Search

While research into complaints made about hospitals is increasing, this has yet to be translated into interventions to improve quality and safety. Incorporating the views of stakeholders into learning from complaints can be an effective means of bridging the gap between research and implementation in patient safety research. The aim of the study is to assess whether a co-design approach involving stakeholders is feasible and effective for identifying interventions to address issues from patient complaints. A series of online workshops and surveys were utilized to collate the views of stakeholders including patients, healthcare providers, health system researchers, and healthcare managers on how to improve quality and safety in care. Findings of previous analyses of patient complaints were used to identify the focus of this study and guide participants. The strength and feasibility of the interventions outlined by participants was subsequently assessed. Thirty-two interventions were outlined across the two workshops. These were ranked by participants using the APEASE model. Participants considered the co-design approach an appropriate and effective way to identify interventions for quality and safety improvement. Stakeholder co-design demonstrated excellent potential for suggesting interventions to improve patient safety based on the findings of complaints analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Older adults frequently attend the emergency department (ED) and experience high rates of adverse events following ED presentation. This randomised controlled trial evaluated the impact of early assessment and intervention by a dedicated team of health and social care professionals (HSCPs) in the ED on the quality, safety, and clinical effectiveness of care of older adults in the ED. Methods and findings This single-site randomised controlled trial included a sample of 353 patients aged [greater than or equal to]65 years (mean age = 79.6, SD = 7.01; 59.2% female) who presented with lower urgency complaints to the ED a university hospital in the Mid-West region of Ireland, during HSCP operational hours. The intervention consisted of early assessment and intervention carried out by a HSCP team comprising a senior medical social worker, senior occupational therapist, and senior physiotherapist. The primary outcome was ED length of stay. Secondary outcomes included rates of hospital admissions from the ED; hospital length of stay for admitted patients; patient satisfaction with index visit; ED revisits, mortality, nursing home admission, and unscheduled hospital admission at 30-day and 6-month follow-up; and patient functional status and quality of life (at index visit and follow-up). Demographic information included the patient's gender, age, marital status, residential status, mode of arrival to the ED, source of referral, index complaint, triage category, falls, and hospitalisation history. Participants in the intervention group (n = 176) experienced a significantly shorter ED stay than the control group (n = 177) (6.4 versus 12.1 median hours, p < 0.001). Other significant differences (intervention versus control) included lower rates of hospital admissions from the ED (19.3% versus 55.9%, p < 0.001), higher levels of satisfaction with the ED visit (p = 0.008), better function at 30-day (p = 0.01) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.03), better mobility (p = 0.02 at 30 days), and better self-care (p = 0.03 at 30 days; p = 0.009 at 6 months). No differences at follow-up were observed in terms of ED re-presentation or hospital admission. Study limitations include the inability to blind patients or ED staff to allocation due to the nature of the intervention, and a focus on early assessment and intervention in the ED rather than care integration following discharge. Conclusions Early assessment and intervention by a dedicated ED-based HSCP team reduced ED length of stay and the risk of hospital admissions among older adults, as well as improving patient satisfaction. Our findings support the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary model of care for key ED outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03739515; registered on 12 November 2018., Author(s): Marica Cassarino 1,2, Katie Robinson 1, Dominic Trépel 3,Íde O'Shaughnessy 4, Eimear Smalle 4, Stephen White 4, Collette Devlin 1, Rosie Quinn 5, Fiona Boland 6, Marie E. Ward [...]

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically impacted the delivery of hospital care in terms of quality and safety. Objectives: To examine complaints from two time points, quarter 4 (Q4) 2019 (pre-pandemic) and Q4 2020 (second wave), and explore whether there was a difference in the frequency and/or content of complaints. Methods: A retrospective analysis of complaints from one Irish hospital was conducted using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT). Within each complaint, the content, severity, harm reported by the patient, and stage of care were categorised. The complaints were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests of independence. Results: There were 146 complaints received in Q4 2019 and 114 in Q4 2020. Complaint severity was significantly higher in Q4 2019 as compared to Q4 2020. However, there were no other significant differences. Institutional processes (e.g. staffing, resources) were the most common reason for complaints (30% in Q4 2019 and 36% in Q4 2020). The majority of complaints were concerned with care on the ward (23% in Q4 2019 and 31% in Q4 2020). Conclusions: The severity of complaints was significantly higher in Q4 2019 than in Q4 2020, which requires further exploration as the reasons for this are unclear. The lack of a difference in the frequency and content of complaints during the two time periods was unexpected. However, this may be linked to a number of factors, including public support for the healthcare system, existing system-level issues in the hospital, or indeed increased staff collaboration in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]