Search

Background: Patients and family members make complaints about their hospital care in order to express their dissatisfaction with the care received and prompt quality improvement. Increasingly, it is being understood that these complaints could serve as important data on how to improve care if analysed using a standardized tool. The use of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) for this purpose has emerged internationally for quality and safety improvement. Previous work has identified hot spots (areas in care where harm occurs frequently) and blind spots (areas in care that are difficult for staff members to observe) from complaints analysis. This study aimed to (i) apply the HCAT to a sample of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) to identify hot spots and blind spots in care and (ii) compare the findings of this analysis to a previously published study on hospital complaints in the UK.Methods: A sample of complaints was taken from 16 hospitals in the RoI in Quarter 4 of 2019 (n = 641). These complaints were coded using the HCAT to classify complaints by domain, category, severity, stage of care and harm. Chi-squared tests were used to identify hot spots, and logistic regression was used to identify blind spots. The findings of this study were compared to a previously published UK study that used HCAT to identify hot spots and blind spots.Results: Hot spots were identified in Irish hospital complaints while patients were receiving care on the ward, during initial examination and diagnosis, and while they were undergoing operations or procedures. This aligned with hot spots identified in the UK study. Blind spots were found for systemic problems, where patients experience multiple issues across their care.Conclusions: Hot spots and blind spots for patient harm can be identified in hospital care using the HCAT analysis. These in turn could be used to inform improvement interventions, and direct stakeholders to areas that require urgent attention. This study also highlights the promise of the HCAT for use across different healthcare systems, with similar results emerging from the RoI and the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In June 1999, the dioxin crisis, caused by dioxin-contaminated feed components, exploded in Belgium, resulting in withdrawal of chicken and eggs from the market. Through the sentinel surveillance system, a [...]

Background: Addressing recruitment and retention challenges in trials is a key priority for methods research, but navigating the literature is difficult and time-consuming. In 2016, ORRCA (www.orrca.org.uk) launched a free, searchable database of recruitment research that has been widely accessed and used to support the update of systematic reviews and the selection of recruitment strategies for clinical trials. ORRCA2 aims to create a similar database to map the growing volume and importance of retention research. Methods: Searches of Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, restricted to English language and publications up to the end of 2017. Hand searches of key systematic reviews were undertaken and randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions within the ORRCA database on 1 October 2020 were also reviewed for any secondary retention outcomes. Records were screened by title and abstract before obtaining the full text of potentially relevant articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, methods and study designs to improve retention within healthcare research were eligible. Case reports describing retention challenges or successes and studies evaluating participant reported reasons for withdrawal or losses were also included. Studies assessing adherence to treatments, attendance at appointments outside of research and statistical analysis methods for missing data were excluded. Eligible articles were categorised into one of the following evidence types: randomised evaluations, non-randomised evaluations, application of retention strategies without evaluation and observations of factors affecting retention. Articles were also mapped against a retention domain framework. Additional data were extracted on research outcomes, methods and host study context. Results: Of the 72,904 abstracts screened, 4,364 full texts were obtained, and 1,167 articles were eligible. Of these, 165 (14%) were randomised evaluations, 99 (8%) non-randomised evaluations, 319 (27%) strategies without evaluation and 584 (50%) observations of factors affecting retention. Eighty-four percent (n = 979) of studies assessed the numbers of participants retained, 27% (n = 317) assessed demographic differences between retained and lost participants, while only 4% (n = 44) assessed the cost of retention strategies. The most frequently reported domains within the 165 studies categorised as 'randomised evaluations of retention strategies' were participant monetary incentives (32%), participant reminders and prompts (30%), questionnaire design (30%) and data collection location and method (26%). Conclusion: ORRCA2 builds on the success of ORRCA extending the database to organise the growing volume of retention research. Less than 15% of articles were randomised evaluations of retention strategies. Mapping of the literature highlights several areas for future research such as the role of research sites, clinical staff and study design in enhancing retention. Future studies should also include cost–benefit analysis of retention strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) producing Enterobacteriaceae infections are associated with delayed initiation of appropriate treatment, poor outcomes and increased hospital stay and expense. Although initially associated with healthcare settings, more recent international reports have shown increasing isolation of ESBLs in the community. Both hospital and community ESBL epidemiology in Ireland are poorly defined. Methods This report describes clinical and laboratory data from three hospitals over 4.5 years. All significant isolates of Enterobacteriaceae were subjected to standardized antimicrobial susceptibility testing and screening for ESBL production. Available patient data from hospital databases were reviewed. Results The database included 974 ESBL producing organisms from 464 patients. Urine and blood isolates represented 84% and 3% of isolates respectively. E. coli predominated (90.9%) followed by K. pneumoniae (5.6%). The majority of patients (n = 246, 53.0%) had been admitted to at least one of the study hospitals in the year prior to first isolation of ESBL. The overall 30-day all-cause mortality from the date of culture positivity was 9.7% and the 1 year mortality was 61.4%. A Cox regression analysis showed age over 60, male gender and previous hospital admissions were significant risk factors for death within 30 days of ESBL isolation. Numbers of ESBL-producing E. coli isolated from urine and blood cultures increased during the study. Urine isolates were more susceptible than blood isolates. Co-resistance to other classes of antimicrobial agents was more common in ESBL producers from residents of long stay facilities (LSF) compared with hospital inpatients who lived at home. Conclusions This work demonstrates a progressively increasing prevalence of ESBL Enterobacteriaceae in hospital, LSF and community specimens in a defined catchment area over a long time period . These results will improve clinician awareness of this problem and guide the development of empiric antimicrobial regimens for community acquired bloodstream and urinary tract infections.