Conectar
Previous studies have shown the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with reductions in volume across a spectrum of non-SARS-CoV-2 hospitalizations. In the present study, we examine the impact of the pandemic on patient safety and quality of care.
This is a retrospective population-based study of discharge abstracts.
We applied a set of nationally validated indicators for measuring the quality of inpatient care to hospitalizations in Ontario, Canada between January 2010 and December 2022. We measured 90-day mortality after selected types of higher risk admissions (such as cancer surgery and cardiovascular emergency) and the rate of patient harm events (such as delirium, pressure injuries and hospital-acquired infections) occurring during the hospital stay.
A total 13,876,377 hospitalization episodes were captured. Compared with the pre-pandemic period, and independent of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the pandemic period was associated with higher rates of mortality after bladder cancer resection (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.20 (1.07–1.34)) and open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm (aRR 1.45 (1.06–1.99)). The pandemic was also associated with higher rates of delirium (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.04 (1.02–1.06)), venous thromboembolism (aOR 1.10 (1.06–1.13)), pressure injuries (aOR 1.28 (1.24–1.33)), aspiration pneumonitis (aOR 1.15 (1.12–1.18)), urinary tract infections (aOR 1.02 (1.01–1.04)), Clostridiodes difficile infection (aOR 1.05 (1.02–1.09)), pneumothorax (aOR 1.08 (1.03–1.13)), and use of restraints (aOR 1.12 (1.10–1.14)), but was associated with lower rates of viral gastroenteritis (aOR 0.22 (0.18–0.28)). During the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2-positive admissions were associated with a higher likelihood of various harm events.
The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with higher rates of patient harm for a wide range of non-SARS-CoV-2 inpatient populations.
Understanding which quality measures are improving or deteriorating can help health systems prioritize quality improvement initiatives.
No patient or public contribution.
To explore the satisfaction and experiences of women and staff with the BSOTS in an Australian hospital.
Cross-sectional descriptive survey.
Surveys were distributed to women and staff between February and May 2022. Survey questions reflected satisfaction with triage and provision of care under the BSOTS system (for women) and confidence in using the BSOTS system and its impact on triage-related care (for staff). Survey data were summarized using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were analysed using content analysis.
There were 50 women and 40 staff (midwives and doctors) survey respondents. Most women were satisfied with triage wait times, the verbal information they received and the time it took for them to receive care. Nearly all midwife participants indicated they had high knowledge and confidence in using the BSOTS. Most staff indicated that the BSOTS supported the accurate assessment of women and had benefits for women, staff and the hospital.
The findings showed that women and staff were satisfied with receiving and providing care in a maternity triage setting under the BSOTS system.
Implementing standardized maternity triage approaches such as the BSOTS in health settings delivering care to pregnant women is recommended for improving flow of care and perceptions of care quality by women.
Quality of maternity triage processes is likely to impact the satisfaction of women attending services and the staff providing care. The BSOTS was shown to improve maternity triage processes and was associated with satisfaction of women and staff. Maternity settings can benefit from implementing triage approaches such as the BSOTS as it standardizes and justifies the care provided to women. This is likely to result in satisfaction of women and staff engaged in maternity triage and improve the birth outcomes of women and babies.
The reporting of this paper has followed SQUIRE guidelines.
Women engaged with maternity services were participants in the study but did not contribute to the design, conduct or publication of the study.
Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients’ involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.
We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane’ Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.
Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.
CRD42022338299.
Listening and communication difficulties can limit people’s participation in activity and adversely affect their quality of life. Hearing, as well as listening and communication difficulties, can be measured either by using behavioural tests or self-report measures, and the outcomes are not always closely linked. The association between behaviourally measured and self-reported hearing is strong, whereas the association between behavioural and self-reported measures of listening and communication difficulties is much weaker, suggesting they assess different aspects of listening. While behavioural measures of listening and communication difficulties have been associated with poorer cognitive performance including executive functions, the same association has not always been shown for self-report measures. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to understand the relationship between executive function and self-reported listening and communication difficulties in adults with hearing loss, and where possible, potential covariates of age and pure-tone audiometric thresholds.
Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they report data from both a self-report measure of listening difficulties and a behavioural measure of executive function. Eight databases are to be searched: MEDLINE (via Ovid SP), EMBASE (via Ovid SP), PsycINFO (via Ovid SP), ASSIA (via ProQuest), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature or CINAHL (via EBSCO Host), Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index). The JBI critical appraisal tool will be used to assess risk of bias for included studies. Results will be synthesised primarily using a meta-analysis, and where sufficient quantitative data are not available, a narrative synthesis will be carried out to describe key results.
No ethical issues are foreseen. Data will be disseminated via academic publication and conference presentations. Findings may also be published in scientific newsletters and magazines.
CRD42022293546.
by Emily A. Simpson, Helen J. Stacey, Ross J. Langley, Joshua D. Jones
Bacterial resistance or tolerance to antibiotics is costly to patients and healthcare providers. With the impact of antibiotic resistance forecast to grow, alternative antimicrobial approaches are needed to help treat patients with antibiotic refractory infections and reduce reliance upon existing antibiotics. There is renewed interest in bacteriophage (phage) therapy as a promising antimicrobial strategy. We therefore performed the first multi-specialty survey about phage therapy and the first such survey among clinicians in the United Kingdom. An anonymous 10-question survey of clinicians from medical and surgical specialties in two Scottish Health Boards was performed. The 90 respondents spanned 26 specialties and were predominantly consultants (73.3%). The respondents were concerned about antibiotic resistance in their clinical practice; 83 respondents estimated having seen 711 patients in the last 12 months whose infections were refractory to antibiotics (delaying or preventing resolution). Over half (58.8%) of the respondents had previously heard of phage therapy. Staphylococci, Pseudomonas and E. coli were identified as the highest cross-specialty priorities for the development of phage therapy. Together, 77 respondents estimated seeing 300 patients in the last 12 months for whom phage therapy may have been appropriate (an average of 3.9 patients per clinician). Most respondents (71.1%, n = 90) were already willing to consider using phage therapy in appropriate cases. Additional comments from the respondents affirmed the potential utility of phage therapy and highlighted a need for more information. The results of this survey demonstrate substantial demand for and willingness to use phage therapy in appropriate cases, both from individual clinicians and across specialties. Demand from a wide range of specialties illustrates the broad clinical utility of phage therapy and potential scope of impact. Widening access to phage therapy could deliver substantial clinical and financial benefits for patients and health authorities alike.
FreshRSS 