Abstract: The need for mental healthcare professionals in the Netherlands is increasing caused by the growth of patient complexity. The administration burden causes outflow of professionals and therefor they become increasingly scares. Improvement initiatives are aimed as the intended strategy and starts with (re)-structuring organizations through legislation and regulations. They entail both experienced and measured administration burden for healthcare professionals working in Long-Term Care (LTC). However, most studies only provide insight into the current administration burden or the impact of legislation and regulations on the administration burden from a broad perspective. These insights are useful to LTC managers, but more in-depth research is needed to implement laws and regulations to reduce the administration burden for LTC professionals in the future. The Compulsory Mental Healthcare Act (CMHA) was implemented in the Dutch mental healthcare and replaced the Special Admissions Act in Psychiatric Hospitals (SAAPH) on January 1, 2020. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the legislative transition and to determine the effect on the administration burden of Dutch mental healthcare professionals. A survey concerning the administration burden for especially psychiatrists before and after the transition was distributed to an addiction institute with a diversity of different mental healthcare professionals and a psychiatric institute that has been led by psychiatrists. Also some interviews with the lead professionals where held. The results show that the administration burden among psychiatrists has increased due to the contact with external healthcare providers and contact with the patient, family and their loved ones (a consequence of the amendment of the law). This effect was significant and in line with the results of the interviews. Therefor we conclude that the administration burden has increased as a result of the legislative amendment.
DOCUMENT
Business innovation is a multidisciplinary area of expertise that bridges the gap between traditional areas of study such as business administration, organizational studies, marketing, design, engineering and entrepreneurship. Business innovation focuses on creating, accelerating and managing new and sustainable business models through innovation (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Keeley, Walters, Pikkel, and Quinn, 2013).
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Retrospective studies suggest that a rapid initiation of treatment results in a better prognosis for patients in the emergency department. There could be a difference between the actual medication administration time and the documented time in the electronic health record. In this study, the difference between the observed medication administration time and documentation time was investigated. Patient and nurse characteristics were also tested for associations with observed time differences. Methods: In this prospective study, emergency nurses were followed by observers for a total of 3 months. Patient inclusion was divided over 2 time periods. The difference in the observed medication administration time and the corresponding electronic health record documentation time was measured. The association between patient/nurse characteristics and the difference in medication administration and documentation time was tested with a Spearman correlation or biserial correlation test. Results: In 34 observed patients, the median difference in administration and documentation time was 6.0 minutes (interquartile range 2.0-16.0). In 9 (26.5%) patients, the actual time of medication administration differed more than 15 minutes with the electronic health record documentation time. High temperature, lower saturation, oxygen-dependency, and high Modified Early Warning Score were all correlated with an increasing difference between administration and documentation times. Discussion: A difference between administration and documentation times of medication in the emergency department may be common, especially for more acute patients. This could bias, in part, previously reported time-to-treatment measurements from retrospective research designs, which should be kept in mind when outcomes of retrospective time-to-treatment studies are evaluated.
DOCUMENT
