Search

Introduction: Morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs) are an instrument for learning from past complications, unexpected follow-ups and deaths in hospitals and are important for improving patient safety. However, there are currently no quantitative data on the implementation of M&MCs in Austria. The aim of the study was to determine the status quo of the M&MCs in Austria. Materials and methods: A national cross-sectional study was conducted by means of a survey of 982 chief physicians of surgical disciplines, internal medicine, anesthesiology, intensive care, gynecology/obstetrics and pediatrics. The questionnaire focused on overall goals, structure and procedures of hospital M&MCs. Results: Of the 982 contacted chief physicians, 314 (32.0%) completed the survey. Almost two thirds of the respondents, i.e. 203 (64.7%), had already implemented M&MCs. Of the 111 chief physicians who had not yet introduced M&MCs, 62 (55.9%) were interested in introducing such conferences in the future. Of the 203 respondents that had implemented M&MCs, 100 stated that their M&MC could be improved. They reported issues with "shame and blame" culture, hierarchical structures, too little knowledge about the capability of M&MC and, in particular, time constraints. Overall, the participating chief physicians showed that they are striving to improve their existing M&MCs. Discussion/Conclusion: While we found a relatively high number of already implemented M&MCs we also identified a large heterogeneity in the format of the M&MCs. A highly structured M&MC including guidelines, checklists or templates does not only considerably improve its outcome but can also alleviate the main limiting factor which is the lack of time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of the Study: In perioperative care, communication about patient safety concerns is both difficult and valuable. Research into speaking up has mostly been conducted in single countries; the aim of this study was to compare speaking up-related climate and behaviors in academic and nonacademic hospitals. Materials and Methods: The study is based on two surveys conducted in Austria and Switzerland. The Swiss survey was conducted in five nonacademic hospitals, the Austrian survey in one university hospital. Results: 768 questionnaires were returned (nonacademic: n = 360; response rate: 37%; academic: n = 408; response rate: 32%). There were differences (p < 0.001) concerning speaking up episodes (at least one episode of speaking up in the past four weeks) between nonacademic hospitals (68%) and the academic hospital (96%). Withholding voice was reported by 32% of nonacademic and 43% of academic staff (p = 0.003). The speak up-related climate in the Swiss sample was more positive. Nurses compared to doctors scored higher on all items of the "resignation scale." Important differences emerged in ratings of a clinical scenario of missed hand disinfection: Nonacademic health-care workers perceived the risk of harm for patients higher compared to academic (5.3 vs. 2.5; p < 0.001). Responders higher in hierarchy felt better with speaking up in nonacademic hospitals. Conclusions: The study is one of the first to address differences in academic and nonacademic hospitals in speaking up behaviors and demonstrated differences. This analysis helps to put local data in perspective and to target further activities for improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze speaking up behavior and safety climate with a validated questionnaire for the first time in an Austrian university hospital.Design: Survey amongst healthcare workers (HCW). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha was calculated as a measure of internal consistencies of scales. Analysis of variance and t-tests were used.Setting: The survey was conducted in 2017.Participants: About 2.149 HCW from three departments were asked to participate.Intervention: To measure speaking up behavior and safety climate.Main Outcome Measure: To explore psychological safety, encouraging environment and resignation towards speaking up.Results: About 859 evaluable questionnaires were returned (response rate: 40%). More than 50% of responders perceived specific concerns about patient safety within the last 4 weeks and observed a potential error or noticed rule violations. For the different items, between 16% and 42% of HCW reported that they remained silent though concerns for safety. In contrast, between 96% and 98% answered that they did speak up in certain situations. The psychological safety for speaking up was lower for HCW with a managerial function (P < 0.001). HCW with managerial functions perceived the environment as less encouraging to speak up (P < 0.05) than HCW without managerial function.Conclusions: We identified speaking up behaviors for the first time in an Austrian university hospital. Only moderately frequent concerns were in conflict with frequent speaking up behaviors. These results clearly show that a paradigm shift is needed to increase speaking up culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]