Search

Background: Centralised incident reporting in a Dutch collaboration of nine out-of-hours services yielded very few incident reports. To improve incident reporting and the awareness of primary caregivers about patient safety issues, a local incident-reporting procedure was implemented.Aim: To compare the number and nature of incident reports collected in a local incident-reporting procedure (intervention) versus the currently used centralised incident-reporting procedure.Design Of Study: Quasi experiment.Setting: Three GPs' out-of-hours services (OHSs) in the centre of the Netherlands participated over 2 years before and 2 years after the intervention.Method: A local incident-reporting procedure was implemented in OHS1, in which participants were encouraged to report all occurring incidents. A local committee with peers analysed the reported incidents fortnightly in order to initiate improvements if necessary. In OHS2 and OHS3, the current centralised incident-reporting procedure was continued, where incidents were reported to an advisory committee of the board of directors of the OHSs collaboration and were assessed every 2 months. The main outcome measures were the number and nature of incidents reported.Results: At baseline, participants reported fewer than 10 incidents per year each. In the follow-up period, the number of incidents reported in OHS1 increased 16-fold compared with the controls. The type of incidents reported did not alter. In the local incident-reporting procedure, improvements were implemented in a shorter time frame, but reports in the centralised incident-reporting procedure led to a more systematic addressing of general and recurring safety problems.Conclusion: It is likely that a local incident-reporting procedure increases the willingness to report and facilitates faster implementation of improvements. In contrast, the central procedure, by collating reports from many settings, seems better at addressing generic and recurring safety issues. The advantages of both approaches should be combined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This intervention study examined the effects of a career crafting training on physicians' perceptions of their job crafting behaviors, career self-management, and employability. A total of 154 physicians working in two hospitals in a large Dutch city were randomly assigned to a waitlist control group or an intervention group. Physicians in the intervention group received an accredited training on career crafting, including a mix of theory, self-reflection, and exercises. Participants developed four career crafting goals during the training, to work on in the subsequent weeks, after which a coaching conversation took place over the phone. Physicians in the control group received no intervention. A pre- and post-test 8 weeks later measured changes in job crafting and career self-management (primary outcomes) and employability (secondary outcome) of 103 physicians that completed the pre- and post-test. RM ANOVAs showed that the intervention enhanced perceptions of career self-management and job crafting behavior to decrease hindering job demands. No support was found for the effect of the intervention on other types of job crafting and employability. This study offers novel insights into how career crafting can be enhanced through training, as this is the first empirical study to examine a career crafting intervention. HR managers can use the outcomes to develop tailored career policies and career development practices., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 van Leeuwen, Taris, van den Heuvel, Knies, van Rensen and Lammers.)

Purpose: Medical residents are valuable sources of information about the quality of frontline service delivery, but if they do not speak up, their ideas, opinions, and suggestions for improving their work practices cannot be considered. However, speaking up can be difficult for residents. Therefore, the authors have explored both what helps residents speak up about organizational barriers and opportunities to improve the quality of their work and what hinders them from doing so., Method: The authors conducted an exploratory qualitative interview study with 27 Dutch medical residents in the Netherlands in 2016. They used the critical incident technique for data collection and the constant comparison method of the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven for data analysis., Results: Three types of incidents in which residents considered speaking up are described. The authors identified 2 main considerations that influenced residents' decisions about speaking up: Is it safe to speak up, and is speaking up likely to be effective? Residents' decisions were influenced by personal, team, and organizational aspects of their situations, such as supervisors' open attitudes, hierarchy, duration of clinical rotations, organization size, and experiences (either vicarious or their own)., Conclusions: Findings from this study indicate that residents tend to be silent when they encounter organizational barriers or opportunities to improve the quality of their work. Perceived effectiveness and safety are important forces that drive and constrain speaking up. The authors provide important starting points to empower medical residents to speak up about their suggestions for change.

Medical leadership is a popular topic in the Netherlands, and several interest groups now incorporate medical leadership into postgraduate medical education. However, there is no consensus on what this concept entails. By conducting a discourse analysis, a qualitative method which uses language and text to reveal existing viewpoints, this article reveals three perspectives on medical leadership: administrative leadership, leadership within organisations and leadership within each doctor's daily practice. Text analysis shows that the first two perspectives refer to medical leadership mainly in a defensive manner: by demonstrating medical leadership doctors could 'take the lead' once again; patient care only seems to play a small part in the process. These perspectives are not free of consequences, they will determine how the medical profession is constructed. For this reason, it is argued that there should be more emphasis on the third perspective, in which the quality of care for patients is of primary importance.

Background: There is an inherent tension between allowing trainees in general practice (GP) to feel comfortable to report and learn from errors in a blame-free environment while still assuring high-quality and safe patient care. Unfortunately, little is known about the types and potential severity of incidents that may confront GP trainees. Furthermore, incident reporting by resident trainees is hindered by their concern that such transparency might result in more negative performance evaluations., Objective: To explore the number and nature of incidents that were reported by GP trainees and to determine whether there were differences between the reporters and non-reporters based on their performance evaluations., Design: Prospective cohort study., Methods: Confidential and voluntary incident reporting was implemented in GP vocational training of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Seventy-nine GP trainees were asked to report incidents over 6 months. Mixed methods were used to analyse the data., Results: 24 trainees reported a total of 44 incidents. 23 incidents concerned the work process and 17 concerned problems with diagnosis or therapy. Three-quarters (34/44) of incidents were determined to be not specifically related to the inexperience of the GP trainees. While actual patient harm was determined to be minimal or absent in two-thirds of incidents (29/44), the potential for moderate, major, or catastrophic harm was 89% (39/44). Trainees performing best on their performance assessment in the domain of clinical expertise reported incidents more often (43% vs 18%, p<0.03) than those who performed at a lower level., Conclusions: GP trainees rated highly by their faculty voluntarily reported incidents in the delivery of clinical care when given a safe, blame-free, and confidential reporting process. Most incidents were not found to be directly related to the inexperience of the trainee, but were caused by failing organisational processes in the healthcare delivery system. Moreover, the trainees who tended to report these incidents were those whose performance was highly evaluated in the domain of clinical expertise.

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of a locally implemented incident-reporting procedure (IRP) in primary healthcare centres after 1 year., Setting and Participants: Five primary healthcare centres caring for more than 43000 patients in The Netherlands. GPs, medical nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, pharmacist assistants and trainees reported incidents (a total of 117 employees)., Methods: An IRP was implemented in which participants were encouraged to report all incidents. In addition, dedicated 'reporting weeks' were introduced that emphasised reporting of minor incidents and near misses. In every centre, an IRP committee analysed the reported incidents in order to initiate improvements when necessary., Outcome Measures: Frequency and nature of reported incidents, number of incidents analysed by the IRP committees and number of improvements implemented. In addition, the authors studied the actual implementation of the IRP and the acceptability as experienced by participants., Results: A total of 476 incidents were reported during a 9-month reporting period. Of all incidents, 62% were reported in a reporting week, and most were process-related. Possible harm for patients was none or small in 87% of the reported incidents. IRP committees analysed 84 incidents and found 230 root causes. All participating centres had initiated improvement projects as a result of reported incidents. Most interviewees considered the IRP feasible, but several practical, professional and personal barriers to implementation of the IRP were identified., Conclusion: The implementation of a centre-based IRP in primary care is feasible. Reporting weeks enhance the willingness to report.