Skip header and navigation

Refine By

414 records – page 1 of 42.

Acceptance and importance of clinical pharmacists' LIMM-based recommendations.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature127887
Source
Int J Clin Pharm. 2012 Apr;34(2):272-6
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-2012
Author
Asa Bondesson
Lydia Holmdahl
Patrik Midlöv
Peter Höglund
Emmy Andersson
Tommy Eriksson
Author Affiliation
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. asa.c.bondesson@skane.se
Source
Int J Clin Pharm. 2012 Apr;34(2):272-6
Date
Apr-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Attitude of Health Personnel
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Female
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Interdisciplinary Communication
Male
Medication Errors - prevention & control
Medication Reconciliation - organization & administration
Medication Therapy Management - organization & administration - standards
Middle Aged
Models, organizational
Patient Care Team - organization & administration
Pharmacists - organization & administration - psychology
Pharmacy Service, Hospital - organization & administration - standards
Physicians - psychology
Quality of Health Care - organization & administration - standards
Retrospective Studies
Risk assessment
Sweden
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of the clinical pharmacy service in a Swedish hospital according to the Lund Integrated Medicine Management (LIMM) model, in terms of the acceptance and clinical significance of the recommendations made by clinical pharmacists.
The clinical significance of the recommendations made by clinical pharmacists was assessed for a random sample of inpatients receiving the clinical pharmacy service in 2007. Two independent physicians retrospectively ranked the recommendations emerging from errors in the patients' current medication list and actual drug-related problems according to Hatoum, with rankings ranging between 1 (adverse significance) and 6 (extremely significant).
The random sample comprised 132 patients (out of 800 receiving the service). The clinical significance of 197 recommendations was assessed. The physicians accepted and implemented 178 (90%) of the clinical pharmacists' recommendations. Most of these recommendations, 170 (83%), were ranked 3 (somewhat significant) or higher.
This study provides further evidence of the quality of the LIMM model and confirms that the inclusion of clinical pharmacists in a multi-professional team can improve drug therapy for inpatients. The very high level of acceptance by the physicians of the pharmacists' recommendations further demonstrates the effectiveness of the process.
PubMed ID
22252773 View in PubMed
Less detail

Achieving the National Quality Forum's "Never Events": prevention of wrong site, wrong procedure, and wrong patient operations.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature164254
Source
Ann Surg. 2007 Apr;245(4):526-32
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-2007
Author
Robert K Michaels
Martin A Makary
Yasser Dahab
Frank J Frassica
Eugenie Heitmiller
Lisa C Rowen
Richard Crotreau
Henry Brem
Peter J Pronovost
Author Affiliation
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Source
Ann Surg. 2007 Apr;245(4):526-32
Date
Apr-2007
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Canada
Clinical Protocols
Humans
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
Medical Errors - prevention & control
Medical Laboratory Science
Risk factors
Safety
Safety Management - methods
Societies, Medical
Surgery Department, Hospital - organization & administration - standards
Surgical Procedures, Operative - standards
United States
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Abstract
Review the evidence regarding methods to prevent wrong site operations and present a framework that healthcare organizations can use to evaluate whether they have reduced the probability of wrong site, wrong procedure, and wrong patient operations.
Operations involving the wrong site, patient, and procedure continue despite national efforts by regulators and professional organizations. Little is known about effective policies to reduce these "never events," and healthcare professional's knowledge or appropriate use of these policies to mitigate events.
A literature review of the evidence was performed using PubMed and Google; key words used were wrong site surgery, wrong side surgery, wrong patient surgery, and wrong procedure surgery. The framework to evaluate safety includes assessing if a behaviorally specific policy or procedure exists, whether staff knows about the policy, and whether the policy is being used appropriately.
Higher-level policies or programs have been implemented by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, Veteran's Health Administration, Canadian Orthopaedic, and the North American Spine Society Associations to reduce wrong site surgery. No scientific evidence is available to guide hospitals in evaluating whether they have an effective policy, and whether staff know of the policy and appropriately use the policy to prevent "never events."
There is limited evidence of behavioral interventions to reduce wrong site, patient, and surgical procedures. We have outlined a framework of measures that healthcare organizations can use to start evaluating whether they have reduced adverse events in operations.
Notes
Cites: Anesthesiology. 2006 Nov;105(5):877-8417065879
Cites: Health Serv Res. 2006 Aug;41(4 Pt 2):1599-61716898981
Cites: J Crit Care. 2003 Jun;18(2):71-512800116
Cites: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Apr;80(4):4639563374
Cites: Crit Care Clin. 2005 Jan;21(1):1-19, vii15579349
Cites: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;30(1):99-10315690274
Cites: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Oct;87(10):2193-516203882
Cites: Pediatrics. 2005 Dec;116(6):1506-1216322178
Cites: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006 Feb;32(2):102-816568924
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2006 Apr 4;144(7):510-616585665
Cites: Arch Surg. 2006 Apr;141(4):353-7; discussion 357-816618892
Cites: Ann Surg. 2006 May;243(5):628-32; discussion 632-516632997
Cites: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006 Jun;32(6):351-516776390
Cites: Crit Care Med. 2006 Jul;34(7):1988-9516715029
Cites: JAMA. 2006 Aug 9;296(6):696-916896113
Cites: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Feb;85-A(2):193-712571293
PubMed ID
17414599 View in PubMed
Less detail

