PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Elizabeth W Staton

Publications and source records attributed to Elizabeth W Staton.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Patient perspectives of patient-provider communication after adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient perceptions of patient-provider communication after an actual adverse medical event because prior patient error studies are rarely based on real situations. DESIGN: We conducted four patient focus groups using a semi-structured guide. We analyzed transcripts using an editing approach to identify themes. SETTING: Three sites in Colorado. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: participants were recruited from statewide post-injury program. Purposeful sampling began with patients in a geographic location; we contacted every other patient (up to 50). Twenty-two patients initially agreed to participate; 16 adults participated, representing 13 cases. RESULTS: Complex issues and processes were involved in resolution attempts. Effective communication was an important factor in whether professional relationships continued after an adverse event. The communication nature and quality influenced whether patients defined event as 'honest mistake' or 'error'. Two types of trauma (physical and emotional) were expected and found. A third (financial) uncovered and proved in some cases the most salient factor influencing patients' subsequent actions. Caring, honest, quick, personal, and repeated provider responses were linked to patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Provider communication timeliness and quality were important influences on patients' responses to adverse events. Confronting an adverse medical event collaboratively helped both patients and providers with patients' emotional, physical, and financial trauma and minimized the anger and frustration commonly experienced. Health organizations, providers, investigators, and policymakers should consider the patient experience when developing provider training or evaluating processes in patient resolution.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2005

Patient preferences for notification of normal laboratory test results: a report from the ASIPS Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Many medical errors occur during the laboratory testing process, including lost test results. Patient inquiry concerning results often represents the final safety net for locating lost results. This qualitative study sought to identify, from a patient perspective, specific preferences and factors that influence the process of communicating normal (negative) laboratory test results to patients. METHODS: We conducted 30-minute guided interviews with 20 adult patients. Patients were recruited from two practice-based research networks in Colorado that were participating in a medical errors study. A semi-structured interview elicited the participant's experience with and preference for laboratory test result notification. Quantitative descriptive statistics were generated for demographic and preference data. Qualitative results were analyzed by a team of experienced qualitative researchers using multiple styles of qualitative analyses, including a template approach and an editing approach. RESULTS: Ninety percent of participants wanted to be notified of all tests results. Important issues related to notification included privacy, responsive and interactive feedback, convenience, timeliness, and provision of details. Telephone notification was preferred, followed by regular mail. Electronic notification was perceived as uncomfortable because it was not secure. While 65% preferred being notified by a provider, participants acknowledge that this may be impractical; thus, they wanted to be notified by someone knowledgeable enough to answer questions. Participants do not normally discuss their preferences for test result notification with their providers. CONCLUSION: Privacy, responsive and interactive feedback, convenience, and timeliness with detailed information may be critical for patient satisfaction and for improving patient safety, and are features that may be incorporated into emerging communication channels.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Applied strategies for improving patient safety: a comprehensive process to improve care in rural and frontier communities.

CONTEXT: Medical errors and patient safety have gained increasing attention throughout all areas of medical care. Understanding patient safety in rural settings is crucial for improving care in rural communities. PURPOSE: To describe a system to decrease medical errors and improve care in rural and frontier primary care offices. METHODS: Applied Strategies for Improving Patient Safety (ASIPS) was a demonstration project designed to collect and analyze medical error reports and use these reports to develop and implement interventions aimed at decreasing errors. ASIPS participants were clinicians and staff in 2 practice-based research networks: the Colorado Research Network (CaReNet) and the High Plains Research Network (HPRN). This paper describes ASIPS in HPRN. FINDINGS: Fourteen HPRN practices with a total of 150 clinicians and staff have participated in ASIPS. Participants have submitted 128 reports. Diagnostic tests were involved in 26% of events; medication errors appeared in 20% of events. Communication errors were reported in 72%. Two learning groups developed "Principles for Process Improvement" for medication errors and diagnostic testing errors. Several safety "alerts" were issued to improve care, and 2 interventions were implemented to decrease errors. CONCLUSIONS: A safe and secure reporting system that relies on voluntary reporting from clinicians and staff can be successfully implemented in rural primary care settings. Information from reports can be used to identify processes that can be improved.

Colorado↗
PubMed2003

Database design to ensure anonymous study of medical errors: a report from the ASIPS Collaborative.

