (≥1 lifetime sexual partner) 16-year-old to 24-year-old participants in Britain's third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (conducted 2010-2012), we explored socio-demographic and behavioural factors associated with prevalent chlamydia infection (detected in urine; n=1832), self-reported testing and self-reported diagnosis in the last year (both n=3115).Results: Chlamydia prevalence was 3.1% (95% CI 2.2% to 4.3%) in women and 2.3% (1.5% to 3.4%) in men. A total of 12.3% of women and 5.3% men had a previous chlamydia diagnosis. Factors associated with prevalent infection were also associated with testing and diagnosis (eg, increasing numbers of sexual partners), with some exceptions. For example, chlamydia prevalence was higher in women living in more deprived areas, whereas testing was not. In men, prevalence was higher in 20-24 than 16-19 year olds but testing was lower. Thirty per cent of women and 53.7% of men with ≥2 new sexual partners in the last year had not recently tested.Conclusions: In 2010-2012 in Britain, the proportion of young adults reporting chlamydia testing was generally higher in those reporting factors associated with chlamydia. However, many of those with risk factors had not been recently tested, leaving potential for undiagnosed infections. Greater screening and prevention efforts among individuals in deprived areas and those reporting risk factors for chlamydia may reduce undiagnosed prevalence and transmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Since the UK Abortion Act (1967), women have travelled from Ireland to the UK for legal abortion. In 2011 >4000 women did so. Knowledge and attitudes of medical students towards abortion have been published, however, this is the first such report from Ireland. Objective To investigate medical students' attitudes towards abortion in Ireland. Methods All medical students at the University of Limerick, and physicians who graduated from the university within the previous 12 months, were invited via email to complete an anonymous online survey. The questionnaire comprised 17 questions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed. Results Response rate was 45% (n=169; 55% women; 88.2% <30 years of age; 66.7% Irish; 29.2% North American). Outcomes were: abortion should not be legally available (7.1%), abortion should be allowed in limited circumstances only (35.5%), abortion should be legally available upon request (55%). 72.8% of respondents were moderately/strongly prochoice (74% of women/71% of men/72% and 76% of Irish and North American respondents, respectively). Students aged >30 years were less likely to be prochoice (55%). While 95.2% believed that education on abortion should be offered within medical school curricula, 28.8% stated that they would decline to terminate pregnancies even if legally permitted. While 58.8% indicated that they might perform legal abortions once qualified, 25.7% would do so under limited circumstances only. Conclusions The majority of participants wanted education regarding abortion. Despite being predominantly prochoice, considerably fewer students, irrespective of nationality, indicated that they would perform abortions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]