Adapting and remodelling the US Institute for Safe Medication Practices' Medication Safety Self-Assessment tool for hospitals to be used to support national medication safety initiatives in Finland.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature281586
Source
Int J Pharm Pract. 2016 Aug;24(4):262-70
Publication Type
Article
Date
Aug-2016
Author
Ercan Celikkayalar
Minna Myllyntausta
Matthew Grissinger
Marja Airaksinen
Source
Int J Pharm Pract. 2016 Aug;24(4):262-70
Date
Aug-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Delphi Technique
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - prevention & control
Finland
Hospitals - standards
Humans
Medication Errors - prevention & control
Patient Safety
Pharmacy Service, Hospital - standards
Pilot Projects
Risk Assessment - methods
Self-Assessment
Abstract
The US Institute for Safe Medication Practices' (ISMP) Medication Safety Self-Assessment (MSSA) tool for hospitals is a comprehensive tool for assessing safe medication practices in hospitals.
To adapt and remodel the ISMP MSSA tool for hospitals so that it can be used in individual wards in order to support long-term medication safety initiatives in Finland.
The MSSA tool was first adapted for Finnish hospital settings by a four-round (applicability, desirability and feasibility were evaluated) Delphi consensus method (14 panellists), and then remodelled by organizing the items into a new order which is consistent with the order of the ward-based pharmacotherapy plan recommended by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The adapted and remodelled tool was pilot tested in eight central hospital wards.
The original MSSA tool (231 items under ten key elements) was modified preliminarily before the Delphi rounds and 117 items were discarded, leaving 114 items for Delphi evaluation. The panel suggested 36 new items of which 23 were accepted. A total of 114 items (including 91 original and 23 new items) were accepted and remodelled under six new components that were pilot tested. The pilot test found the tool time-consuming but useful.
It was possible to adapt the ISMP's MSSA tool for another hospital setting. The modified tool can be used for a hospital pharmacy coordinated audit which supports long-term medication safety initiatives, particularly the establishment of ward-based pharmacotherapy plans as guided by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
PubMed ID
26811257 View in PubMed
Less detail

Adapting the US Institute for Safe Medication Practices' Medication Safety Self Assessment tool for community pharmacies in Finland.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature128089
Source
Int J Pharm Pract. 2012 Feb;20(1):15-24
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2012
Author
Tuula Teinilä
Suvi Halmepuro-Jaatinen
Kirsi Yritys
Katri Manni
Marja Airaksinen
Author Affiliation
Division of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Source
Int J Pharm Pract. 2012 Feb;20(1):15-24
Date
Feb-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Community Pharmacy Services - standards
Delphi Technique
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Feasibility Studies
Finland
Health Care Surveys
Humans
Medication Errors - prevention & control
Pharmacists - standards
Pilot Projects
Quality of Health Care
Self-Assessment
Abstract
To adapt a US Institute for Safe Medication Practices' Medication Safety Self Assessment (MSSA) tool to, and test its usefulness in, Finnish community pharmacies.
A three-round Delphi survey was used to adapt self-assessment characteristics of the US MSSA tool to Finnish requirements, and to obtain a consensus on the feasibility and significance of these characteristics in assessing the safety of medication practices in community pharmacies. The Delphi modified self-assessment tool was piloted in 18 community pharmacies in order to refine the tool, using a questionnaire containing structured and open-ended questions.
A total of 211 self-assessment characteristics were accepted to the self-assessment tool for pilot use by expert panellists in the Delphi rounds. Most pilot users considered the tool as useful in: identifying medication safety targets for development; medication safety assessment; and identifying the strengths of medication safety. The substance of the self-assessment tool was considered as comprehensive and essential for medication safety. Most criticism was regarding: the multiplicity of self-assessment characteristics; interpretation of some characteristics; and that all the characteristics were not yet available. After the modification, according to the pilot users' comments, the final Finnish tool consisted of 230 medication safety characteristics.
The study indicated the feasibility of adapting a US medication safety self-assessment tool for use in community pharmacy practice in Finland. More efforts should be made to familiarise Finnish community pharmacists with the self-assessment tool and its benefits, and get them to use the tool as part of their long-term quality improvement.
PubMed ID
22236176 View in PubMed
Less detail

