Effect of Practice Environment on Nurse Reported Quality and Patient Safety: The Mediation Role of Person-Centeredness

This study aims to explore the potential mediation role of person-centeredness between the effects of the work environment and nurse reported quality and patient safety. A quantitative cross-sectional survey collected data from 1055 nurses, working in medical and surgical units, in twelve Malaysian private hospitals. The data collection used structured questionnaires. The Hayes macro explored the mediation effect of person-centeredness between the associations of work environment dimensions and care outcomes, controlling nurses’ demographics and practice characteristics. A total of 652 nurses responded completely to the survey (61.8% response rate). About 47.7% of nurses worked 7-h shifts, and 37.0% were assigned more than 15 patients. Higher workload was associated with unfavorable outcomes. Nurses working in 12-h shifts reported a lower work environment rating (3.46 ± 0.41, p < 0.01) and person-centered care (3.55 ± 0.35, p < 0.01). Nurses assigned to more than 15 patients were less likely to report a favorable practice environment (3.53 ± 0.41, p < 0.05), perceived lower person-centered care (3.61 ± 0.36, p < 0.01), and rated lower patient safety (3.54 ± 0.62, p < 0.05). Person-centeredness mediates the effect of nurse work environment dimensions on quality and patient safety. Medical and surgical nurses, working in a healthy environment, had a high level of person-centeredness, which, in turn, positively affected the reported outcomes. The function of person-centeredness was to complement the effects of the nurse work environment on care outcomes. Improving the nurse work environment (task-oriented) with a high level of person-centeredness (patient-oriented) was a mechanism through which future initiatives could improve nursing care and prevent patient harm.

Effect of Practice Environment on Nurse Reported Quality and Patient Safety: The Mediation Role of Person-Centeredness

Background Patient safety and quality are concerns of healthcare systems, and several reforms and efforts have focused on this concern. Person-centeredness and nurse work environment are key elements for providing high quality and safe patient care, as structural and process factors. Limited existing studies suggest a mediation role of person-centeredness from a nursing perspective. Accordingly, this study aim to explore the potential mediation role of person-centeredness between the effects of the work environment and nurse reported quality and patient safety. Methods A quantitative cross-sectional survey collected data from 1,055 nurses working in medical and surgical units in twelve Malaysian private hospitals. The data collection used structured questionnaires. The Hayes macro explored the mediation effect of person-centeredness between the associations of work environment dimensions and care outcomes, controlling nurses’ demographics and practice characteristics. Results A total of 652 nurses responded completely to the survey (61.8% response rate). About 47.7% of nurses worked 7-hour shifts, and 37.0% were assigned more than 15 patients. Higher workload was associated with unfavorable outcomes. Nurses working in 12-hour shifts reported a lower work environment rating (3.46 ± 0.41, p < 0.01) and person-centered care (3.55 ± 0.35, p < 0.01). Nurses assigned for more than 15 patients were less likely to report a favorable practice environment (3.53 ± 0.41, p < 0.05), perceived lower person-centered care (3.61 ± 0.36, p < 0.01), and rated lower patient safety (3.54 ± 0.62, p < 0.05). Person-centeredness mediates the effect of nurse work environment dimensions on quality and patient safety. Conclusion Medical and surgical nurses working in a healthy environment had a high level of person-centeredness, which is, in turn, positively affected the reported outcomes. The function of person-centeredness was to complement the effects of the nurse work environment on care outcomes. Improving the nurse work environment (task-oriented) with a high level of person-centeredness (patient-oriented) was a mechanism through which future initiatives could improve nursing care and preventing patient harm.

Adverse events reporting by obstetric units in Norway as part of their quality assurance and patient safety work: an analysis of practice

Background The Norwegian Board of Health Supervision aims to contribute to the improvement of quality and patient safety in the healthcare services. Planned audits were performed to investigate how 12 selected Norwegian obstetric units reported and analyzed adverse events as the part of their quality assurance and patient safety work. Methods Serious adverse events coded as birth asphyxia, shoulder dystocia and severe postpartum hemorrhage that occurred during 2014 (the most recent year for which the quality assured data were available) were obtained from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. The obstetric units were asked to submit medical records, internal adverse events reports, and their internal guidelines outlining which events should be reported to the quality assurance system. We identified the adverse events at each obstetric unit that were reported internally and/or to the central authorities. Two obstetricians carried out an evaluation of each event reported. Results Five hundred fifty-three serious adverse events were registered among 17,323 births that took place at the selected units. Twenty-one events were excluded because of incorrect coding or missing information. Eight events were registered in more than one category, and these were distributed to the category directly related to injury or adverse outcome. Nine of twelve (75 %) obstetric units had written guidelines describing which events should be reported. The obstetric units reported 49 of 524 (9.3 %) serious adverse events in their internal quality assurance system and 39 (7.4 %) to central authorities. Of the very serious adverse events, 29 of 149 (19.4 %) were reported. Twenty-three of 49 (47 %) reports did not contain relevant assessments or proposals for improving quality and patient safety. Conclusions This study showed that adverse event reporting and analyses by Norwegian obstetric units, as a part of quality assurance and patient safety work, are suboptimal. The reporting culture and compliance with guidelines need to be improved substantially for better safety in patient care, risk mitigation and clinical quality assurance.

HEALTHCARE QUALITY & PATIENT SAFETY (HQPS): AN EXPERIENCE AT INDIAN HOSPITAL, MONUSCO, D R CONGO

Maintaining health care quality and patient safety standards are essential for providing high quality patient care while ensuring safety to both patient and health care staff. DHMOSH requires all UN medical establishments to comply with HQPS standards which are derived from JCI specication. Our hospital is highest eld medical echelon in the UN. Patient safety and health care quality is not a destination but a continuous journey and this article intends to share the journey of the hospital through challenges faced, undergoing course correction and nally successfully undergoing HQPS assessment during ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Quality of health care and patient safety in extreme adversity settings in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a qualitative multicountry assessment

Background: Quality and patient safety are essential for the provision of effective health care services. Research on these aspects is lacking in settings of extreme adversity. Aims: This study aimed to explore the perception of health care stakeholders working in extreme adversity settings of the quality of health care and patient safety. Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted through semistructured interviews with 26 health care stakeholders from seven countries of the World Health Organization’s Eastern Mediterranean Region which are experiencing emergencies. The interviews explored the respondents’ perspectives of four aspects of quality and patient safety: definition of the quality of health care, challenges to the provision of good quality health care in emergency settings, priority health services and populations in emergency settings, and interventions to improve health care quality and patient safety. Results: The participants emphasized that saving lives was the main priority in extreme adversity settings. While all people living in emergency situations were vulnerable and at risk, the respondents considered women and children, poor and disabled people, and those living in hard-to-reach areas the priority populations to be targeted by improvement interventions. The challenges to quality of health care were: financing problems, service inaccessibility, insecurity of health workers, break down in health systems, and inadequate infrastructure. Respondents proposed interventions to improve quality, however, their effective implementation remains challenging in these exceptional settings. Conclusions: The interventions identified can serve as a basis for improvements in health care quality that could be adapted to extreme adversity settings.