Medical imaging practice changed dramatically with the introduction of digital imaging. Although digital imaging has many advantages, it also has made it easier to delete images that are not of diagnostic quality. Mistakes in imaging—from improper patient positioning, patient movement during the examination, and selecting improper equipment—could go undetected when images are deleted. Such an approach would preclude a reject analysis from which valuable lessons could be learned. In the analog days of radiography, saving the rejected films and then analyzing them was common practice among radiographers. In principle, reject analysis can be carried out easier and with better tools (ie, software) in the digital era, provided that rejected images are stored for analysis. Reject analysis and the subsequent lessons learned could reduce the number of repeat images, thus reducing imaging costs and decreasing patient exposure to radiation. The purpose of this study, which was conducted by order of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate, was to investigate whether hospitals in the Netherlands store and analyze failed imaging and, if so, to identify the tools used to analyze those images.
DOCUMENT
A Magnet-related program has been recently adopted in the Netherlands. Support for staff nurses from nurse middle managers (NMMs) is a key component of such a program. A Bourdieusian ethnographic organizational case study in four hospitals in the Netherlands and the United States (Magnet, Magnet-related and non-Magnet) was conducted to explore NMMs’ supporting role behavior. Bourdieus concepts of habitus, dispositions, field and capital guided the analysis. Eight dispositions constitute NMMs habitus. A caring, clinical and scientific disposition enhance NMMs’ capital in particular organizations-as-fields. Further research is necessary to link Magnet (related) program characteristics to various configurations of dispositions of NMMs habitus.
DOCUMENT
Horizontal collaborative purchasing (HCP) has often been cited as a way for hospitals to address the challenges of the rising healthcare costs. However, hospitals do not seem to utilize horizontal collaborative purchasing on any large scale, and recent initiatives have had mixed results. Focusing on Dutch hospitals, in this paper we present major impediments for collaborative purchasing, resulting in a first component of our proposed electronic horizontal collaborative purchasing model for hospitals; as a second component it contains a collaborative purchasing typology. A first validation round with hospital purchasing professionals, described separately in Kusters and Versendaal (2011), confirmed four applicable purchasing types and fourteen salient collaborative purchasing impediments. The model is operationalized by including possible information technology (IT) solutions that address the specific fourteen impediments. This model is validated through methodological triangulation of four different validation techniques. We conclude that IT has the potential to support, or overcome, the impediments of HCP. The validation also reveals the need to distinguish between more processrelated, as opposed to social-related, obstacles; the immediate potential for IT solutions is greater for the process-related impediments. Ultimately, we conclude that the collaborative epurchasing model (e-HCP) and implementation roadmap can be used by healthcare consortia, branche organizations, partnering healthcare institutes and multi-site healthcare institutes as a means to help identifying strategies to initiate, manage and evaluate collaborative purchasing practices
DOCUMENT
Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for medical x-ray procedures are being implemented currently in the Netherlands. By order of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate, a survey has been conducted among 20 Dutch hospitals to investigate the level of implementation of the Dutch DRLs in current radiological practice. It turns out that hospitals are either well underway in implementing the DRLs or have already done so. However, the DRLs have usually not yet been incorporated in the QAsystem of the department nor in the treatment protocols. It was shown that the amount of radiation used, as far as it was indicated by the hospitals, usually remains below the DRLs. A procedure for comparing dose levels to the DRLs has been prescribed but is not Always followed in practice. This is especially difficult in the case of children, as most general hospitals receive few children. Health Phys. 108(4):462–464; 2015
DOCUMENT
The benefits of collaborative purchasing are many, yet in the healthcare sector, in particular at hospitals, it is still uncommon. In this paper we identify major impediments for collaborative purchasing, resulting in a first component of our proposed collaborative e-purchasing model for hospitals; as a second component it contains a collaborative purchasing typology. After analysis of a first validation round with hospital purchasing professionals, the results show four applicable purchasing types and fourteen collaborative purchasing impediments that are perceived as important for hospitals. The model is further extended by possible IT solutions, identified by experts, addressing the specific fourteen impediments. We conclude that the collaborative e-purchasing model can be used by healthcare consortia, branche organizations, partnering healthcare institutes and multi-site healthcare institutes as a means to help identifying strategies to initiate, manage and evaluate collaborative purchasing practices.
