PubMed · 13764950
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
F M MACLEAN. 1961. New procedure for collecting record data.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13764950/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Greater focus is needed on improving patient safety in modern healthcare systems and the first step to achieving this is to reliably identify the safety issues arising in healthcare. Research has shown the accident and emergency (A&E) department to be a particularly problematic environment where safety is a concern due to various factors, such as the range, nature and urgency of presenting conditions and the high turnover of patients. As in all healthcare environments clinical incident reporting in A&E is an important tool for detecting safety issues which can result in identifying solutions, learning from error and enhancing patient safety. This tool must be responsive and flexible to the local circumstances and work for the department to support the clinical governance agenda. In this paper, we describe the local processes for reporting and reviewing clinical incidents in one A&E department in a London teaching hospital and report recent changes to the system within the department. We used the historical data recorded on the Trust incident database as a representation of the information that would be available to the department in order to identify the high risk areas. In this paper, we evaluate the internal processes, the information available on the database and make recommendations to assist the emergency department in their internal processes. These will strengthen the internal review and staff feedback system so that the department can learn from incidents in a consistent manner. The process was reviewed by detailed examination of the centrally held electronic record (Datix database) of all incidents reported in a one year period. The nature of the incident and the level and accuracy of information provided in the incident reports was evaluated. There were positive aspects to the established system including evidence of positive changes made as a result of the reporting process, new initiatives to feedback to staff, and evolution of the programme for reporting and discussing the incidents internally. There appeared to be a mismatch between the recorded events and the category allocated to the incident in the historical record. In addition the database did not contain complete information for every incident, contributory factors were rarely recorded and relatively large numbers of incidents were recorded as "other" in the type of incident. There was also observed difficulty in updating the system as there is at least a months time lag between reporting or an incident and discussion/resolution of issues at the local departmental clinical risk management committee meetings. We used Leape's model for assessing the reporting system as a whole and found the system in the department to be relatively safe, fairly easy to use and moderately effective. Recommendations as a result of this study include the introduction of an electronic reporting system, limiting the number of staff who categorise the incidents--using clear definitions for classifications including a structured framework for contributory factors, and a process that allows incidents to be updated on the database locally after the discussion. This research may have implications for the incident reporting process in other specialities as well as in other hospitals.
Russian public health and its social determinants have been the theme of several recent studies. In one of these, Rose [(2000). How much does social capital add to individual health? A survey study of Russians. Social Science & Medicine, 51(9), 1421-1435] puts forward a composite model as a way of getting away from two traditions: one that postulates that social capital influences health independently of human capital attributes (education, social class, income, etc.) and one that postulates that human capital is the main determinant of health, while social capital is more or less irrelevant. In this study, we investigate the composite model, conceptualising social capital as a type of capital, on the basis of Bourdieu. By doing this, not only do the relations between social capital and other types of capital become relevant, but also whether the effect of social capital on health differs depending on the possession of other types of capital. We used the Taganrog survey of 1998 which used structured interviews with the family members of 1,009 households and the response rate was 81%. We found that social capital is stratified by education, and also that its effect on health varies depending on the volume of educational capital possessed. It also seems to be extremely important to specify different types of social capital, in order to get a better overview of possible mechanisms by means of which different types of capital might affect health.
BACKGROUND: Health maintenance is crucial for preventing morbidity and premature mortality, but many patients do not receive preventive services at recommended intervals. One reason for this is the lack of up-to-date information accurately reflecting patients' history. Electronic health records (EHRs) can be useful, but are often incomplete. Patient input has the potential to improve the accuracy of this information. In this study, we assessed the current state of EHR completeness for preventive services and the added value of patient reported information. METHODS: Participants were sent a survey, pre-populated with health maintenance procedure information from their EHRs. They were asked to review this information and indicate whether it was accurate or if they had a procedure done more recently. Of 1098 patients recruited from a primary care practice, 163 returned the survey. When a patient reported a more recent test than was noted in the EHR, researchers updated the EHR to reflect the additional information. Data were also gathered from the EHR 6 months after surveys were completed to analyze whether providing due test information encouraged patients to get tested and vaccinated. A review of medical records was performed on a control group to analyze differences in adherence to preventive guidelines between those that were notified of their overdue status and those who were not notified. RESULTS: The EHR was frequently incomplete when compared to patient report. In particular, many patients were misidentified as being overdue for health maintenance procedures when they had obtained them in other places. Showing patients their information resulted in little impact on overall adherence. However, with the cumulative effects of additional patient-reported procedures and procedures performed after the survey, intervention patients had higher documented adherence rates for every procedure than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Health maintenance data in EHRs were often incomplete. Patients were often able to provide useful information, demonstrating the value of patient contributions in keeping records up-to-date.