Search

Background: The study of safety culture and its relationship to patient care have been challenged by variation in definition, dimensionality and methods of assessment. This systematic review aimed to map methods to assess safety culture in hospitals, analyse the prevalence of these methods in the published research literature and examine the dimensions of safety culture captured through these processes., Methods: We included studies reporting on quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to assess safety culture in hospitals. The review was conducted using four academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science) with studies from January 2008 to May 2020. A formal quality appraisal was not conducted. Study purpose, type of method and safety culture dimensions were extracted from all studies, coded thematically, and summarised narratively and using descriptive statistics where appropriate., Results: A total of 694 studies were included. A third (n=244, 35.2%) had a descriptive or exploratory purpose, 225 (32.4%) tested relationships among variables, 129 (18.6%) evaluated an intervention, while 13.8% (n=96) had a methodological focus. Most studies exclusively used surveys (n=663; 95.5%), with 88 different surveys identified. Only 31 studies (4.5%) used qualitative or mixed methods. Thematic analysis identified 11 themes related to safety culture dimensions across the methods, with 'Leadership' being the most common. Qualitative and mixed methods approaches were more likely to identify additional dimensions of safety culture not covered by the 11 themes, including improvisation and contextual pressures., Discussion: We assessed the extent to which safety culture dimensions mapped to specific quantitative and qualitative tools and methods of assessing safety culture. No single method or tool appeared to measure all 11 themes of safety culture. Risk of publication bias was high in this review. Future attempts to assess safety culture in hospitals should consider incorporating qualitative methods into survey studies to evaluate this multi-faceted construct., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Gastrostomy decision making is a complicated, multifaceted process for people with motor neuron disease (MND). This study explored demographic and disease-related factors that may impact on gastrostomy uptake; and reasons why people with MND accepted or declined gastrostomy, with a focus on how perceptions of swallowing and nutrition may influence decision making., Design: Prospective, cross sectional, mixed methods., Setting: An Australian multidisciplinary, specialty MND Service., Participants: 33 patients were recommended gastrostomy by the treating medical specialist. 16 of 33 were invited to participate in the prospective decision making study; of whom 10 provided informed consent., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Demographic and disease-related factors contributing to uptake are described. A stepped approach was applied to gain a comprehensive understanding of why people with MND accept or decline gastrostomy. Instruments included standardised assessments, nutrition survey and semistructured interview. Data were collected at three separate appointments, spanning a 3-week period., Results: Gastrostomy uptake was 73% following medical specialist recommendation. Participants took days, weeks or months to consider their preferences, with lengthy hospital waiting times for the procedure. Gender, site of onset and rate of disease progression were observed to contribute to uptake. Age and symptom duration did not. Integration of quantitative and qualitative data suggests that patient perceptions of swallowing and nutrition contribute to gastrostomy acceptance; however, the decision making process is heterogeneous and these factors may not be the sole or primary reasons for acceptance. Other reported factors included: reducing carer burden, improving quality of life, increasing independence, continuing participation in social outings and gaining control., Conclusions: Future research may give greater insight into how healthcare organisations can better facilitate gastrostomy decision making, to meet the needs of people living with MND. Larger, prospective, multisite studies may build on these findings to better inform clinical guidelines and minimise the impacts of delayed gastrostomy insertion., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Motor neuron disease (MND) is a progressive, incurable disease, characterised by degeneration of the nerves in the brain and spinal cord. Due to the multisystem effects of the disease, patients are faced with many complex, time-sensitive decisions, one of which is the decision on gastrostomy feeding. There are currently no published decision aids (DAs) to support patients making this decision in the UK. This study will develop and pilot a patient DA to provide evidence-based information on gastrostomy placement and feeding that is relevant to people with MND; communicate the risks and benefits associated with each option; check understanding and clarify personal values and preferences, enabling patients to make a decision congruent with their values and appropriate for them., Methods and Analysis: A two-phase process, observing the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, will be used to develop the DA, over 24 months starting January 2019. Phase 1 will use literature reviews and stakeholder interviews and surveys to identify essential content for the DA, and explore the best way to present this. In the second phase, a prototype DA will be developed and revised using stakeholder feedback in an iterative process. Stakeholders will include individuals with MND, their carers and the healthcare professionals working with them., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the study has been granted by West of Scotland Research Ethics Service, reference 19/WS/0078. Study findings will be disseminated through academic and non-academic publications, conference presentations, stakeholder websites and social media. A feasibility study will follow to explore the acceptability and practicality of the DA for patients, carers and HCPs in practice and to assess whether the DA shows promise of being beneficial for the intended population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Workspaces are socially constructed environments where social relationships are produced, reproduced, challenged and transformed. Their primary function is to support high-quality service delivery to the benefit of 'patients'. They are also settings where employees can work effectively, in a safe and healthy environment, delivering a high-quality service according to a 'Work-As-Done' rather than a 'Work-As-Imagined' model. However, hospital design is currently based on a managerial understanding of work accomplishments, often falling short of understanding what is actually happening on the ground. Furthermore, the research landscape lacks rigorous assessment of these complex sociological and health research concepts, either within the Australian context where this protocol is set, or internationally.This paper describes an innovative protocol aimed at examining healthcare employees' and organisations' concerns and beliefs in workspace design. It outlines research investigating the effect of workspace use on productivity, health and safety and worker satisfaction, to clarify Work-As-Done, while creating healthy and more fulfilling environments., Methods: This is a proof-of-concept study, taking place between June 2018 and April 2019, employing a multimethod, qualitative approach for in-depth assessment of one Australian, private, university hospital environment, using as its 'case' the Gastroenterology Surgical Unit. It involves (1) observations and informal interviews (shadowing) with employees and patients as they traverse hospital spaces and (2) visual data of spatial use. Fieldnotes will be analysed thematically, and visual data analysed using a predefined schematic framework (a visual taxonomy). Overarching themes and categories will be considered corroboratively, mixing visual and textual data to build an iterative and dynamic picture., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical considerations will be discussed, while approval