<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com">
<title>BMJ Quality &#x26; Safety current issue</title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com</link>
<description>BMJ Quality &#x26; Safety RSS feed -- current issue</description>
<prism:eIssn>2044-5423</prism:eIssn>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>May  1 2012 12:00:00:000AM</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>BMJ Quality &#x26; Safety</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>2044-5415</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/357?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/361?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/369?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/381?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/391?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/399?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/408?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/416?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/423?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/432?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/439?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/site/homepage/QSHC_95x60.gif" />
</channel>
<image rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/site/homepage/QSHC_95x60.gif">
<title>BMJ Quality &#x26; Safety</title>
<url>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/site/homepage/QSHC_95x60.gif</url>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com</link>
</image>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/357?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The science of interruption]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/357?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>There has been a steady growth of research into interruption spanning two decades. The first observations indicating that interruptions appeared to be commonplace in busy clinical settings like the emergency department<cross-ref type="bib" refid="b1">1&ndash;5</cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="b2"></cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="b3"></cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="b4"></cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="b5"></cross-ref> were soon followed by a potential link between interruptions and clinical error.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="b6">6</cross-ref> We now know that the act of interruption is pervasive,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="b7">7&ndash;9</cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="b8"></cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="b9"></cross-ref> perhaps universal, in clinical practice (and indeed most of life). Even apparently quiet and controlled spaces like the operating theatre are home to frequent interruption.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="b10">10</cross-ref> <cross-ref type="bib" refid="b11">11</cross-ref> There are now also robust studies demonstrating the sometimes negative impact of interruption on clinical work,<cross-ref type="bib" refid="b12">12</cross-ref> and in the genesis of error.<cross-ref type="bib" refid="b13">13&ndash;15</cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="b14"></cross-ref><cross-ref type="bib" refid="b15"></cross-ref></p> <p>Interruption science is thus important in its own right. As importantly, it also provides us with a model...]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Coiera, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000783</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2012-000783</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The science of interruption]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>357</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>360</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/361?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Identifying, understanding and overcoming barriers to medication error reporting in hospitals: a focus group study]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/361?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>The under-reporting of medication errors can compromise patient safety. A qualitative study was conducted to enhance the understanding of barriers to medication error reporting in healthcare organisations.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Focus groups (with physicians, pharmacists and nurses) and in-depth interviews (with risk managers) were used to identify medication error reporting beliefs and practices at four community hospitals in Nova Scotia, Canada. Audio tapes were transcribed verbatim and analysed for thematic content using the template style of analysis. The development and analysis of this study were guided by Safety Culture Theory.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Incentives for medication error reporting were thematised into three categories: patient protection, provider protection and professional compliance. Barriers to medication error reporting were thematised into five categories: reporter burden, professional identity, information gap, organisational factors and fear. Facilitators to encourage medication error reporting were classified into three categories: reducing reporter burden, closing the communication gap and educating for success. Participants indicated they would report medication errors more frequently if reporting were made easier, if they were adequately educated about reporting, and if they received timely feedback.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Study results may lead to a better understanding of the barriers to medication error reporting, why these barriers exist and what can be done to successfully overcome them. These results could be used by hospitals to encourage reporting of medication errors and ultimately make organisational changes leading to a reduction in the incidence of medication errors and an improvement in patient safety.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hartnell, N., MacKinnon, N., Sketris, I., Fleming, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000299</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000299</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Identifying, understanding and overcoming barriers to medication error reporting in hospitals: a focus group study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>361</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>368</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/369?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/369?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>The aim of this systematic review was to develop a &lsquo;contributory factors framework&rsquo; from a synthesis of empirical work which summarises factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Design</st>
<p>A mixed-methods systematic review of the literature was conducted.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Data sources</st>
<p>Electronic databases (Medline, PsycInfo, ISI Web of knowledge, CINAHL and EMBASE), article reference lists, patient safety websites, registered study databases and author contacts.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Eligibility criteria</st>
