Search

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a multidisciplinary method aimed at assessing the health effects of policies, plans, and projects using quantitative, qualitative, and participatory techniques. In many European countries, such as in Italy, there is a lack of implementation of HIA procedures and it would be necessary to develop instruments and protocols in order to improve the specific skills of professionals involved in the assessment process. This article aims to describe the development and implementation of HIA guidelines, promoted by the Italian National Agency for Regional Health Services (AGENAS), in 4 Southern Italian regions. Public health search engine and institutional Web sites were consulted to collect international data existing in this field. Monthly workshops were then organized with regional representatives to discuss the scientific literature and to identify the guidelines' contents: source of data, stakeholders, screening- and scoping-phase checklist tools, priority areas, monitoring, and reporting plans. Four regions (Calabria, Campania, Puglia, and Sicilia) took part in the project. This article describes the methodology of development and implementation of HIA guidelines in the Italian context. The tools created to collect data and assess health consequences (such as screening and scoping grids) are reported. This project represents the first structured initiative proposed and supported by the Ministry of Health aiming to introduce HIA in Italy. HIA should be considered a priority in the public health agenda, as a fundamental instrument in helping decision makers to make choices about alternatives to prevent disease/injury and to actively promote health.

In recent years, a progressive increase in the number of medical diagnostic and interventional procedures has been observed, namely in cardiology. A significant proportion of them appear inappropriate, i.e. potentially redundant, harmful, costly, and useless. Recently, the document Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation Putting the Charter into Practice program, JAMA's Less Is More and BMJ's Too Much Medicine series, and the American College of Physicians' High-Value, Cost-Conscious Care initiatives, have all begun to provide direction for physicians to address pervasive overuse in health care. In 2010, the Brody's proposal to scientific societies to indicate the five medical procedures at high inappropriateness risk inspired the widely publicized ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely campaign. As part of Choosing Wisely, each participating specialty society has created lists of Things Physicians and Patients Should Question that provide specific, evidence-based recommendations physicians and patients should discuss to help make wise decisions about the most appropriate individual care. In Italy, Slow Medicine launched the analogue campaign Fare di più non significa fare meglio. The Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO) endorsed the initiative by recognizing the need to optimize available resources, reduce costs and avoid unnecessary cardiovascular assessments, thereby enhancing the more efficient care delivery models. An ad hoc ANMCO Working Group prepared a list of five cardiac procedures that seem inappropriate for routine use in our country and, after an internal revision procedure, these are presented here.

"Second victims" are health care providers who remain traumatized and suffer at the psycho-physical level after being involved in a patient adverse event. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to: a) estimate the prevalence of second victims among healthcare workers, b) describe personal and work outcomes of second victims, c) identify coping strategies used by second victims to face their problems, and d) describe current support strategies. Findings reveal that the prevalence of "second victims" of medical errors is high, ranging in four studies from 10.4% to 43.3%. Medical errors have a negative impact on healthcare providers involved, leading to physical, cognitive and behavioural symptoms including the practice of defensive medicine. Managers of health organizations need to be aware of the "second victim" phenomenon and ensure adequate support is given to healthcare providers involved. The best strategy seems to be the creation of networks of support at both the individual and organizational levels. More research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of support structures for second victims and to quantify the extent of the practice of defensive medicine following medical error.