has been granted by the University's Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/5201800282), along with Governance approved by the Health Clinical Research Executive (CRG2018005). Study results will be disseminated through publications, research conferences and public reports., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JC is an employee of the case site and will not, therefore, be involved in data analysis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Effective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model., Design: We systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework., Data Sources: All Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007-2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher's achievements., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Articles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848-0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed., Results: Four hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or 'altmetric' data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others., Conclusions: All metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: One in five men is likely to receive a diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) by the age of 85 years. Men diagnosed with low-risk PCa may be eligible for active surveillance (AS) to monitor their cancer to ensure that any changes are discovered and responded to in a timely way. Communication of risk in this context is more complicated than determining a numerical probability of risk, as patients wish to understand the implications of risk on their lives in concrete terms. Our study will examine how risk for PCa is perceived, experienced and communicated by patients using AS with their health professionals, and the implications for treatment and care., Methods and Analysis: This is a proof of concept study, testing out a multimethod, qualitative approach to data collection in the context of PCa for the first time in Australia. It is being conducted from November 2016 to December 2017 in an Australian university hospital urology clinic. Participants are 10 men with a diagnosis of localised PCa, who are using an AS protocol, and 5 health professionals who work with this patient group (eg, urologists and Pca nurses). Data will be collected using observations of patient consultations with health professionals, patient questionnaires and interviews, and interviews with healthcare professionals. Analysis will be conducted in two stages. First, observational data from consultations will be analysed thematically to encapsulate various dimensions of risk classification and consultation dialogue. Second, interview data will be coded to derive meaning in text and analysed thematically. Overarching themes will represent patient and health professional perspectives of risk communication., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the study has been granted by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee, approval 5201600638. Knowledge translation will be achieved through publications, reports and conference presentations to patients, families, clinicians and researchers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Motor neuron disease (MND) is a terminal, progressive, multisystem disorder. Well-timed decisions are key to effective symptom management. To date, there are few published decision support tools, also known as decision aids, to guide patients in making ongoing choices for symptom management and quality of life. This protocol is to develop and validate decision support tools for patients and families to use in conjunction with health professionals in MND multidisciplinary care. The tools will inform patients and families of the benefits and risks of each option, as well as the consequences of accepting or declining treatment., Methods and Analysis: The study is being conducted from June 2015 to May 2016, using a modified Delphi process. A 2-stage, 7-step process will be used to develop the tools, based on existing literature and stakeholder feedback. The first stage will be to develop the decision support tools, while the second stage will be to validate both the tools and the process used to develop them. Participants will form expert panels, to provide feedback on which the development and validation of the tools will be based. Participants will be drawn from patients with MND, family carers and health professionals, support association workers, peak body representatives, and MND and patient decision-making researchers., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the study has been granted by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), approval number 5201500658. Knowledge translation will be conducted via publications, seminar and conference presentations to patients and families, health professionals and researchers., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: To assess the costs of hospital accreditation in Australia., Design: Mixed methods design incorporating: stakeholder analysis; survey design and implementation; activity-based costs analysis; and expert panel review., Setting: Acute care hospitals accredited by the Australian Council for Health Care Standards., Participants: Six acute public hospitals across four States., Results: Accreditation costs varied from 0.03% to 0.60% of total hospital operating costs per year, averaged across the 4-year accreditation cycle. Relatively higher costs were associated with the surveys years and with smaller facilities. At a national level these costs translate to $A36.83 million, equivalent to 0.1% of acute public hospital recurrent expenditure in the 2012 fiscal year., Conclusions: This is the first time accreditation costs have been independently evaluated across a wide range of hospitals and highlights the additional cost burden for smaller facilities. A better understanding of the costs allows policymakers to assess alternative accreditation and other quality improvement strategies, and understand their impact across a range of facilities. This methodology can be adapted to assess international accreditation programmes., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objectives: The study aims are twofold. First, to investigate the suitability of hand hygiene as an indicator of accreditation outcomes and, second, to test the hypothesis that hospitals with better accreditation outcomes achieve higher hand hygiene compliance rates., Design: A retrospective, longitudinal, multisite comparative survey., Setting: Acute public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia., Participants: 96 acute hospitals with accreditation survey results from two surveys during 2009-2012 and submitted data for more than four hand hygiene audits between 2010 and 2013., Outcomes: Our primary outcome comprised observational hand hygiene compliance data from eight audits during 2010-2013. The explanatory variables in our multilevel regression model included: accreditation outcomes and scores for the infection control standard; timing of the surveys; and hospital size and activity., Results: Average hand hygiene compliance rates increased from 67.7% to 80.3% during the study period (2010-2013), with 46.7% of hospitals achieving target compliance rates of 70% in audit 1, versus 92.3% in audit 8. Average hand hygiene rates at small hospitals were 7.8 percentage points (pp) higher than those at the largest hospitals (p<0.05). The association between hand hygiene rates, accreditation outcomes and infection control scores is less clear., Conclusions: Our results indicate that accreditation outcomes and hand hygiene audit data are measuring different parts of the quality and safety spectrum. Understanding what is being measured when selecting indicators to assess the impact of accreditation is critical as focusing on accreditation results would discount successful hand hygiene implementation by smaller hospitals. Conversely, relying on hand hygiene results would discount the infection control related research and leadership investment by larger hospitals. Our hypothesis appears to be confounded by an accreditation programme that makes it more difficult for smaller hospitals to achieve high infection control scores., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)