<p>Studies were included that reported data from primary research in secondary care aiming to identify the contributory factors to error or threats to patient safety.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>1502 potential articles were identified. 95 papers (representing 83 studies) which met the inclusion criteria were included, and 1676 contributory factors extracted. Initial coding of contributory factors by two independent reviewers resulted in 20 domains (eg, team factors, supervision and leadership). Each contributory factor was then coded by two reviewers to one of these 20 domains. The majority of studies identified active failures (errors and violations) as factors contributing to patient safety incidents. Individual factors, communication, and equipment and supplies were the other most frequently reported factors within the existing evidence base.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>This review has culminated in an empirically based framework of the factors contributing to patient safety incidents. This framework has the potential to be applied across hospital settings to improve the identification and prevention of factors that cause harm to patients.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lawton, R., McEachan, R. R. C., Giles, S. J., Sirriyeh, R., Watt, I. S., Wright, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000443</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000443</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Unlocked]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>369</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>380</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/381?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Do some trusts deliver a consistently better experience for patients? An analysis of patient experience across acute care surveys in English NHS trusts]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/381?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Introduction</st>
<p>Data were used from inpatient, outpatient and accident and emergency surveys in acute trusts in England to examine consistency in patient-reported experience across services, and factors associated with systematic variations in performance.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Standardised mean scores for six domains of patient experience were constructed for each survey for 145 non-specialist acute trusts. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to investigate whether and how trust performance clusters. Multilevel regression analysis was used to determine trust characteristics associated with performance.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Cluster analysis identified three groups: trusts that performed consistently above (30 trusts) or below (six trusts) average, and those with mixed performance. All the poor performing trusts were in London, none were foundation trusts or teaching hospitals, and they had the highest mean deprivation score and the lowest proportion of white inpatients and response rates. Foundation and teaching status, and the proportion of white inpatients, were positively associated with performance; deprivation and response rates showed less consistent positive associations. No regional effects were apparent after adjusting for independent variables.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>The results have significant implications for quality improvement in the NHS. The finding that some NHS providers consistently perform better than others suggests that there are system-wide determinants of patient experience and the potential for learning from innovators. However, there is room for improvement overall. Given the large samples of these surveys, the messages could also have relevance for healthcare systems elsewhere.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Raleigh, V. S., Frosini, F., Sizmur, S., Graham, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000588</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000588</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Press releases]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Do some trusts deliver a consistently better experience for patients? An analysis of patient experience across acute care surveys in English NHS trusts]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>381</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>390</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/391?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Defining impact of a rapid response team: qualitative study with nurses, physicians and hospital administrators]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/391?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>The objective of this study was to qualitatively describe the impact of a Rapid Response Team (RRT) at a 944-bed, university-affiliated hospital.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We analysed 49 open-ended interviews with administrators, primary team attending physicians, trainees, RRT attending hospitalists, staff nurses, nurses and respiratory technicians.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Themes elicited were categorised into the domains of (1) morale and teamwork, (2) education, (3) workload, (4) patient care, and (5) hospital administration. Positive implications beyond improved care for acutely ill patients were: increased morale and empowerment among nurses, real-time redistribution of workload for nurses (reducing neglect of non-acutely ill patients during emergencies), and immediate access to expert help. Negative implications were: increased tensions between nurses and physician teams, a burden on hospitalist RRT members, and reduced autonomy for trainees.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The RRT provides advantages that extend well beyond a reduction in rates of transfers to intensive care units or codes but are balanced by certain disadvantages. The potential impact from these multiple sources should be evaluated to understand the utility of any RRT programme.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Benin, A. L., Borgstrom, C. P., Jenq, G. Y., Roumanis, S. A., Horwitz, L. I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000390</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000390</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Defining impact of a rapid response team: qualitative study with nurses, physicians and hospital administrators]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>391</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>398</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/399?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The association of workflow interruptions and hospital doctors' workload: a prospective observational study]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/399?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>Subjective workload in healthcare employees is suspected to be important for the performance and safety of healthcare delivery. This study investigates associations between workflow interruptions and hospital doctors' capability to manage their perceived workload in a safe and efficient manner.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Aim</st>
