A risk analysis of cancer care in Norway: the top 16 patient safety hazards.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care processes represents a number of potential threats to patient safety. A national risk analysis of Norwegian cancer care, entailing diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, palliative care, and terminal care, was conducted. METHODS: Literature review and a retrospective analysis of hazards in different national databases were combined with interviews with key health personnel in an attempt to identify 50 possible hazards. A project team from the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision (NBHS) and 23 other persons participated in the workshop in 2009. RESULTS: In a stepwise, consensus-driven process, the 23 participants discussed the 50 possible hazards and then selected the 16 that they considered most important-clustered into three groups: diagnosis and primary treatment, interactions, and complications. The NBHS distributed the risk analysis report to a variety of stakeholders and asked Norway's hospital trusts to address the hazards. The report generally met a positive reception, albeit with local and interdisciplinary differences in the extent of the perceived applicability of the respective hazards. Two follow-up studies in 2012 and 2013 showed that the hospital trusts lacked the implementation capacity to identify operational solutions to reduce the hazards. At the largest hospital trust in Norway-Oslo University Hospital-the Department of Oncology retested the national risk analysis in in 2011. Four groups, representing different parts of the patient care process. selected 9 of the 16 national hazards and identified 4 new ones. The department has established goals and appropriate activities for 3 of the hazards. CONCLUSIONS: The Ministry of Health and Care determined that hospital trusts must increase their implementation capacity regarding operational solutions to reduce the hazards.

[How did health personnel perceive supervision of obstetric institutions?]. / Hvordan opplevde helsepersonell tilsynet med fødeinstitusjoner?

BACKGROUND: Through audits, the Norwegian Board of Health supervises and ensures that health institutions adhere to rules and regulations that apply to them. Conduct of such supervision should be predictable and the basis for decisions should be documented and challengeable. Those in charge of the supervision must have the necessary professional competence and be able to integrate and understand the collected information so they can draw the right conclusions. The audit team should demonstrate consideration and respect to those they meet during audits. We therefore wanted to study the experience of being audited among health care providers and leaders of institutions and subsequent adjustments after the audit. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used a questionnaire to evaluate the national audit of 26 (of 60 totally) Norwegian obstetric institutions in 2004. A questionnaire was sent to leaders and health care providers in all institutions that had been inspected (208 persons). Data from semi-structured interviews were used to validate and explore the quantitative findings. RESULTS: 89% responded to the questionnaire. The supervision was well received by leaders and health care providers at the obstetric institutions. The respondents confirmed that the audit team's approach and conduct in principle adhered to the rules within the examined domains. The conclusions presented by the audit teams were accepted as correct by most of the respondents. A large number of adjustments were reported after the audits. INTERPRETATION: We conclude that auditing can lead to improvements and that the described programme probably contributed to improving obstetric services in Norway. The audit team's conduct seems to have an effect on acceptance of the supervision. The performance of the teams may have an impact of the acceptance of auditing, but not on reporting of the adjustments carried out.