Exploring patient participation in reducing health-care-related safety risks

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Exploring patient participation in reducing health-care-related safety risks 136 Providing these is the responsibility of professionals. Again, patient experience surveys can be used to monitor professionals’ efforts to empower patients and to improve their self-management skills. The CAHPS Item Set for Addressing Health Literacy or the Patient Activation Measure serve as good examples of these kinds of surveys. Recommendation 6 – Combine quantitative data with qualitative narratives It should be borne in mind that the least-literate patients are also least capable of filling out questionnaires. It is obvious that a certain level of literacy is required for patients to be able to complete questionnaires about their experiences with health care safety. Even when older people respond, they have higher rates of missing items (100). Questionnaires can be difficult to understand for patients with low literacy levels. King et al. therefore suggest that future patient reporting systems should balance closed-ended questions for cause analysis and classification, and open-ended narratives to allow for patients’ limited understanding of terminology (101). Patient stories are not only a rich source of information, they can also serve as a powerful tool to influence and change professionals’ behaviour (85). References 1. Rathert C, Brandt J, Williams ES. Putting the “patient” in patient safety: a qualitative study of consumer experiences. Health Expectations, 2012, 15(3):327−336. 2. Rathert C, May DR, Williams ES. Beyond service quality: the mediating role of patient safety perceptions in the patient experience-satisfaction relationship. Health Care Management Review, 2011, 36(4):359–368. 3. Taylor BB et al. Do medical inpatients who report poor service quality experience more adverse events and medical errors? Medical Care, 2008, 46(2):224–228. 4. Simi S, Patoia L. The importance of being patient. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 2010, 33(3):257–264. 5. Greenberg LG, Battles JB, Haskell H. Learning from patients’ experience: enhancing patient safety event reporting systems. Cirugia y Cirujanos, 2010, 78(5):463–468. 6. Rathert C, Huddleston N, Pak Y. Acute care patients discuss the patient role in patient safety. Health Care Management Review, 2011, 36(2):134–144. 7. Patients for Patient Safety [web site]. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2013 (http://www.who.int/patientsafety/patients_for_patient/en/, accessed 1 May 2012). 8. Hall J et al. Effectiveness of interventions designed to promote patient involvement to enhance safety: a systematic review. BMJ Quality and Safety in Health Care, 2010, 19(5):e10. 9. Schwappach DL. Review: engaging patients as vigilant partners in safety: a systematic review. Medical Care Research and Review, 2010, 67(2):119–148. 10. Fredericks JE, Bunting RF Jr. Implementation of a patient-friendly medication schedule to improve patient safety within a healthcare system. Journal of Healthcare Risk Management, 2010, 29(4):22–27. 11. Bergal LM et al. Patient participation in surgical site marking: can this be an additional tool to help avoid wrong-site surgery? Journal of Patient Safety, 2010, 6(4):221–225. 12. European Commission. Patient safety and quality of care. Special Eurobarometer, 2010, 327 (Wave 72.2; http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ ebs_327_en.pdf, accessed 2 May 2011).
13. Hibbard JH et al. Can patients be part of the solution? Views on their role in preventing medical errors. Medical Care Research and Review, 2005, 62(5):601–616. 14. Abbate R et al. Patients’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward hospitalassociated infections in Italy. American Journal of Infection Control, 2008, 36(1):39–47. 15. Connock M et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost−effectiveness of different models of managing long-term oral anticoagulation therapy: a systematic review and economic modelling. Health Technology Asessment, 2007, 11(38):iii–iv, ix–66. 16. Weingart SN et al. Lessons from a patient partnership intervention to prevent adverse drug events. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2004, 16(6):499–507. 17. McGuckin M et al. Patient education model for increasing handwashing compliance. American Journal of Infection Control, 1999, 27(4):309–314. 18. McGuckin M et al. Evaluation of a patient-empowering hand hygiene programme in the UK. Journal of Hospital Infection, 2001, 48(3):222–227. 19. McGuckin M et al. Evaluation of a patient education model for increasing hand hygiene compliance in an inpatient rehabilitation unit. American Journal of Infection Control, 2004, 32(4):235–238. 20. DiGiovanni CW, Kang L, Manuel J. Patient compliance in avoiding wrong-site surgery. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 2003, 85-A(5):815–819. 21. Anthony R et al. John M. Eisenberg patient safety awards. The LVHHN patient safety video: patients as partners in safe care delivery. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety, 2003, 29(12):640–645. 22. Entwistle VA, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Advising patients about patient safety: current initiatives risk shifting responsibility. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety/Joint Commission Resources, 2005, 31(9):483–494. 