<p>To examine the relationship of observed workflow interruptions with hospital doctors' perceived workload during day clinical shifts.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A prospective study of 43 full shift observations with 29 doctors working in internal medicine and surgical specialties. Workflow interruptions were assessed via observation using a previously validated observation instrument. Doctors assessed their workload twice throughout their day shift using three items of the validated NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX; mental demands, effort, frustration).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Hospital doctors were on average disrupted 3.66 times per hour. Most frequent were interruptions by nursing staff, telephone/beeper interruptions and by fellow doctors. Senior doctors reported higher workload than their junior colleagues. Overall workflow interruptions were significantly related to doctors' workload (&beta;=0.22; p=0.03). Further analyses revealed that doctors' workload was associated particularly with interruptions by nursing personnel (&beta;=0.23; p=0.03).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Frequent workflow interruptions may be linked with increased workload in doctors. Healthcare environments need to be better designed to reduce unnecessary interruptions and distractions so that hospital doctors can manage clinical work efficiently and safely.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Weigl, M., Muller, A., Vincent, C., Angerer, P., Sevdalis, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000188</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000188</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Editor's choice]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The association of workflow interruptions and hospital doctors' workload: a prospective observational study]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>399</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>407</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/408?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Self-reported violations during medication administration in two paediatric hospitals]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/408?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Content</st>
<p>Violations of safety protocols are paths to adverse outcomes that have been poorly addressed by existing safety efforts. This study reports on nurses' self-reported violations in the medication administration process.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To assess the extent of violations in the medication administration process among nurses.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Design, setting and participants</st>
<p>Participants were 199 nurses from two US urban, academic, tertiary care, free-standing paediatric hospitals who worked in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU), a haematology-oncology-transplant (HOT) unit or a medical-surgical (Med/Surg) unit. In a cross-sectional survey, nurses were asked about violations in routine or emergency situations in three steps of the medication administration process.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Main outcome measure</st>
<p>Self-reported violations of three medication administration protocols were made using a seven-point 0&ndash;6 scale from &lsquo;not at all&rsquo; to &lsquo;a great deal&rsquo;.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Analysis of variance identified that violation reports were highest for emergency situations, rather than for routine operations, highest by HOT unit nurses, followed by PICU nurses and then Med/Surg unit nurses, and highest during patient identification checking, followed by matching a medication to a medication administration record, and then documenting an administration. There was also a significant three-way interaction among violation situation, step in the process, and unit.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Protocol violations occur throughout the medication administration process and their prevalence varies as a function of hospital unit, step in the process, and violation situation. Further research is required to determine whether these violations improve or worsen safety, and for those that worsen safety, how to redesign the system of administration to reduce the need to violate protocol to accomplish job tasks.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alper, S. J., Holden, R. J., Scanlon, M. C., Patel, N., Kaushal, R., Skibinski, K., Brown, R. L., Karsh, B.-T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000007</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000007</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Self-reported violations during medication administration in two paediatric hospitals]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>408</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>415</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/416?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Development and evaluation of a 3-day patient safety curriculum to advance knowledge, self-efficacy and system thinking among medical students]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/416?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Purpose</st>
<p>To develop a patient safety curriculum and evaluate its impact on medical students' safety knowledge, self-efficacy and system thinking.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>This study reports on curriculum development and evaluation of a 3-day, clinically oriented patient safety intersession that was implemented at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in January 2011. Using simulation, skills demonstrations, small group exercises and case studies, this intersession focuses on improving students' teamwork and communication skills and system-based thinking while teaching on the causes of preventable harm and evidence-based strategies for harm prevention. One hundred and twenty students participated in this intersession as part of their required second year curriculum. A pre&ndash;post assessment of students' safety knowledge, self-efficacy in safety skills and system-based thinking was conducted. Student satisfaction data were also collected.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Students' safety knowledge scores significantly improved (mean +19% points; 95% CI 17.0 to 21.6; p&lt;0.01). Composite system thinking scores increased from a mean pre-intersession score of 60.1 to a post-intersession score of 67.6 (p&lt;0.01). Students had statistically significant increases in self-efficacy for all taught communication and safety skills. Participant satisfaction with the intersession was high.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The patient safety intersession resulted in increased knowledge, system-based thinking, and self-efficacy scores among students. Similar intersessions can be implemented at medical, nursing, pharmacy and other allied health schools separately or jointly as part of required school curricula. Further study of the long-term impact of such education on knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours of students is warranted.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aboumatar, H. J., Thompson, D., Wu, A., Dawson, P., Colbert, J., Marsteller, J., Kent, P., Lubomski, L. H., Paine, L., Pronovost, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000463</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000463</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Development and evaluation of a 3-day patient safety curriculum to advance knowledge, self-efficacy and system thinking among medical students]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Innovations in education</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>416</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>422</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/423?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What gets published: the characteristics of quality improvement research articles from low- and middle-income countries]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/423?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Reports of quality improvement (QI) research from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain sparse in the scientific literature. The authors reviewed the published literature to describe the characteristics of such reports.