Aims: In-hospital prescribing errors may result in patient harm, such as prolonged hospitalisation and hospital (re)admission, and may be an emotional burden for the prescribers and healthcare professionals involved. Despite efforts, in-hospital prescribing errors and related harm still occur, necessitating an innovative approach. We therefore propose a novel approach, in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship (IPS). The aim of this study was to reach consensus on a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a basis for IPS. Methods: A three-round modified Delphi procedure was performed. Potential QIs were retrieved from two systematic searches of the literature, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In two written questionnaires and a focus meeting (held between the written questionnaire rounds), potential QIs were appraised by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel composed of members of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT). Results: The expert panel rated 59 QIs and four general statements, of which 35 QIs were accepted with consensus rates ranging between 79% and 97%. These QIs describe the activities of an IPS programme, the team delivering IPS, the patients eligible for the programme and the outcome measures that should be used to evaluate the care delivered. Conclusions: A framework of 35 QIs for an IPS programme was systematically developed. These QIs can guide hospitals in setting up a pharmacotherapeutic stewardship programme to reduce in-hospital prescribing errors and improve in-hospital medication safety.
DOCUMENT
BackgroundOver the past few years, the complexity of the health care system in which nurses are required to practice has increased considerably, magnifying the need for excellent professionals with a specific set of knowledge, skills and attitudes. However, the characteristics that distinguish an excellent nurse have not yet been clarified.The aim of this study was to determine nurses’ perspectives regarding characteristics associated with an excellent nurse in order to elicit a conceptual profile.MethodA focus group design followed by Delphi panel content validation was utilized. Information regarding nurses’ perspectives was derived from six focus group discussions comprising 19 nurses involved in hospital practice and 24 nurses with experience in mental health care. The analysis of the focus group discussions resulted in nine domains whereby content validity was achieved with contributions from a Delphi panel survey with 26 professionals.ResultsAs determined by the survey, a combination of these specified aspects characterize an excellent nurse: analytical, communicative, cooperative, coordinating, disseminates knowledge, empathic, evidence-driven, innovative and introspective.ConclusionDetermining what establishes an excellent nurse according to experienced nurses is valuable as this information can influence the broadening curriculum for educating future nurses to meet the needs in the professional field, contributing to the quality of care. This conceptual profile can be used as a reference guide for supervisors and professionals to personally improve their clinical practice as well as for education.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Access to pain education for healthcare professionals is an International Association for the Study of Pain's key recommendation to improve pain care. The content of preregistration and undergraduate physical therapy pain curricula, however, is highly variable.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a list, by consensus, of essential pain-related topics for the undergraduate physical therapy curriculum.METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted in four rounds, including a Delphi Panel (N = 22) consisting of in pain experienced lecturers of preregistration undergraduate physical therapy of Universities of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, and five Validation Panels. Round 1: topics were provided by the Delphi Panel, postgraduate pain educators, and a literature search. Rounds 2-4: the Delphi Panel rated the topics and commented. All topics were analyzed in terms of importance and degree of consensus. Validation Panels rated the outcome of Round 2.RESULTS: The Delphi Panel rated 257, 146, and 90 topics in Rounds 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This resulted in 71 topics judged as "not important," 97 as "important," and 89 as "highly important." In total, 63 topics were rated as "highly important" by the Delphi Panel and Validation Panels.CONCLUSION: A list was developed and can serve as a foundation for the development of comprehensive physical therapy pain curricula.
DOCUMENT