23. Kutty S, Weil S. “Your health care – be involved”: the evaluation of a provincial patient safety tips initiative. Healthcare Quarterly, 2006, 9:102–107. 24. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm. A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2001. 25. Leahy M, Lofgren H, de Leeuw E, eds. Democratizing health: consumer groups in the policy process. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011. 26. Meterko M et al. Mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the influences of patient-centered care and evidence-based medicine. Health Services Research, 2010, 45(5 Part 1):1188–1204. 27. Cleary PD, Edgman-Levitan S. Health care quality. Incorporating consumer perspectives. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1997, 278(19):1608–1612. 28. Van Campen C et al. Quality of care and patient satisfaction: a review of measuring instruments. Medical Care Research and Review, 1995, 52(1):109–133. 29. Sixma HJ et al. Quality of care from the patients’ perspective: from theoretical concept to a new measuring instrument. Health Expectations, 1998, 1(2):82–95. 30. Hays RD et al. Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans study. Medical Care, 1999, 37(Suppl. 3):22–31. 31. Crofton C et al. The CAHPS hospital survey: development, testing, and use. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety/Joint Commission Resources, 2005, 31(11):655–659, 601. 32. Darby C, Hays RD, Kletke P. Development and evaluation of the CAHPS hospital survey. Health Services Research, 2005, 40(6 Part 2):1973–1976. Patients’ experiences and patient safety 137
Page 1 and 2:
Exploring patient participation in
Page 3 and 4:
ABSTRACT Patients’ rights have be
Page 5 and 6:
iv Patient information: the link be
Page 7 and 8:
vi LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND BOXE
Page 9 and 10:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The editors would
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABHR alcohol-
Page 13 and 14:
FOREWORD Health is a social value a
Page 15 and 16:
ChApTER 1. pATIENTS’ RIGhTS AND p
Page 17 and 18:
Box 1 .1 . contd Reporting and Lear
Page 19 and 20:
The causal mechanisms through which
Page 21 and 22:
» be involved in routine monitorin
Page 23 and 24:
elationships within the complex env
Page 25 and 26:
ChApTER 2. pATIENTS’ RIGhTS AND p
Page 27 and 28:
CoE Recommendation 2006/7 of the Co
Page 29 and 30:
The 2005 United States act on patie
Page 31 and 32:
The right to participate in policy-
Page 33 and 34:
The right to participate in quality
Page 35 and 36:
» engaging with patient representa
Page 37 and 38:
hampered by the written and spoken
Page 39 and 40:
prevents misunderstandings and shap
Page 41 and 42:
Health care providers should nevert
Page 43 and 44:
Recommendation 7 - Encourage the av
Page 45 and 46:
20. Constitution of the World Healt
Page 47 and 48:
ChApTER 3. pATIENT pARTICIpATION IN
Page 49 and 50:
awareness of the sociomedical burde
Page 51 and 52:
Patient participation in hand hygie
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Blood transfusion safety in France:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Box 4 .1 . Definitions of adverse e
Page 67 and 68:
Fig . 4 .4 . Distribution of advers
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
The heterogeneity of situations and
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Fig . 4 .12 . Patients’ response
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Patient safety, rights and medicati
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Fig . 5 .3 . Frequency with which d
Page 99 and 100: Patient safety, rights and medicati
Page 107 and 108: ChApTER 6. pATIENT pARTICIpATION IN
Page 109 and 110: Patient participation in elective s
Page 111 and 112: e desirable to have a special statu
Page 117 and 118: inspections of surgical services to
Page 133 and 134: » being involved in monitoring and
Page 135 and 136: Other studies on patient attitudes
Page 137 and 138: Information about patients’ exper
Page 139 and 140: available evidence suggests that in
Page 141 and 142: Adverse events Respondents from the
Page 143 and 144: Feeling safe Five per cent of hospi
Page 145 and 146: probability proportional to populat
Page 147 and 148: care professionals’ and patients
Page 149: group recommends that patient invol
Page 153 and 154: 52. Triemstra M et al. Measuring cl
Page 155 and 156: 2009 (http://www.bradfordresearch.n
Page 157 and 158: of a small-scale patient survey add
Page 159 and 160: Box 8 .2 . Curricula and CME Chapte
Page 161 and 162: is provided through interaction of
Page 163 and 164: Box 8 .4 . Patient education Chapte
Page 165 and 166: ANNEX 1. QUOTATIONS FROM INTERNATIO
Page 167 and 168: (2) When designing adverse event re
Page 169 and 170: 17) If yes, do you think this was m
Page 171 and 172: Box A3 .1 . Reporting procedure Pat
Page 173 and 174: Box A3 .2 . contd Haemosiderosis Ha
Page 175 and 176: ANNEX 4. pATIENT QUESTIONNAIRE ABOU
Page 177 and 178: ANNEX 6. WhO pATIENT SAFETY pROGRAM
Page 179 and 180: especially those in intensive care.
Page 181 and 182: ANNEX 7. hANDOVER pROjECT Paul Bara
Page 183 and 184: (a) Provide new insight into the ro
Page 185 and 186: Johnson J, Barach P. Handovers of p
Page 187 and 188: Enhancing the patients’ role in p
Page 189 and 190: Enhancing the patients’ role in p
show all

Exploring patient participation in reducing health-care-related safety risks

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?