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>The authors conducted a systematic search for QI research articles from LMICs catalogued in the PubMed databases prior to December 2011, complemented by recommendations from experts in the field. Articles were categorised based on bibliometric and research characteristics. Twenty papers were randomly selected for narrative analysis regarding strategies used to present the methods and results of interventions.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Seventy-six articles met the inclusion criteria. Publication rate accelerated over time, particularly among observational studies. Most studies did not use a concurrent control group; pre-/post-study designs were most common overall. Four papers were published in top-tier journals, 17 in journals at the top of their specialty and 20 in quality-specific journals. Among the papers selected for narrative analysis, four distinct components were observed in most: a description of the problem state, a description of the improvement processes and tools, a separate description of the interventions tested and a description of the evaluation methods.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>The small number of articles identified by this review suggests that publication of QI research from LMICs remains challenging. However, recent increases in publication rates, especially among observational studies, may attest to greater interest in the topic among scientific audiences. Though the authors are not able to compare this sample with unpublished papers, the four components observed by them in the narrative analysis seem to strengthen QI research reports.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sifrim, Z. K., Barker, P. M., Mate, K. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000445</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000445</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What gets published: the characteristics of quality improvement research articles from low- and middle-income countries]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Systematic review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>423</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>431</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/432?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Surveillance of unplanned return to the operating theatre in neurosurgery combined with a mortality-morbidity conference: results of a pilot survey]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/432?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>Unplanned return to the operating theatre (UROT) is a useful trigger tool that could be used to identify surgical adverse events (SAEs). The present study describes the feasibility of SAE surveillance in neurosurgical patients, based on UROT identification, completed with SAE analysis at a morbidity&ndash;mortality conference (MMC) meeting.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Method</st>
<p>For consecutive patients who underwent a neurosurgical procedure between 1 November 2008 and 30 April 2009, return to the operating theatre (ROT) was identified based on the hospital information system associated to prospective payment (HISPP). ROT was classified as planned or unplanned and UROT was further classified as related to the natural history of the disease or related to an adverse event (AE-UROT). MMC meetings were organised to discuss results of UROT surveillance and to analyse AE-UROT.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>1006 neurosurgical procedures were included in the surveillance. HISSP identified 152 ROTs, with 73 UROTs related to an SAE (7.3% (5.7% to 9.0%)): infectious SAE (n=24, 2.4% (1.5% to 3.5%)), haemorrhagic SAE (n=23, 2.3% (1.5% to 3.4%)), other cause SAE (n=26, 2.8% (1.9% to 4.0%)), and infectious and other cause SAE (n=2, 0.2% (0.0% to 0.7%)). Identification of AE-UROT through HISSP required a 4&nbsp;h/month time frame. Eight UROTs related to SAE cases were discussed during MMC meetings, leading to the identification of non-conforming care processes and practical improvement actions.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>UROT related to SAE surveillance in neurosurgical patients was considered feasible. The association of surveillance and MMCs allowed staff to concentrate on the analysis of most frequent or most severe AEs and was a practical and useful tool to stimulate improvement. The impact on healthcare quality of SAE surveillance associated with MMC warrants further research.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marini, H., Merle, V., Derrey, S., Lebaron, C., Josset, V., Langlois, O., Gilles Baray, M., Frebourg, N., Proust, F., Czernichow, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000355</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000355</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Surveillance of unplanned return to the operating theatre in neurosurgery combined with a mortality-morbidity conference: results of a pilot survey]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Research and reporting methodology</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>432</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>438</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/439?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Knowledge implementation in healthcare practice: a view from The Netherlands]]></title>
<link>http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/21/5/439?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In this contribution we discuss some pertinent issues regarding knowledge implementation in the Netherlands, focusing on the largest public funding agency for health research in the Netherlands (ZonMw). The commentary is based on a report, which includes a structured analysis of 79 projects funded by ZonMW, a survey of published implementation research covering 141 systematic reviews, and qualitative study of the implementation infrastructure in the Netherlands. Five themes were identified. First, the term &lsquo;knowledge implementation&rsquo; may be better replaced by more specific terms in some situations. Second, contextual factors need to be taken more systematically into account when planning and evaluating implementation programs. Third, knowledge may change when implemented and this needs to be considered in projects. Fourth, we observed that implementation has developed into a specific world, separated from both healthcare practice and scientific research. It is important to guard against the risk of isolation from the practical and societal needs that the field is meant to address. Finally, we suggest that the strong focus on &lsquo;doing projects&rsquo; and limited opportunities for structural funding may reduce substantial improvement in the field. Many good activities are underway, but the policies regarding knowledge implementation appear to need some adjustment. In its policy plan for the coming years, ZonMW has partly taken up the lessons from our advisory report.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wensing, M., Bal, R., Friele, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-19T00:55:42-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000540</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:qhc;bmjqs-2011-000540</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Knowledge implementation in healthcare practice: a view from The Netherlands]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Viewpoints</prism:section>
<prism:volume>21</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>439</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>442</prism:endingPage>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>