Addressing the effects of adverse events: study provides insights into patient safety at Canadian hospitals.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature177436
Source
Healthc Q. 2004;7(4):20-1
Publication Type
Article
Date
2004
Author
G Ross Baker
Peter Norton
Author Affiliation
Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada.
Source
Healthc Q. 2004;7(4):20-1
Date
2004
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Canada
Humans
Medical Errors - prevention & control
Safety Management - organization & administration
PubMed ID
15540395 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Administration of medications. Joint charts for prescription--transcription and dispensing errors].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature178572
Source
Ugeskr Laeger. 2004 Aug 9;166(33):2800-3
Publication Type
Article
Date
Aug-9-2004
Author
Henning K Nielsen
Maren-Lis Larsen
Jette Ratchke
Birgit Svendsen
Niels Obel
Birte Hansen
Author Affiliation
Randers Centralsygehus, Medicinsk Afdeling. HKN@rc.aaa.dk
Source
Ugeskr Laeger. 2004 Aug 9;166(33):2800-3
Date
Aug-9-2004
Language
Danish
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Denmark
Documentation - standards
Drug Prescriptions - standards
Humans
Medication Errors - prevention & control
Medication Systems, Hospital - standards
Safety
Software
Notes
Comment In: Ugeskr Laeger. 2004 Sep 6;166(37):321915384381
PubMed ID
15344860 View in PubMed
Less detail

Advancing measurement of patient safety culture.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature154948
Source
Health Serv Res. 2009 Feb;44(1):205-24
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2009
Author
Liane Ginsburg
Debra Gilin
Deborah Tregunno
Peter G Norton
Ward Flemons
Mark Fleming
Author Affiliation
School of Health Policy and Management, Faculty of Health, York University, HNES Building 413, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M3J 1P3. lgins@yorku.ca
Source
Health Serv Res. 2009 Feb;44(1):205-24
Date
Feb-2009
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Canada
Cross-Sectional Studies
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Humans
Leadership
Medical Errors - prevention & control
Nursing Staff, Hospital - education - organization & administration
Organizational Culture
Psychometrics
Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods
Questionnaires
Reproducibility of Results
Safety Management - organization & administration
Abstract
To examine the psychometric and unit of analysis/strength of culture issues in patient safety culture (PSC) measurement.
Two cross-sectional surveys of health care staff in 10 Canadian health care organizations totaling 11,586 respondents.
A cross-validation study of a measure of PSC using survey data gathered using the Modified Stanford PSC survey (MSI-2005 and MSI-2006); a within-group agreement analysis of MSI-2006 data. Extraction Methods. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) of the MSI-05 survey data and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the MSI-06 survey data; Rwg coefficients of homogeneity were calculated for 37 units and six organizations in the MSI-06 data set to examine within-group agreement.
The CFA did not yield acceptable levels of fit. EFA and reliability analysis of MSI-06 data suggest two reliable dimensions of PSC: Organization leadership for safety (alpha=0.88) and Unit leadership for safety (alpha=0.81). Within-group agreement analysis shows stronger within-unit agreement than within-organization agreement on assessed PSC dimensions.
The field of PSC measurement has not been able to meet strict requirements for sound measurement using conventional approaches of CFA. Additional work is needed to identify and soundly measure key dimensions of PSC. The field would also benefit from further attention to strength of culture/unit of analysis issues.
Notes
Cites: J Appl Psychol. 2000 Aug;85(4):587-9610948803
Cites: J Appl Psychol. 2002 Feb;87(1):156-6311916209
Cites: J Appl Psychol. 2002 Apr;87(2):220-912002951
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Apr;12(2):112-812679507
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Aug;12(4):31812897370
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Dec;12 Suppl 2:ii17-2314645891
Cites: Psychol Bull. 1990 Mar;107(2):238-462320703
Cites: Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1997 Mar;23(3):135-479103968
Cites: J Safety Res. 2004;35(5):497-51215530924
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Dec;13 Suppl 2:ii22-715576687
Cites: Health Serv Res. 2005 Aug;40(4):997-102016033489
Cites: J Appl Psychol. 2005 Jul;90(4):616-2816060782
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Aug;14(4):231-316076784
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Aug;14(4):273-816076792
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Oct;14(5):364-616195571
Cites: Healthc Q. 2005;8 Spec No:14-916334066
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Apr;15(2):109-1516585110
Cites: BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:4416584553
Cites: Crit Care Med. 2006 Jul;34(7):1988-9516715029
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Oct;15(5):347-5317074872
Cites: Crit Care Med. 2007 Jan;35(1):314-617197782
Cites: Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Feb;19(1):4-717092958
Cites: Med Care. 2007 Jan;45(1):46-5417279020
Cites: J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Jan;22(1):155-617351859
Cites: Crit Care Med. 2007 May;35(5):1312-717414090
Cites: Health Serv Res. 2007 Oct;42(5):1999-202117850530
Cites: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007 Nov;33(11):699-703, 64518074719
Erratum In: Health Serv Res. 2009 Feb;44(1):321
PubMed ID
18823446 View in PubMed
Less detail

Adverse events. Focus on patient safety.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature181184
Source
Can Nurse. 2004 Feb;100(2):30
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2004

414 records – page 1 of 42.