ABSTRACT
INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo del trabajo es analizar los cambios en la declaración de incidentes tras haber implantado un nuevo sistema de declaración y exponer las medidas aplicadas gracias a las declaraciones realizadas. PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: En el 2012 se realizó una recogida de los incidentes declarados de forma prospectiva entre 2007 y 2011. En mayo del 2012 se realizó un cambio de modelo para aumentar las declaraciones, analizar sus causas y mejorar el retorno de información al resto del equipo. Se nombraron referentes de seguridad en cada servicio, se realizaron sesiones informativas y de difusión, y se implantó un nuevo sistema de declaración de incidentes. Con el nuevo modelo se inició un estudio prospectivo de las declaraciones durante un año y se compararon los resultados con ambos modelos. RESULTADOS: En todo el 2011 se declararon 19 incidentes en Urgencias y del 1 de junio de 2012 al 31 de mayo del 2013, 106 incidentes (5,6 veces más). Los incidentes declarados fueron de medicación (57%), identificación (26%) y procedimientos (7%). Las causas más frecuentes de estos fueron individuales del profesional (70,7%), falta de formación (22,6%) y condiciones de trabajo (15,1%). Medidas que se han aplicado a raíz de estos incidentes son el checklist quirúrgico, las monodosis de salbutamol y tablas por peso de fármacos de reanimación cardiopulmonar. CONCLUSIONES: El nuevo modelo de declaración de incidentes ha potenciado las declaraciones, ha permitido implantar mejoras y medidas preventivas, aumentando todo esto el clima de seguridad en el servicio de Urgencias
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to analyse changes in the incidents reported after the implementation of a new model, and study its results on patient safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2012 an observational study with prospective collection of incidents reported between 2007 and 2011 was conducted. In May 2012 a model change was made in order to increase the number of reports, analyse their causes, and improve the feedback to the service. Professional safety representatives were assigned to every department, information and diffusion sessions were held, and a new incident reporting system was implemented. With the new model, a new observational study with prospective collection of the reports during one year was initiated, and the results compared between models. RESULTS: In 2011, only 19 incidents were reported in the Emergency Department, and between June 1, 2012 to June 1, 2013, 106 incidents (5.6 times more). The incidents reported were medication incidents (57%), identification (26%), and procedures (7%). The most frequent causes were human (70.7%), lack of training (22.6%), and working conditions (15.1%). Some measures were implemented as a result of these incidents: a surgical checklist, unit doses of salbutamol, tables of weight-standardised doses of drugs for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: The new model of reporting incidents has enhanced the reports and has allowed improvements and the implementation of preventive measures, increasing the patient safety in the Emergency Department
Subject(s)
Child , Female , Humans , Male , Risk Management/organization & administration , Risk Management/standards , Emergencies , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Emergency Medical Services/standards , Albuterol/therapeutic use , Risk Management/legislation & jurisprudence , Risk Management/methods , Risk Management , Prospective Studies , 28599 , Bronchodilator Agents/therapeutic use , Safety/legislation & jurisprudence , Safety/standards , Security Measures/standardsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to analyse changes in the incidents reported after the implementation of a new model, and study its results on patient safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2012 an observational study with prospective collection of incidents reported between 2007 and 2011 was conducted. In May 2012 a model change was made in order to increase the number of reports, analyse their causes, and improve the feedback to the service. Professional safety representatives were assigned to every department, information and diffusion sessions were held, and a new incident reporting system was implemented. With the new model, a new observational study with prospective collection of the reports during one year was initiated, and the results compared between models. RESULTS: In 2011, only 19 incidents were reported in the Emergency Department, and between June 1, 2012 to June 1, 2013, 106 incidents (5.6 times more). The incidents reported were medication incidents (57%), identification (26%), and procedures (7%). The most frequent causes were human (70.7%), lack of training (22.6%), and working conditions (15.1%). Some measures were implemented as a result of these incidents: a surgical checklist, unit doses of salbutamol, tables of weight-standardised doses of drugs for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: The new model of reporting incidents has enhanced the reports and has allowed improvements and the implementation of preventive measures, increasing the patient safety in the Emergency Department.
Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services/standards , Quality Improvement , Records , Risk Management/standards , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
La evaluación de la calidad de la asistencia prestada en los servicios de urgencias pediátricas requiere herramientas como los indicadores de calidad, que contemplen sus aspectos más importantes y permitan su monitorización. Dada la importancia del proceso del dolor en la práctica clínica, es imprescindible disponer de indicadores que nos permitan evaluarlo de forma correcta, detectar situaciones de mejora y crear programas de autoevaluación de la calidad. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar el proceso de elaboración de indicadores de calidad para la evaluación del proceso del dolor en urgencias. El diseño de los indicadores se realiza por consenso de los autores y discusión en la Comisión del Dolor del Hospital Sant Joan de Déu a partir de los existentes en adultos y las necesidades pediátricas. La metodología para crear cada indicador es la misma que ha utilizado el Grupo de Trabajo de Definición de Indicadores de la Agencia de Evaluación y Tecnología e Investigación Médica del Servicio Catalán de Salud. Se diseñan siete indicadores: dos valoran el diagnóstico del dolor y cinco su tratamiento. La aplicación de los indicadores diseñados permitirá saber si el proceso es adecuado e implementar medidas de mejora (AU)
Title: Quality indicators design: acute pain process in the emergency department The evaluation of the quality of care delivered in the pediatric emergency department (PED) requires tools such as quality indicators, which consider the most important aspects and allow monitoring. Given the importance of the process of pain in clinical practice, it is essential to assess the current approach to the acute pain process in the PED and develop quality indicators for acute pain process evaluation. The aim of this paper is to present the process of developing quality indicators for the assessment of pain processing in the PED. The indicators develop is done by consensus of the authors and discussion in the Pains Hospital Commission. They are based on the adults indicators and pediatric needs. To createeach indicator we use the methodology recommended by the "Grupo de Trabajo de Definición de Indicadores de la Agencia de Evaluación y Tecnología e Investigación Médica del Servicio Catalán de Salud". Seven indicators are developed: two indicators about the pain diagnosis, and five about the pain treatment. The application of indicators developed let you know if the process is appropriate and implement improvement measures (AU)