Medical error reporting systems are important information sources for designing strategies to improve the safety of health care. Applied Strategies for Improving Patient Safety (ASIPS) is a multi-institutional, practice-based research project that collects and analyzes data on primary care medical errors and develops interventions to reduce error. The voluntary ASIPS Patient Safety Reporting System captures anonymous and confidential reports of medical errors. Confidential reports, which are quickly de-identified, provide better detail than do anonymous reports; however, concerns exist about the confidentiality of those reports should the database be subject to legal discovery or other security breaches. Standard database elements, for example, serial ID numbers, date/time stamps, and backups, could enable an outsider to link an ASIPS report to a specific medical error. The authors present the design and implementation of a database and administrative system that reduce this risk, facilitate research, and maintain near anonymity of the events, practices, and clinicians.

Computer Security↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Electronic data collection options for practice-based research networks.

PURPOSE: We wanted to describe the potential benefits and problems associated with selected electronic methods of collecting data within practice-based research networks (PBRNs). METHODS: We considered a literature review, discussions with PBRN researchers, industry information, and personal experience. This article presents examples of selected PBRNs' use of electronic data collection. RESULTS: Collecting research data in the geographically dispersed PBRN environment requires considerable coordination to ensure completeness, accuracy, and timely transmission of the data, as well as a limited burden on the participants. Electronic data collection, particularly at the point of care, offers some potential solutions. Electronic systems allow use of transparent decision algorithms and improved data entry and data integrity. These systems may improve data transfer to the central office as well as tracking systems for monitoring study progress. PBRNs have available to them a wide variety of electronic data collection options, including notebook computers, tablet PCs, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and browser-based systems that operate independent of or over the Internet. Tablet PCs appear particularly advantageous for direct patient data collection in an office environment. PDAs work well for collecting defined data elements at the point of care. Internet-based systems work well for data collection that can be completed after the patient visit, as most primary care offices do not support Internet connectivity in examination rooms. CONCLUSIONS: When planning to collect data electronically, it is important to match the electronic data collection method to the study design. Focusing an inappropriate electronic data collection method onto users can interfere with accurate data gathering and may also anger PBRN members.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Practice-based research network studies in the age of HIPAA.

PURPOSE: We wanted to explore potential effects of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) on research activities of practice-based research networks (PBRNs). METHODS: To understand the approaches PBRNs are using to advance their research while adhering to HIPAA standards, we combined a literature review, our experiences, and discussions with local HIPAA officers, PBRN researchers in the United States, and individuals involved in drafting HIPAA. RESULTS: HIPAA requires researchers to pay special attention to how they handle patients' protected health information (PHI). For researchers working within PBRNs, which collect information from patients and health care professionals in multiple institutions, the HIPAA Privacy Rule presents additional challenges. PBRN researchers can obtain patient authorization to use PHI, but this process is difficult and may taint the findings of some research studies. Some institutions may allow patients to provide a blanket authorization for study recruitment. PBRNs additionally can collect only "de-identified" data (data with identifying information removed) or, with a data use agreement, can work with a limited data set. PBRNs that blend quality improvement and research can work with PHI, but the researcher and practices must enter into a business agreement. PBRN researchers may need to play active, educational roles in institutional privacy boards to facilitate their research. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of ways for PBRN researchers to comply with HIPAA short of obtaining patient consent and authorization for every study. Careful planning and consideration of HIPAA issues during study design can go a long way toward reducing frustration later.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Seasonal variation in diagnoses and visits to family physicians.

BACKGROUND: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) replicating the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) must sample more than 1 year to account for presumed seasonal variation in illnesses. This study evaluated the effects of seasonality on diagnoses within NAMCS family physician data. METHODS: Using combined data from the 1995-1998 NAMCS, diagnostic clusters that accounted for more than 1% of total visits were analyzed for seasonality. Seasons were coded categorically as dummy variables with summer as the reference category. A logistic regression was performed with each diagnosis as an outcome on the full data. To examine the ability of alternative sampling strategies to replicate the full year of data, a simulation study was carried out drawing 50 samples of 1,000 visits each for winter-summer and spring-fall sampling periods. RESULTS: We found 23 diagnostic clusters that had a frequency more than 1%, of which 10 had seasonal variations (P < or = .001), primarily between winter and summer. If sampling were restricted to spring, the diagnostic clusters of pregnancy and coronary artery disease would account for less than 1% of visits. All other diagnostic clusters, though changing rank order, would account for more than 1% if sampled in a single quarter. In the simulated sampling strategy, visit prevalence dropped below 1% for at least 1 diagnosis in 24 of 50 samples in spring-fall compared with 20 of 50 samples for winter-summer (P > .20). CONCLUSIONS: There is little seasonal variation in the 23 diagnoses that occur in more than 1% of visits to family physicians. There is, however, important seasonal variation in the rank order of these diagnoses. A sampling strategy that uses any quarter of the year but spring (March, April, May) could be used to understand what diagnoses are frequently seen within a PBRN.

Adult↗