ABSTRACT
Resumen La cultura sobre seguridad se perfila como uno de los requisitos para evitar la aparición de efectos adversos, sin embargo, no se ha estudiado en el ámbito de la cardiología. Objetivo: es evaluar la cultura de seguridad en una unidad de cardiología que tiene implantado y certificado un sistema integrado de gestión de calidad y riesgos para la seguridad del paciente. Método: Se realizó un estudio observacional trasversal en 2 años consecutivos utilizando la encuesta Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture de la «Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality¼ en su versión española (42 ítems agrupados en 12 dimensiones) sobre todo el personal. Se comparó el porcentaje de respuestas positivas de cada dimensión en 2014 y 2015, así como con los datos a nivel nacional y en EE. UU., siguiendo las recomendaciones establecidas. Resultados: La valoración global, sobre un máximo de 5, fue de 4.5 en 2014 y de 4.7 en 2015. Identificamos 7 dimensiones como fortaleza. Las peor valoradas fueron: Dotación de personal, Apoyo de la gerencia y Trabajo en equipo entre unidades. La comparación mostró superioridad en todas las dimensiones a nivel nacional, y en 8 respecto a los datos del registro americano. Conclusiones: La cultura de seguridad en una unidad de cardiología con un sistema integrado de gestión de calidad y riesgos y seguridad del paciente es elevada, superior a la nacional en todas sus dimensiones y en la mayoría de ellas respecto al registro de EE. UU.
Abstract Safety culture is one of the requirements for preventing the occurrence of adverse effects. However, this has not been studied in the field of cardiology. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety culture in a cardiology unit that has implemented and certified an integrated quality and risk management system for patient safety. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in 2 consecutive years, with all staff completing the Spanish version of the questionnaire, ''Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture'' of the ''Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality'', with 42 items grouped into 12 dimensions. The percentage of positive responses in each dimension in 2014 and 2015 were compared, as well as national data and United States data, following the established rules. Results: The overall assessment out of a possible 5, was 4.5 in 2014 and 4.7 in 2015. Seven dimensions were identified as strengths. The worst rated were: staffing, management support and teamwork between units. The comparison showed superiority in all dimensions compared to national data, and in 8 of them compared to American data. Conclusions: The safety culture in a Cardiology Unit with an integrated quality and risk management patient safety system is high, and higher than nationally in all its dimensions and in most of them compared to the United States.
Subject(s)
Humans , Cardiology Service, Hospital/standards , Safety Management , Patient Safety , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Risk Management/methods , Spain , United States , Cross-Sectional Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Cardiology Service, Hospital/organization & administrationABSTRACT
Safety culture is one of the requirements for preventing the occurrence of adverse effects. However, this has not been studied in the field of cardiology. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety culture in a cardiology unit that has implemented and certified an integrated quality and risk management system for patient safety. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in 2 consecutive years, with all staff completing the Spanish version of the questionnaire, "Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture" of the "Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality", with 42 items grouped into 12 dimensions. The percentage of positive responses in each dimension in 2014 and 2015 were compared, as well as national data and United States data, following the established rules. RESULTS: The overall assessment out of a possible 5, was 4.5 in 2014 and 4.7 in 2015. Seven dimensions were identified as strengths. The worst rated were: staffing, management support and teamwork between units. The comparison showed superiority in all dimensions compared to national data, and in 8 of them compared to American data. CONCLUSIONS: The safety culture in a Cardiology Unit with an integrated quality and risk management patient safety system is high, and higher than nationally in all its dimensions and in most of them compared to the United States.
Subject(s)
Cardiology Service, Hospital/standards , Patient Safety , Safety Management , Cardiology Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Risk Management/methods , Spain , Surveys and Questionnaires , United StatesSubject(s)
Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Arterio-Arterial Fistula/physiopathology , Arterio-Arterial Fistula , Risk Factors , Chest Pain/complications , Chest Pain/diagnosis , Myocardial Contraction/physiology , Myocardial Contraction/radiation effects , Aortic Valve Insufficiency/epidemiology , Aortic Valve Insufficiency/prevention & control , Stress, Psychological/complications , Stress, Psychological/physiopathology , Electrocardiography/instrumentation , Electrocardiography/methods , Electrocardiography , Angiography/standards , AngiographySubject(s)
Angina Pectoris/etiology , Aorta/physiopathology , Coronary Vessel Anomalies/diagnostic imaging , Imaging, Three-Dimensional , Vascular Fistula/diagnostic imaging , Angina Pectoris/diagnosis , Aortography/methods , Coronary Angiography/methods , Coronary Vessel Anomalies/physiopathology , Echocardiography, Doppler/methods , Electrocardiography/methods , Exercise Test/methods , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Physiologic , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Vascular Fistula/complicationsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Renal dysfunction (RD) is one of the most significant long-term complications of heart transplantation (HT). Although RD is generally attributed to a direct effect of calcineurin inhibitors, it is more probable that multiple factors contribute to its development. The aim of this study was to search for predictor variables of RD at 1 year after HT. METHODS: Three hundred sixteen consecutive HT patients were evaluated. The relationship between RD at 1 year (glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2), and pretransplant and 1-year follow-up variables was analyzed. RESULTS: At 1 year following HT, 181 patients (57%) had a glomerular filtration rate of <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. On multivariate analysis, pretransplant serum creatinine values (odds ratio [OR] 5.106, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.35-11.09, P=0.0001) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (OR 2.04, 95% CI: 1.08-3.83, P=0.027) were significant predictors of RD, and diabetes mellitus was almost significant (OR 1.65, 95% CI: 0.98-2.76, P=0.055). Variables protective against RD were induction therapy with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists versus muromonab-CD3 (OR 0.389, 95% CI: 0.24-0.61, P=0.0001), maintenance treatment with mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine (OR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26-0.68, P=0.0001), and CMV antiviral prophylaxis (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17-0.68, P=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Fifty-seven percent of HT patients had RD at 1 year posttransplant. RD was associated with pretransplant serum creatinine values, CMV infection, and diabetes mellitus. Induction with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists, treatment with mycophenolate mofetil, and antiviral prophylaxis for CMV infection all helped maintain renal function in this cohort of HT patients.
