Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions receiving primary care services is growing. To deal with their increasingly complex health care demands, professionals from different disciplines need to collaborate. Interprofessional team (IPT) meetings are becoming more popular. Several studies describe important factors related to conducting IPT meetings, mostly from a professional perspective. However, in the light of patient-centeredness, it is valuable to also explore the patients’ perspective. Objective: The aim was to explore the patients’ perspectives regarding IPT meetings in primary care. Methods: A qualitative study with a focus group design was conducted in the Netherlands. Two focus group meetings took place, for which the same patients were invited. The participants, chronically ill patients with experience on interprofessional collaboration, were recruited through the regional patient association. Participants discussed viewpoints, expectations, and concerns regarding IPT meetings in two rounds, using a focus group protocol and selected video-taped vignettes of team meetings. The first meeting focused on conceptualization and identification of themes related to IPT meetings that are important to patients. The second meeting aimed to gain more in-depth knowledge and understanding of the priorities. Discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by means of content analysis. Results: The focus group meetings included seven patients. Findings were divided into six key categories, capturing the factors that patients found important regarding IPT meetings: (1) putting the patient at the center, (2) opportunities for patients to participate, (3) appropriate team composition, (4) structured approach, (5) respectful communication, and (6) informing the patient about meeting outcomes. Conclusions: Patients identified different elements regarding IPT meetings that are important from their perspective. They emphasized the right of patients or their representatives to take part in IPT meetings. Results of this study can be used to develop tools and programs to improve interprofessional collaboration.
BackgroundTo use advanced medical technologies (AMTs) correctly and safely requires both specialist knowledge and skills, and an awareness of risks and how those can be minimized. Reporting safety concerns about AMTs in home care can contribute to an improved quality of care. The extent to which a health care organization has integrated the reporting, evaluation and learning from incidents is a key element of that organization's patient safety culture.ObjectivesTo explore nurses' experiences regarding the education followed in the use of AMTs in the home setting, and their organizations' systems of reporting.DesignDescriptive cross-sectional design.Methods209 home care nurses from across the Netherlands who worked with infusion therapy, parenteral nutrition and/or morphine pumps responded to the online questionnaire between July 2018 and February 2019. The analysis of the data was mainly descriptive.ResultsEducational interventions that are most often used to learn how to use AMTs were, as an average over the three AMTs, instruction by a nurse (71%), practical training in the required skills (71%) and acquiring information to increase theoretical knowledge (69%). Considerable attention is paid to patient safety (88%) and the home setting (89%). However, a substantial proportion of the nurses (up to 29%) use AMTs even though they had not been tested on their skills. 95% of the respondents were well acquainted with the incident reporting protocol of their organization, but only 49% received structural or regular feedback on any actions taken as a result of event reporting.ConclusionsThis study revealed aspects of nurses' education that imply risk factors for patient safety. Practical training is not always given, additional or retraining is often voluntary, and the required skills are not always tested. However, the results show that nurses do have a good awareness of patient safety. Incidents are mainly discussed within the team, but less at the organizational level.
Background Traumatic injuries are of global health concern and significant contributors to Emergency Department (ED) and hospital workload. Aim To compare patterns of traumatic injuries among patient presentations to the ED across different modes of arrival (ambulance, police, or private transport) and to examine the predictors of an ED length of stay (LOS) exceeding 4 hours and hospital admission requirement. Methods A retrospective observational study using 6 months of health data (8th October 2012–7th April 2013) of ED patient presentations made to one large, regional ED in Queensland, Australia, with a diagnosis code related to trauma. Findings Over 6 months, 24.2% (n = 6,668) of adult patient presentations were trauma-related; most (60.9%) arrived via privately arranged transport (PAT); 38.7% were brought in by ambulance (BIBA) and 0.4% were brought in by police (BIBP). Demographics, clinical profile and patient outcomes differed based on mode of arrival. One in four patient presentations required hospital admission and 25% had an ED length of stay of >4 hours. Factors influencing hospital admission included older age, night shift, more emergent priority, and being BIBA. An ED length of stay of >4 hours was associated with older age, being BIBA, emergent nature of presentation, and hospital admission. Conclusion The profile and outcomes of ED patient presentations with traumatic injury differs based on their mode of arrival to the ED. People BIBA were more likely to require hospital admission and have longer ED LOS, compared with those BIBP or PAT, even when controlling for covariates. Our findings may be used to inform nursing resource allocation when considering mode of arrival, especially for older people and people BIBA.
LINK
