Search

Introduction Several institutions and quality national agencies have fostered the creation of recommendations on what not to do to reduce overuse in clinical practice. In primary care, their impact has hardly been studied. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) associated with doing what must not be done has not been analysed, either. The aim of this study is to measure the frequency of overuse and AEs associated with doing what must not be done (commission errors) in primary care and their cost. Methods and analysis A coordinated, multicentric, national project. A retrospective cohort study using computerised databases of primary care medical records from national agencies and regional health services will be conducted to analyse the frequency of the overuse due to ignore the do-not-do recommendations, and immediately afterwards, depending on their frequency, a representative random sample of medical records will be reviewed with algorithms (triggers) that determine the frequency of AEs associated with these recommendations. Cost will determine by summation of the direct costs due to the consultation, pharmacy, laboratory and imaging activities according to the cases. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Primary Care Research of the Valencian Community. We aim to disseminate the findings through international peerreviewed journals and on the website (http://www. nohacer. es/). Outcomes will be used to incorporate algorithms into the electronic history to assist in making clinical decisions.

RESUMEN Fundamento El objetivo de este estudio es sintetizar el conocimiento sobre el papel de la participación ciudadana en la definición, priorización, racionalización, supervisión o control de políticas, planes, gobernanza, inversión/desinversión, o diseño de servicios de salud. Material y métodos Revisión de trabajos de revisión (narrativa o sistemática) sobre participación ciudadana indexados hasta agosto de 2016 en PubMed. Resultados Se identificaron cuarenta y dos revisiones (dieciocho sistemáticas y veinticuatro narrativas). La participación tuvo un alcance provincial/regional o estatal. Los aspectos tratados abarcaron: qué es participación ciudadana, qué beneficios se esperan, quienes participan, cómo y hasta qué punto y con qué resultados. El impacto de la participación apenas ha sido estudiado. Conclusiones Existe moderada evidencia de que la participación ciudadana legitima las decisiones de las autoridades sanitarias y de que mejora los resultados de las políticas públicas. Existe consenso en cómo aplicar las técnicas de participación, pero es necesario ahondar en la medida de su impacto.

Background. This study aims to synthesize knowledge about the role of the public's participation in the definition, prioritization, rationalization, monitoring or control of policies, plans, governance, investment/disinvestment, and design of health services. Methods. Review of review articles (narrative or systematic) about consumer participation indexed in PubMed until August 2016. Results. Forty-two reviews were identified (eighteen systematic and twenty-four narrative). The extent of participation was provincial/regional or national. The issues addressed covered: What is public participation? What benefits are expected? Who participates in the representation of citizens? How and to what extent do citizens participate and with what outcomes? The impact of public participation has hardly been studied. Conclusions. There is moderate evidence in support of the argument that public participation legitimizes decisions of the Health Authorities, and improves outcomes of health policies. There is consensus on how participation techniques should be applied but there is a need to inquire more deeply into the level of impact of this participation.

Background Adverse events (AEs) cause harm in patients and disturbance for the professionals involved in the event (second victims). This study assessed the impact of AEs in primary care (PC) and hospitals in Spain on second victims. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted. We carried out a survey based on a random sample of doctors and nurses from PC and hospital settings in Spain. A total of 1087 health professionals responded, 610 from PC and 477 from hospitals. Results A total of 430 health professionals (39.6%) had informed a patient of an error. Reporting to patients was carried out by those with the strongest safety culture (Odds Ratio –OR- 1.1, 95% Confidence Interval –CI- 1.0-1.2), nurses (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.3), those under 50 years of age (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and primary care staff (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9). A total of 381 (62.5%, 95% CI 59-66%) and 346 (72.5%, IC95% 69-77%) primary care and hospital health professionals, respectively, reported having gone through the second-victim experience, either directly or through a colleague, in the previous 5 years. The emotional responses were: feelings of guilt (521, 58.8%), anxiety (426, 49.6%), re-living the event (360, 42.2%), tiredness (341, 39.4%), insomnia (317, 38.0%) and persistent feelings of insecurity (284, 32.8%). In doctors, the most common responses were: feelings of guilt (OR 0.7 IC95% 0.6-0.8), re-living the event (OR 0.7, IC95% o.6-0.8), and anxiety (OR 0.8, IC95% 0.6-0.9), while nurses showed greater solidarity in terms of supporting the second victim, in both PC (p?=?0.019) and hospital (p?=?0.019) settings. Conclusions Adverse events cause guilt, anxiety, and loss of confidence in health professionals. Most are involved in such events as second victims at least once in their careers. They rarely receive any training or education on coping strategies for this phenomenon.

