改善家居护理风险管理及病人安全

Q3 Nursing
E. Lauta, C. Abbinante, Lorenza Maiellaro, Ruggiero Rizzi, P. Dormio, V. Defilippis
{"title":"改善家居护理风险管理及病人安全","authors":"E. Lauta, C. Abbinante, Lorenza Maiellaro, Ruggiero Rizzi, P. Dormio, V. Defilippis","doi":"10.2427/13141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nBackground: Risk management in the domiciliary healthcare setting is a harder challenge than in a hospital environment. Many, not always predictable, variables related to the patient, the caregiver, the health professionals and the home environment make it impossible to guarantee complete safety in homecare. The first aim of the study was to verify that the Electrical Medical Devices (EMD) and medical Consumables Supplies (CS) provided to mechanically ventilated and artificially fed patients at home comply with requirements for safe homecare.  \nMethods: We conducted a Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) on two processes, mechanical ventilation and artificial feeding at home, and defined a local institutional list of the requirements for safe home healthcare; a checklist containing all the items in the list was administered to ventilated and artificially fed patients at home.  \nResults: The checklist was used for 92 home patients, sex M/F=52/40, mean age 59,8±22 years (range 2÷102 years). Many failures were highlighted when the checklist was applied and problems affecting AMBU resuscitator bags, tracheostomy tubes, ventilators in patients being mechanically ventilated around-the-clock and ventilator circuits were identified as the most critical potential vulnerabilities for homecare patients.  \nConclusion: The checklist is a simple and valid tool for implementing proactive clinical risk management initiatives in homecare. Although it is impossible to guarantee complete safety in any healthcare environment, scheduling periodic checks with checklists to assess the quantitative and qualitative adequacy of EMD and CS provided to the patient could contribute to the homecare risk reduction.  \n","PeriodicalId":45811,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Homecare Risk Management and Patient Safety\",\"authors\":\"E. Lauta, C. Abbinante, Lorenza Maiellaro, Ruggiero Rizzi, P. Dormio, V. Defilippis\",\"doi\":\"10.2427/13141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nBackground: Risk management in the domiciliary healthcare setting is a harder challenge than in a hospital environment. Many, not always predictable, variables related to the patient, the caregiver, the health professionals and the home environment make it impossible to guarantee complete safety in homecare. The first aim of the study was to verify that the Electrical Medical Devices (EMD) and medical Consumables Supplies (CS) provided to mechanically ventilated and artificially fed patients at home comply with requirements for safe homecare.  \\nMethods: We conducted a Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) on two processes, mechanical ventilation and artificial feeding at home, and defined a local institutional list of the requirements for safe home healthcare; a checklist containing all the items in the list was administered to ventilated and artificially fed patients at home.  \\nResults: The checklist was used for 92 home patients, sex M/F=52/40, mean age 59,8±22 years (range 2÷102 years). Many failures were highlighted when the checklist was applied and problems affecting AMBU resuscitator bags, tracheostomy tubes, ventilators in patients being mechanically ventilated around-the-clock and ventilator circuits were identified as the most critical potential vulnerabilities for homecare patients.  \\nConclusion: The checklist is a simple and valid tool for implementing proactive clinical risk management initiatives in homecare. Although it is impossible to guarantee complete safety in any healthcare environment, scheduling periodic checks with checklists to assess the quantitative and qualitative adequacy of EMD and CS provided to the patient could contribute to the homecare risk reduction.  \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2427/13141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2427/13141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:家庭医疗环境中的风险管理比医院环境中的风险管理更具挑战性。与病人、护理人员、保健专业人员和家庭环境有关的许多变数(并非总是可预测的)使得不可能保证家庭护理的完全安全。是项研究的首要目的,是核实为在家接受机械通气及人工喂养的病人提供的医疗电气装置及医疗耗材是否符合安全家居护理的规定。方法:对机械通气和家庭人工喂养两个过程进行失效模式、影响和临界性分析(FMECA),并制定地方机构安全家庭医疗保健要求清单;对在家进行通气和人工喂养的患者实施了一份包含清单中所有项目的清单。结果:使用检查表的家庭患者92例,性别M/F=52/40,平均年龄59岁,8±22岁(范围2÷102岁)。在应用清单时,许多失败被突出,影响AMBU复苏器袋、气管造口管、24小时机械通气患者的呼吸机和呼吸机回路的问题被确定为家庭护理患者最关键的潜在漏洞。结论:检查表是一种简单有效的工具,可在家庭护理中实施积极的临床风险管理措施。虽然在任何医疗环境中都不可能保证完全安全,但安排定期检查,并附有检查清单,以评估提供给病人的EMD和CS在数量和质量上是否足够,这有助于减少家庭护理的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving Homecare Risk Management and Patient Safety
Background: Risk management in the domiciliary healthcare setting is a harder challenge than in a hospital environment. Many, not always predictable, variables related to the patient, the caregiver, the health professionals and the home environment make it impossible to guarantee complete safety in homecare. The first aim of the study was to verify that the Electrical Medical Devices (EMD) and medical Consumables Supplies (CS) provided to mechanically ventilated and artificially fed patients at home comply with requirements for safe homecare.  Methods: We conducted a Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) on two processes, mechanical ventilation and artificial feeding at home, and defined a local institutional list of the requirements for safe home healthcare; a checklist containing all the items in the list was administered to ventilated and artificially fed patients at home.  Results: The checklist was used for 92 home patients, sex M/F=52/40, mean age 59,8±22 years (range 2÷102 years). Many failures were highlighted when the checklist was applied and problems affecting AMBU resuscitator bags, tracheostomy tubes, ventilators in patients being mechanically ventilated around-the-clock and ventilator circuits were identified as the most critical potential vulnerabilities for homecare patients.  Conclusion: The checklist is a simple and valid tool for implementing proactive clinical risk management initiatives in homecare. Although it is impossible to guarantee complete safety in any healthcare environment, scheduling periodic checks with checklists to assess the quantitative and qualitative adequacy of EMD and CS provided to the patient could contribute to the homecare risk reduction. 
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
Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health
Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Public Health (EBPH) is a multidisciplinary journal that has two broad aims: -To support the international public health community with publications on health service research, health care management, health policy, and health economics. -To strengthen the evidences on effective preventive interventions. -To advance public health methods, including biostatistics and epidemiology. EBPH welcomes submissions on all public health issues (including topics like eHealth, big data, personalized prevention, epidemiology and risk factors of chronic and infectious diseases); on basic and applied research in epidemiology; and in biostatistics methodology. Primary studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses are all welcome, as are research protocols for observational and experimental studies. EBPH aims to be a cross-discipline, international forum for scientific integration and evidence-based policymaking, combining the methodological aspects of epidemiology, biostatistics, and public health research with their practical applications.
×
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