常规临床情况汇报和事件报告的比较分析:对患者安全和团队合作加强的见解。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Méryl Paquay, Michaela Kolbe, Sophie Klenkenberg, Clément Buléon, Audrey Bertrand, Robert Simon, Alexandre Ghuysen
{"title":"常规临床情况汇报和事件报告的比较分析:对患者安全和团队合作加强的见解。","authors":"Méryl Paquay, Michaela Kolbe, Sophie Klenkenberg, Clément Buléon, Audrey Bertrand, Robert Simon, Alexandre Ghuysen","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzaf010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Routine clinical debriefings (RCDs) have been shown to improve communication, team reflexivity, and safety in clinical settings. When combined with incident reports (IRs), RCDs offer a potential tool for enhancing quality improvement frameworks. This study aimed to identify and compare healthcare safety-related information captured through RCDs and IRs in a Belgian emergency department operating across two distinct facilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employed a quasi-mixed-method design with a monostrand conversion approach. Information was collected from 90 RCDs and 263 IRs. Data were analyzed using two frameworks: the World Health Organization's Incident Report Classification Grid and the Debriefing and Organizational Lessons Learned Grid.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings revealed significant differences in the types of information captured by RCDs and IRs. RCDs predominantly highlighted teamwork, internal organization, and procedural issues, while IRs focused more on care processes, patient concerns, and patient flow. These complementary insights demonstrate the value of integrating RCDs and IRs to create a comprehensive understanding of patient and clinician safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the complementary nature of RCDs and IRs in addressing healthcare safety. RCDs foster team reflexivity and promote open discussions about systemic challenges, directly improving team cohesion, resilience, and learning. Combining RCDs and IRs provides actionable insights for enhancing safety and driving organizational improvements.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11833459/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of routine clinical debriefings and incident reports: insights for patient safety and teamwork enhancement.\",\"authors\":\"Méryl Paquay, Michaela Kolbe, Sophie Klenkenberg, Clément Buléon, Audrey Bertrand, Robert Simon, Alexandre Ghuysen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/intqhc/mzaf010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Routine clinical debriefings (RCDs) have been shown to improve communication, team reflexivity, and safety in clinical settings. When combined with incident reports (IRs), RCDs offer a potential tool for enhancing quality improvement frameworks. This study aimed to identify and compare healthcare safety-related information captured through RCDs and IRs in a Belgian emergency department operating across two distinct facilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employed a quasi-mixed-method design with a monostrand conversion approach. Information was collected from 90 RCDs and 263 IRs. Data were analyzed using two frameworks: the World Health Organization's Incident Report Classification Grid and the Debriefing and Organizational Lessons Learned Grid.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings revealed significant differences in the types of information captured by RCDs and IRs. RCDs predominantly highlighted teamwork, internal organization, and procedural issues, while IRs focused more on care processes, patient concerns, and patient flow. These complementary insights demonstrate the value of integrating RCDs and IRs to create a comprehensive understanding of patient and clinician safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the complementary nature of RCDs and IRs in addressing healthcare safety. RCDs foster team reflexivity and promote open discussions about systemic challenges, directly improving team cohesion, resilience, and learning. Combining RCDs and IRs provides actionable insights for enhancing safety and driving organizational improvements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Quality in Health Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11833459/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Quality in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaf010\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaf010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:常规临床情况汇报(rcd)已被证明可以改善临床环境中的沟通、团队反射性和安全性。当与事件报告(ir)结合使用时,rcd提供了增强质量改进框架的潜在工具。本研究旨在识别和比较比利时急诊科在两个不同设施中通过rcd和ir捕获的医疗安全相关信息。方法:本研究采用准混合方法设计,采用单链转化方法。从90个rcd和263个ir收集了信息。使用两个框架分析数据:世界卫生组织(世卫组织)事件报告分类网格和情况汇报和组织经验教训网格。结果:研究结果显示,rcd和IRs捕获的信息类型存在显著差异。rcd主要强调团队合作、内部组织和程序问题,而IRs则更多地关注护理流程、患者关注点和患者流程。这些互补的见解证明了整合rcd和ir以全面了解患者和临床医生安全性的价值。结论:本研究强调了rcd和ir在解决医疗安全方面的互补性。rcd培养团队的反身性,促进对系统挑战的公开讨论,直接提高团队凝聚力、弹性和学习能力。rcd和IRs的结合为增强安全性和推动组织改进提供了可操作的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative analysis of routine clinical debriefings and incident reports: insights for patient safety and teamwork enhancement.

Background: Routine clinical debriefings (RCDs) have been shown to improve communication, team reflexivity, and safety in clinical settings. When combined with incident reports (IRs), RCDs offer a potential tool for enhancing quality improvement frameworks. This study aimed to identify and compare healthcare safety-related information captured through RCDs and IRs in a Belgian emergency department operating across two distinct facilities.

Methods: This study employed a quasi-mixed-method design with a monostrand conversion approach. Information was collected from 90 RCDs and 263 IRs. Data were analyzed using two frameworks: the World Health Organization's Incident Report Classification Grid and the Debriefing and Organizational Lessons Learned Grid.

Results: The findings revealed significant differences in the types of information captured by RCDs and IRs. RCDs predominantly highlighted teamwork, internal organization, and procedural issues, while IRs focused more on care processes, patient concerns, and patient flow. These complementary insights demonstrate the value of integrating RCDs and IRs to create a comprehensive understanding of patient and clinician safety.

Conclusions: This study highlights the complementary nature of RCDs and IRs in addressing healthcare safety. RCDs foster team reflexivity and promote open discussions about systemic challenges, directly improving team cohesion, resilience, and learning. Combining RCDs and IRs provides actionable insights for enhancing safety and driving organizational improvements.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信