Background Adverse events (AE) are also the cause of suffering in health professionals involved. This study was designed to identify and analyse organization-level strategies adopted in both primary care and hospitals in Spain to address the impact of serious AE on second and third victims. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in healthcare organizations assessing: safety culture; health organization crisis management plans for serious AE; actions planned to ensure transparency in communication with patients (and relatives) who experience an AE; support for second victims; and protective measures to safeguard the institution’s reputation (the third victim). Results A total of 406 managers and patient safety coordinators replied to the survey. Deficient provision of support for second victims was acknowledged by 71 and 61 % of the participants from hospitals and primary care respectively; these respondents reported there was no support protocol for second victims in place in their organizations. Regarding third victim initiatives, 35 % of hospital and 43 % of primary care professionals indicated no crisis management plan for serious AE existed in their organization, and in the case of primary care, there was no crisis committee in 34 % of cases. The degree of implementation of second and third victim support interventions was perceived to be greater in hospitals (mean 14.1, SD 3.5) than in primary care (mean 11.8, SD 3.1) (p?0.001). Conclusions Many Spanish health organizations do not have a second and third victim support or a crisis management plan in place to respond to serious AEs.

To analyse information about the errors made by diabetic and renal patients based on information provided by professionals (general practitioners, specialists, and nurses) and the patients themselves.

Fundamento. Diabetes y enfermedad renal son factores de riesgo de sufrir eventos adversos (EA). No contamos con estudios sobre la percepción del riesgo de estos pacientes. En este estudio se analiza la frecuencia con la que los pacientes diabéticos y renales describen indicios de un posible EA y su percepción de seguridad de la atención que reciben. Material y métodos. Estudio descriptivo basado en entrevistas a pacientes seleccionados al azar. Estudio de campo realizado entre febrero y mayo de 2010 en 3 centros de salud y 2 hospitales de Alicante y Madrid. Resultados. Respondieron 199 pacientes, 98 diabéticos y 101 con enfermedad renal. Estos últimos acumularon mayor número de indicios de EA (21,8% refirió un EA, 17,8% dos y un 3% 3 o más) que los diabéticos (16,3% un EA, 7,1% dos y 7,1% señaló 3 o más). En el último año, 6/98 diabéticos y 10/101 enfermos renales precisaron un tratamiento adicional. La probabilidad que el paciente cree tener de ser víctima de un error con consecuencias graves fue establecida en 1:10. Las mujeres con enfermedad renal creyeron tener una mayor probabilidad de sufrir un error (Chi²=12,7, p=0,002). Los errores clínicos se atribuyeron a la falta de tiempo para atender a todos los pacientes y a la insuficiencia de medios y recursos, sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las submuestras. Los pacientes entrevistados consideraron similar el riesgo de error clínico, accidente de tráfico, atraco. Conclusiones. La información que proporcionan los pacientes puede contribuir a mejorar la seguridad de los procedimientos de trabajo. Background. Diabetes and kidney disease are risk factors for adverse events (AE). There are no other studies on the perception of risk in these patients. This study analyzes the frequency of adverse event triggers reported by diabetic and renal patients and their perception of the risk. Material and methods. Descriptive study based on interviews with randomly selected patients. Field study conducted between February and May 2010 in three health centers and two hospitals in Alicante and Madrid. Results. A total of 199 patients answered, 98 diabetic patients and 101 renal patients. Renal patients accumulated more AE triggers (21.8% referred to an AE trigger, 17.8% two AE triggers and 3% referred to > 3 AE triggers) than diabetic patients (16.3% referred to one AE trigger, 7.1% to two AE triggers and 7.1% referred to > 3 AE triggers). During the last year 6/98 diabetic patients and 10/101 renal patients required additional treatment due to a clinical error. The probability of the patient being the victim of a clinical error with serious consequences was 1:10. Women with renal illness believed themselves to have a greater probability of suffering an error (Chi²=12.7, p=0.002). Errors were attributed to a lack of time to attend to all patients and a lack of means and resources, without statistically significant differences between the subsamples. Interviewed patients considered that the risks of suffering a traffic accident or robbery were similar to the risk of an error with serious consequences. Conclusion. Information provided by patients can help improve safety procedures.

