Search

Objective The aim of the present study is to describe a stepwise approach to study which contextual factors might moderate the effect of healthcare interventions and to test feasibility of this approach within the D-SCOPE project.Design Exploratory case study.Setting In the D-SCOPE project, a complex intervention by means of home visits was set up to improve access to tailored care in three municipalities (Ghent, Knokke-Heist and Tienen).Methods One designed and tested an approach including five steps: (1) a theoretical/conceptual discussion of relevant contextual factor domains was held; (2) a search was done to find appropriate web-based public datasets which covered these topics with standardised information; (3) a list of all identified contextual factors was made (inventory); (4) to reduce the long list of contextual factors, a concise list of most relevant contextual factors was developed based on the opinion of two independent reviewers and (5) a nominal grouping technique (NGT) was applied.Results Three public web-based datasets were found resulting in an inventory of 157 contextual factors. After the selection by two independent reviewers, 41 contextual factors were left over and presented in a NGT which selected 10 contextual factors. The NGT included seven researchers, all familiar with the D-SCOPE intervention, with various educational backgrounds and expertise and lasted approximately 1 hour.Conclusion The present study shows that a five-step approach is feasible to determine relevant contextual factors that might affect the results of an intervention study. Such information may be used to correct for in the statistical analyses and for interpretation of the outcomes of intervention studies.NCT03168204

Objective To find out if there is evidence on interventions to prevent aggression against doctors.Design This systematic review searched the literature and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sources Pubmed, Embase, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), Cochrane and Psycharticle, GoogleScholar and www.guideline.gov were consulted.Eligibility criteria Abstracts published in English between January 2000 and January 2018 were screened. Eligible studies focused on prevention and risk factors of type II workplace violence in general healthcare, psychiatric departments, emergency departments, emergency primary care, general practice.Data extraction and synthesis The selected intervention studies were grouped into quantitative and qualitative studies. Systematic reviews were reported separately. For each study, the design, type of intervention and key findings were analysed. Quality rating was based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQUAL).Results 44 studies are included. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) provided moderate evidence that a violence prevention programme was effective in decreasing risks of violence. Major risk factors are long waiting times, discrepancy between patients’ expectations and services, substance abuse by the patient and psychiatric conditions. Appropriate workplace design and policies aim to reduce risk factors but there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness. One RCT provided evidence that a patient risk assessment combined with tailored actions decreased severe aggression events in psychiatric wards. Applying de-escalation techniques during an aggressive event is highly recommended. Postincident reporting followed by root cause analysis of the incident provides the basic input for review and optimisation of violence prevention programmes.Conclusions This review documented interventions to prevent and de-escalate aggression against doctors. Aggression against physicians is a serious occupational hazard. There is moderate evidence that an integrated violence prevention programme decreases the risks of patient-to-worker violence. The review failed to gather sufficient numerical data to perform a meta-analysis. A large-scale cohort study would add to a better understanding of the effectiveness of interventions.