ABSTRACT
The purpose of medicines reconciliation (MR) is to avoid medication errors through the complete and accurate transfer of information on patients' medicines during health care sector transitions. We review the rapidly expanding literature on MR showing a need for consensus on taxonomy and research into efficient ways to implement MR. Further, we describe quality improvement initiatives on MR in Denmark and challenge the, in our view, one-sided focus on information technology in MR.
Subject(s)
Medication Reconciliation/methods , Denmark , Humans , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Medical Records Systems, Computerized , Medication Reconciliation/legislation & jurisprudence , Quality Assurance, Health CareABSTRACT
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how staff at various levels perceive and understand hospital accreditation generally and in relation to quality improvement (QI) specifically. Design/methodology/approach In a newly accredited Danish hospital, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews to capture broad ranging experiences. Medical doctors, nurses, a quality coordinator and a quality department employee participated. Interviews were audio recorded and subjected to framework analysis. Findings Staff reported that The Danish Healthcare Quality Programme affected management priorities: office time and working on documentation, which reduced time with patients and on improvement activities. Organisational structures were improved during preparation for accreditation. Staff perceived that the hospital was better prepared for new QI initiatives after accreditation; staff found disease specific requirements unnecessary. Other areas benefited from accreditation. Interviewees expected that organisational changes, owing to accreditation, would be sustained and that the QI focus would continue. Practical implications Accreditation is a critical and complete hospital review, including areas that often are neglected. Accreditation dominates hospital agendas during preparation and surveyor visits, potentially reducing patient care and other QI initiatives. Improvements are less likely to occur in areas that other QI initiatives addressed. Yet, accreditation creates organisational foundations for future QI initiatives. Originality/value The authors study contributes new insights into how hospital staff at different organisational levels perceive and understand accreditation.
Subject(s)
Accreditation/standards , Hospitals/standards , Personnel, Hospital/psychology , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Denmark , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Organizational Objectives , Quality Assurance, Health Care/organization & administration , Quality Improvement/standards , Time FactorsABSTRACT
AIM OF THE STUDY: To investigate whether patients with severe comorbidity receiving platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a shorter overall survival, experience more toxicity or more deterioration of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than other patients during treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled onto a phase III trial comparing pemetrexed/carboplatin with gemcitabine/carboplatin as first-line therapy of stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were analysed. Eligible patients had performance status 0-2 and adequate kidney/liver/bone-marrow function. Comorbidity was assessed from hospital medical records using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G). Toxicity was graded using the CTCAE v3.0 and the patients reported HRQoL on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30/LC13. RESULTS: Data from 402 of the 436 of the patients enrolled onto the phase III trial were analysed. The patients with severe comorbidity had similar survival as other patients (6.9 versus 8.1months; p=.34), similar frequency of neutropenia (48% versus 42%; p=.16), but experienced more neutropenic fevers (12% versus 5%; p=.012) and deaths from neutropenic infections (3% versus 0%; p=.027). They had more thrombocytopenia (46% versus 36%; p=.03), but not more thrombocytopenic bleedings (3% versus 4%; p=.65). In general, the patients with severe comorbidity reported poorer HRQoL, but not significantly more deterioration of HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: The results from our study suggest that patients with advanced NSCLC who have severe co-existing disorders benefit from and tolerate platinum-doublet chemotherapy as well as other patients. They do, however, appear to have a higher risk of acquiring infections when neutropenic.
