scholarly journals What Quality and Safety of Care for Patients Admitted to Clinically Inappropriate Wards: a Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 1314-1321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micaela La Regina ◽  
Francesca Guarneri ◽  
Elisa Romano ◽  
Francesco Orlandini ◽  
Roberto Nardi ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lear ◽  
A.D. Godfrey ◽  
C. Riga ◽  
C. Norton ◽  
C. Vincent ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances C Cunningham ◽  
Geetha Ranmuthugala ◽  
Jennifer Plumb ◽  
Andrew Georgiou ◽  
Johanna I Westbrook ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 120 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Chazapis ◽  
D. Gilhooly ◽  
A.F. Smith ◽  
P.S. Myles ◽  
G. Haller ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 677-678
Author(s):  
R. Lear ◽  
A.D. Godfrey ◽  
C. Riga ◽  
C. Norton ◽  
C. Vincent ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 110 (5) ◽  
pp. 1158-1175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Haller ◽  
Johannes Stoelwinder ◽  
Paul S. Myles ◽  
John McNeil

Clinical indicators are increasingly developed and promoted by professional organizations, governmental agencies, and quality initiatives as measures of quality and performance. To clarify the number, characteristics, and validity of indicators available for anesthesia care, the authors performed a systematic review. They identified 108 anesthetic clinical indicators, of which 53 related also to surgical or postoperative ward care. Most were process (42%) or outcome (57%) measures assessing the safety and effectiveness of patient care. To identify possible quality issues, most clinical indicators were used as part of interhospital comparison or professional peer-review processes. For 60% of the clinical indicators identified, validity relied on expert opinion. The level of scientific evidence on which prescriptive indicators ("how things should be done") were based was high (1a-1b) for 38% and low (4-5) for 62% of indicators. Additional efforts should be placed into the development and validation of anesthesia-specific quality indicators.


2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isla M. Hains ◽  
Anne Marks ◽  
Andrew Georgiou ◽  
Johanna I. Westbrook

Author(s):  
Omorogieva Ojo ◽  
Amanda Rodrigues Amorim Adegboye ◽  
Osarhumwese Osaretin Ojo ◽  
Xiaohua Wang ◽  
Joanne Brooke

The use of blenderised enteral nutrition formula (ENF) is on the increase globally. However, concerns remain regarding the microbial quality and safety of blenderised ENF compared with standard recommendations and commercial ENF. Aim: This was a systematic review which sought to compare the microbial quality of blenderised ENF and commercial ENF and to evaluate the effect of storage time on blenderised ENF. Method: Four databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, PSYCInfo and Google scholar) were searched for relevant articles based on the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes framework. Results: Eleven studies which met the criteria were included in the systematic review. Two major areas were identified; Microbial Quality of Blenderised ENF versus Commercial ENF; and The Effect of Storage Time on Microbial Quality of Blenderised ENF. Overall, 72.7% of the studies showed microbial contamination in blenderised ENF compared with 57.1% of commercial ENF, and the storage time was another important factor in the rates of contamination. The extent of handling or manipulation of the enteral formula was critical in determining the level of contamination. Conclusion: Preparation techniques for blenderised ENF need to be established and caregivers taught how to prepare and administer it appropriately in order to reduce contamination. Further, well-designed studies are required, which compare the microbial quality of blenderised ENF using adequate handling techniques and commercial ENF.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Smaggus ◽  
Marko Mrkobrada ◽  
Alanna Marson ◽  
Andrew Appleton

BackgroundThe quality and safety movement has reinvigorated interest in optimising morbidity and mortality (M&M) rounds. We performed a systematic review to identify effective means of updating M&M rounds to (1) identify and address quality and safety issues, and (2) address contemporary educational goals.MethodsRelevant databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, Education Resource Information Centre, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Healthstar, and Global Health) were searched to identify primary sources. Studies were included if they (1) investigated an intervention applied to M&M rounds, (2) reported outcomes relevant to the identification of quality and safety issues, or educational outcomes relevant to quality improvement (QI), patient safety or general medical education and (3) included a control group. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education instruments. Given the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, results were analysed thematically.ResultsThe final analysis included 19 studies. We identified multiple effective strategies (updating objectives, standardising elements of rounds and attaching rounds to a formal quality committee) to optimise M&M rounds for a QI/safety purpose. These efforts were associated with successful integration of quality and safety content into rounds, and increased implementation of QI interventions. Consistent effects on educational outcomes were difficult to identify, likely due to the use of methodologies ill-fitted for educational research.ConclusionsThese results are encouraging for those seeking to optimise the quality and safety mission of M&M rounds. However, the inability to identify consistent educational effects suggests the investigation of M&M rounds could benefit from additional methodologies (qualitative, mixed methods) in order to understand the complex mechanisms driving learning at M&M rounds.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document