MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3103646696

Patient Safety in Hospital – Knowledge or Campaign? [Internet]

2007· article· en· W3103646696 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Inger Natvig Norderhaug, Unni Krogstad, Elisabeth Arntzen, Anders Baalsrud, Mads Gilbert, Stein Tore Nilsen, Sari Susanna Ormstad, Liv Helen Rygh

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDocumentationMedicineCINAHLNorwegianFamily medicineHealth carePsychological interventionLibrary scienceNursingPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority asked The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services to assess the documentation for six areas of intervention launched by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (100K-Campaign). The six areas were: Deploy ’Rapid Response Team’ Improve Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction Prevent Adverse Drug Events Prevent Surgical Site Infection Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection The objectives were: To identify and assess scientific documentation on the above mentioned six areas ofintervention and their effect on hospital mortality.To discuss the relevance for Norwegian hospitals.Working group A support group of clinicians has contributed to this work: Elisabeth Arntzen, Director of department, Helse Ost RHF Anders Baalsrud, Senior adviser Sosial-og helsedirektoratet, Head of department, Rikshospitalet-Radiumhospitalet HF Mads Gilbert, Avdelingsoverlege, professor, Akuttmedisinsk avdeling, Universitetssykehuset Nord-Norge, Tromso Stein Tore Nilsen, Fagdirektor, professor, Stavanger Universitetssjukehus, Helse Stavanger HF Bjarne Riis Strom, Medisinsk fagdirektor i den Norske Legeforening, Oslo (two meetings) From the Knowledge centre: Unni Krogstad, Senior researcher (prosjektleder) Liv Rygh, Senior adviser Sari Ormstad, Research librarian Inger Norderhaug, Research director We searched the Cochrane, Medline, Cinahl and Embase databases for all systematic reviews, guidelines and review articles on documentation of effect of the six areas. Separate searches were done for each issue. Assessment of the retrieved literature was done stepwise by two persons independently. Agreement on the inclusion of studies was reached through discussions.Method All six areas in the 100K-campaign should be included. Database searches were restricted to secondary literature defined as systematic reviews, health technology assessments and other review studies presenting themselves as systematic. Each area was treated separately with individual strategy for searches. Where we could not find systematic reviews we opened for assessment of primary studies. Selection of relevant studies and assessment of retrieved literature were done stepwise by two persons. Results We found two systematic reviews on patient safety in general. A total of 1411 abstracts were retrieved. 40 articles were read in full text and 19 were included in the documentation. The amount of research literature on each of the six areas varied substantially. Results are summarised under the separate issues: Rapid response team The intervention is not much studied. No systematic reviews were found. We found two review articles of poor to moderate quality which were positive, but not conclusive. One 13 new cluster-randomised trial of 23 Australian hospitals concluded that the intervention was not cost-effective. Evidence based treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction The literature on Acute Myocardial Infarction is large. The 100K-campaign suggest seven interventions: Aspirin given as initial treatment, Aspirin at discharge, Betablocker given within 24 hours, Betablocker by discharge, ACE-inhibitors or angiotensin-blockers by discharge, Thrombolysis within 30 minutes after admittance or PCI within 2 hours, advice on smoking cessation. All interventions are recommended by the American and the European cardiology guidelines. We found two studies reporting on practice and outcomes of the recommended interventions. Regional variation in the practice were found by register studies in the US. Whether implementation saves lives on a large scale is not documented. Prevent Adverse Drug Events by reconciliation'' Medication reconciliation' is a complex process and this intervention is not much studied. One relevant review article was found that compared discrepancies between the medication history obtained by the physician and the comprehensive medication history at the time of admission. No conclusions can be drawn on this issue. Prevent Surgical Site Infection We found six Cochrane reviews and three relevant review articles on this issue. The main general conclusion is that Antibiotic prophylaxis is effective treatment in different kinds of surgery and should be recommended. We found no evidence of hair removal reducing surgical site infections. There is, however, documented that if hair removal is conducted clipping, not shaving should be used. Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia The field is scarcely studied due to difficulties with definition of the diagnosis. Two articles were included which support the elevation of head by 30-45 degrees, and daily assessment of possible extubation. Two other suggestions were not supported. Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection Two studies were included but none were conclusive on the suggested interventions. Both discuss the difficulty of deciding causal relationships of isolated intervention in complex patient situations. The six different areas and the suggested interventions vary considerably with regard to level of evidence. The seven advices for treatment of acute myocardial infarction are well documented as is the case for the recommendation of antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical site infections. There is not sufficient evidence in the cases of prevention of sepsis in relation to intra venous central lines catheters or ventilator associated pneumonia. Rapid response teams and reconciliation has not been much studied. These interventions also are deeply rooted in the organising of work, which may vary considerably across countries and health systems. Studies in these areas should probably 14 be related to the relevant health system setting. In general medical interventions are better documented than organisational interventions. The literature included in the review is from English speaking countries only. The studies are conducted in UK, Canada, USA and Australia. This may imply a bias which may be more related to financial, organisational or cultural aspects than to language in itself.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,068
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,226

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,026
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,006
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0680,014

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,442
Tête enseignante GPT0,556
Écart entre enseignants0,114 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetHealthcare cost, quality, practicesTravaux en français237 207