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, hospitals have difficulty in implementing the formal procedure of comparing radiation dose values to Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs).METHODS: To support the hospitals, train radiography students, and carry out a nationwide dose survey, diagnostic radiography students performed 125 DRL comparisons for nine different procedures in 29 radiology departments. Students were instructed at three Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences with a radiography programme and supervised by medical physicists from the participating hospitals.RESULTS: After a pilot study in the western part of the country in eight hospitals, this study was enlarged to involve 21 hospitals from all over the Netherlands. The 86 obtained dose comparisons fall below the DRLs in 97% of all cases. This very high compliance may have been enhanced by the voluntary participation of hospitals that are confident about their performance.CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the current DRLs that were not based on a national survey, may need to be updated, sometimes to half their current value. For chest and pelvis examinations the DRLs could be lowered from 12 and 300 μGy·m 2 to the 75-percentile values found in this study of 5,9 and 188 μGy·m 2, respectively.
DOCUMENT
Abstract—A survey was conducted among 20 Dutch hospitals about radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy. This was a follow-up of a previous study in 2007 that led to several recommendations for radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy. The results indicate that most recommendations have been followed. However, radiation-induced complications from interventional procedures are still often not recorded in the appropriate register. Furthermore, even though professionals with appropriate training in radiation protection are usually involved in interventional procedures, this often is not the case when these procedures are carried out outside the radiology department. Although this involvement is not required by Dutch law, it is recommended to have radiation protection professionals present more often at interventional procedures. Further improvements in radiation protection for interventional fluoroscopy may come from a comparison of dose-reducing practices among hospitals, the introduction of diagnostic reference levels for interventional procedures, and a more thorough form of screening and follow-up of patients
DOCUMENT
The literature on how organizations respond to institutional pressure has shown that the individual decision-makers’ interpretation of institutional pressure played an important role in developing organizational responses. However, it has paid less attention to how this interpretation ultimately contributes to their range of organizational decisions when responding to the same institutional pressure. We address this gap by interviewing board members of U.S. and Dutch hospitals involved in adopting best practices regarding board evaluation. We found four qualitatively different cognitive frames that board members relied on to interpret institutional pressure, and which shaped their organizational response. We contribute to the literature on organizational response to institutional pressure by empirically investigating how decision-makers interpret institutional pressure, by suggesting prior experience and role definition as moderating factors of multidimensional cognitive frames, and by showing how these cognitive frames influence board members’ response to the same institutional pressure.
DOCUMENT
Some nurses are responding rebelliously to the changing healthcare landscape by challenging the status quo and deviating from suboptimal practices, professional norms, and organizational rules. While some view rebel nurse leadership as challenging traditional structures to improve patient care, others see it as disruptive and harmful. These diverging opinions create dilemmas for nurses and nurse managers in daily practice. To understand the context, dilemmas, and interactions in rebel nurse leadership, we conducted a multiple case study in two Dutch hospitals. We delved into the mundane practices to expand the concept of leadership-as-practice. By shadowing rebel nurse practices, we identified three typical leadership practices which present the most common “lived” experiences and dilemmas of nurses and nurse managers. Overall, we noticed that deviating acts were more often quick fixes rather than sustainable changes. Our research points to what is needed to change the status quo in a sustainable manner. To change unworkable practices, nurses need to share their experienced dilemmas with their managers. In addition, nurse managers must build relationships with other nurses, value different perspectives, and support experimenting to promote collective learning.
MULTIFILE
Introduction: In the Netherlands, Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) have not been based on a national survey as proposed by ICRP. Instead, local exposure data, expert judgment and the international scientific literature were used as sources. This study investigated whether the current DRLs are reasonable for Dutch radiological practice. Methods: A national project was set up, in which radiography students carried out dose measurements in hospitals supervised by medical physicists. The project ran from 2014 to 2017 and dose values were analysed for a trend over time. In the absence of such a trend, the joint yearly data sets were considered a single data set and were analysed together. In this way the national project mimicked a national survey. Results: For six out of eleven radiological procedures enough data was collected for further analysis. In the first step of the analysis no trend was found over time for any of these procedures. In the second step the joint analysis lead to suggestions for five new DRL values that are far below the current ones. The new DRLs are based on the 75 percentile values of the distributions of all dose data per procedure. Conclusion: The results show that the current DRLs are too high for five of the six procedures that have been analysed. For the other five procedures more data needs to be collected. Moreover, the mean weights of the patients are higher than expected. This introduces bias when these are not recorded and the mean weight is assumed to be 77 kg. Implications for practice: The current checking of doses for compliance with the DRLs needs to be changed. Both the procedure (regarding weights) and the values of the DRLs should be updated.
MULTIFILE