Fundamento. Diabetes y enfermedad renal son factores de riesgo de sufrir eventos adversos (EA). No contamos con estudios sobre la percepción del riesgo de estos pacientes. En este estudio se analiza la frecuencia con la que los pacientes diabéticos y renales describen indicios de un posible EA y su percepción de seguridad de la atención que reciben. Material y métodos. Estudio descriptivo basado en entrevistas a pacientes seleccionados al azar. Estudio de campo realizado entre febrero y mayo de 2010 en 3 centros de salud y 2 hospitales de Alicante y Madrid. Resultados. Respondieron 199 pacientes, 98 diabéticos y 101 con enfermedad renal. Estos últimos acumularon mayor número de indicios de EA (21,8% refirió un EA, 17,8% dos y un 3% 3 o más) que los diabéticos (16,3% un EA, 7,1% dos y 7,1% señaló 3 o más). En el último año, 6/98 diabéticos y 10/101 enfermos renales precisaron un tratamiento adicional. La probabilidad que el paciente cree tener de ser víctima de un error con consecuencias graves fue establecida en 1:10. Las mujeres con enfermedad renal creyeron tener una mayor probabilidad de sufrir un error (Chi²=12,7, p=0,002). Los errores clínicos se atribuyeron a la falta de tiempo para atender a todos los pacientes y a la insuficiencia de medios y recursos, sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las submuestras. Los pacientes entrevistados consideraron similar el riesgo de error clínico, accidente de tráfico, atraco. Conclusiones. La información que proporcionan los pacientes puede contribuir a mejorar la seguridad de los procedimientos de trabajo.

To elaborate and validate a questionnaire for identifying common styles of Primary Care doctors' practice.Primary Health Care. Public sector in Spain.This was a study to validate a questionnaire administered in two phases with different samples. In the first phase, the items (item-total correlation, using Alpha on eliminating item), validity of construction, empirical validity and internal consistency, were analysed. In the second, discriminatory validity and reliability of the questionnaire (test-retest) were calculated.81.5% of the doctors replied in the first phase; and 100% in the second. Two factors were isolated with the Principal Components procedure, which confirmed the validity of the questionnaire's construction (52% variance explained). Internal consistency (Alphas ranged between 0.55 and 0.75) and reliability (ranging between 0.50 and 0.95 in function of the time elapsed) were also demonstrated.This instrument could be used to differentiate two styles in practice, characterised by focusing on the physical illness vs the psycho-social aspects of the disease process. The instrument is also useful because it gives the feeling of control over the task.

To determine: 1) the level of job satisfaction and job stress among general practitioners of National Health Service, and 2) the most common sources of stress of their job.Descriptive study based in a meal survey with bivariate and multivariate analysis of data.Primary Care Centers of the Valencian Health Service.216 general practitioners were questioned. Of these 127 answered on time (102 male; age 39.55 years; response rate of 58.80%).The Font Roja-AP Questionnaire (to evaluate job satisfaction and stress) and the Tabarca Inventory (to determine sources of stress) were used. Social relationship at work, intrinsic job satisfaction, job distension and variety at work were in hierarchy order the principal reasons of job satisfaction. On the other hand, interruptions of family life, emergency calls, monotony and practice administration and the doctor-patient communication aspects were in hierarchy order the principal reasons of job stress.The general practitioners work yield job satisfaction. Moderate job stress has been observed among general practitioners. The most important sources of stress were interruptions of family life and other conditions which disturb intimacy.

Objective. To design and validate a questionnaire for assessing attitudes and knowledge about patient safety using a sample of medical and nursing students undergoing clinical training in Spain and four countries in Latin America. Methods. In this cross-sectional study, a literature review was carried out and total of 786 medical and nursing students were surveyed at eight universities from five countries (Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Spain) to develop and refine a Spanish-language questionnaire on knowledge and attitudes about patient safety. The scope of the questionnaire was based on five dimensions (factors) presented in studies related to patient safety culture found in PubMed and Scopus. Based on the five factors, 25 reactive items were developed. Composite reliability indexes and Cronbach''s alpha statistics were estimated for each factor, and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess validity. After a pilot test, the questionnaire was refined using confirmatory models, maximum-likelihood estimation, and the variance-covariance matrix (as input). Multiple linear regression models were used to confirm external validity, considering variables related to patient safety culture as dependent variables and the five factors as independent variables. Results. The final instrument was a structured five-point Likert self-administered survey (the "Latino Student Patient Safety Questionnaire") consisting of 21 items grouped into five factors. Compound reliability indexes (Cronbach''s alpha statistic) calculated for the five factors were about 0.7 or higher. The results of the multiple linear regression analyses indicated good model fit (goodness-of-fit index: 0.9). Item-total correlations were higher than 0.3 in all cases. The convergent-discriminant validity was adequate. Conclusions. The questionnaire designed and validated in this study assesses nursing and medical students'' attitudes and knowledge about patient safety. This instrument could be used to indirectly evaluate whether or not students in health disciplines are acquiring and thus likely to put into practice the professional skills currently considered most appropriate for patient safety.

Graphical abstract, Puntos clave•Las intervenciones en seguridad del paciente, como las prácticas seguras, buscan reducir el número de incidentes para la seguridad de los pacientes, particularmente el número de eventos adversos evitables.•El número de eventos adversos evitables en atención primaria en España se ha duplicado con respecto a los datos aportados por el estudio APEAS (Estudio de la Seguridad de los Pacientes en atención primaria de Salud) realizado en 2008.•Uno de cada 30 eventos adversos evitables supone un daño grave y permanente en el adulto., Objetivo Determinar la frecuencia de eventos adversos evitables (EAE) en atención primaria (AP). Diseño Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes. Emplazamiento consultas de medicina de familia y pediatría de Andalucía, Aragón, Castilla La Mancha, Cataluña, Madrid, Navarra y Comunidad Valenciana. Participantes Se determinó revisar un mínimo de 2.397 historias clínicas (nivel de confianza del 95% y una precisión del 2%). La muestra se estratificó por grupos de edad de forma proporcional a su frecuentación y con revisión paritaria de historias de hombres y mujeres. Mediciones principales Número y gravedad de los EAE identificados entre febrero de 2018 y septiembre de 2019. Resultados Se revisaron un total de 2.557 historias clínicas (1.928, 75.4% de pacientes adultos y 629, 24.6% pediátricos). Se identificaron 182 EAE que afectaron a 168 pacientes (7,1%, IC 95% 6,1-8,1%); en adultos 7,6% (IC 95% 6,4-8,8%) y 5,7% (IC 95% 3,9-7,5%) en pacientes pediátricos. Las mujeres sufrieron más EAE que los hombres (p = 0,004). La incidencia de EAE en niños y niñas fue similar (p = 0,3). 6 (4.1%) de los EAE supusieron un daño permanente en pacientes adultos. Conclusiones Buscar fórmulas para incrementar la seguridad en AP, particularmente en pacientes mujeres, debe seguir siendo un objetivo prioritario incluso en pediatría. Uno de cada 24 EAE supone un daño grave y permanente en el adulto.