Why Medical Residents Do (and Don't) Speak Up About Organizational Barriers and Opportunities to Improve the Quality of Care.

PURPOSE: Medical residents are valuable sources of information about the quality of frontline service delivery, but if they do not speak up, their ideas, opinions, and suggestions for improving their work practices cannot be considered. However, speaking up can be difficult for residents. Therefore, the authors have explored both what helps residents speak up about organizational barriers and opportunities to improve the quality of their work and what hinders them from doing so. METHOD: The authors conducted an exploratory qualitative interview study with 27 Dutch medical residents in the Netherlands in 2016. They used the critical incident technique for data collection and the constant comparison method of the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven for data analysis. RESULTS: Three types of incidents in which residents considered speaking up are described. The authors identified 2 main considerations that influenced residents' decisions about speaking up: Is it safe to speak up, and is speaking up likely to be effective? Residents' decisions were influenced by personal, team, and organizational aspects of their situations, such as supervisors' open attitudes, hierarchy, duration of clinical rotations, organization size, and experiences (either vicarious or their own). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study indicate that residents tend to be silent when they encounter organizational barriers or opportunities to improve the quality of their work. Perceived effectiveness and safety are important forces that drive and constrain speaking up. The authors provide important starting points to empower medical residents to speak up about their suggestions for change.

Speaking up, support, control and work engagement of medical residents. A structural equation modelling analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Medical residents can play key roles in improving health care quality by speaking up and giving suggestions for improvements. However, previous research on speaking up by medical residents has shown that speaking up is difficult for residents. This study explored: (i) whether two main aspects of medical residents' work context (job control and supervisor support) are associated with speaking up by medical residents, and (ii) whether these associations differ between in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings. METHODS: Speaking up was operationalised and measured as voice behaviour. Structural equation modelling using a cross-sectional survey design was used to identify and test factors pertaining to speaking up and to compare hospital settings. RESULTS: A total of 499 medical residents in the Netherlands participated in the study. Correlational analysis showed significant positive associations between each of support and control, and voice behaviour. The authors assumed that the associations between support and control, and voice behaviour would be partially mediated by engagement. This partial mediation model fitted the data best, but showed no association between support and voice. However, multi-group analysis showed that for residents in hospital settings, support is associated with voice behaviour. For residents outside hospital settings, control is more important. Engagement mediated the effects of control and support outside hospital settings, but not within the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in order to enable medical residents to share their suggestions for improvement, it is beneficial to invest in supportive supervision and to increase their sense of control. Boosting medical residents' support would be most effective in hospital settings, whereas in other health care organisations it would be more effective to focus on job control.

Using regulatory enforcement theory to explain compliance with quality and patient safety regulations: the case of internal audits.

BACKGROUND: Implementing an accredited quality and patient safety management system is inevitable for hospitals. Even in the case of an obligatory rule system, different approaches to implement such a system can be used: coercive (based on monitoring and threats of punishment) and catalytic (based on dialogue and suggestion). This study takes these different approaches as a starting point to explore whether and how implementation actions are linked to compliance. By doing so, this study aims to contribute to the knowledge on how to increase compliance with obligatory rules and regulations. METHODS: The internal audit system (the 'tracer system') of a large Dutch academic hospital is used as a case to investigate different implementation approaches and their effect on compliance. This case allowed us to use a multi-actor and multi-method approach for data collection. Internal audits (N = 16) were observed, audit reports were analyzed, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with both the internal auditors (N = 23) and the ward leaders (N = 14) responsible for compliance. Framework analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Although all auditors use catalytic enforcement actions, these do not lead to (intended) compliance of all ward leaders. Rather, the catalytic actions contribute to (intended) compliance of ward leaders that are motivated, whereas they do not for the ward leaders that are not motivated. For the motivated ward leaders, catalytic enforcement actions contribute to (intended) compliance by increasing ward leaders' knowledge of the rules and how to comply with them. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the effectiveness of implementation actions depends not only on the actions themselves, but also on the pre-existing motivation to comply. These findings imply that there is not one 'best' approach to the implementation of obligatory rules. Rather, the most effective approach depends on the willingness to comply with rules and regulations.

[Ten tips for optimising your handover]. / Optimaliseer uw overdracht: 10 tips.

Patient handover is of major importance for continuity of care and contributes to patient safety. According to Joint Commission International (JCI), an American quality institute, 67% of medical errors result from miscommunication. More than half of these errors appear to be attributable to poor medical handover. JCI and the World Health Organisation recommend standardising handover and training doctors in order to improve the quality of medical handover. Little attention is paid to handover as an essential medical competence during training to become a doctor or medical specialist. Many hospitals lack either training or a standardised format for handover. In this paper we discuss 10 tips for improving the quality of intradisciplinary handover.

[Unravelling medical leadership]. / Medisch leiderschap ontrafeld.

Medical leadership is a popular topic in the Netherlands, and several interest groups now incorporate medical leadership into postgraduate medical education. However, there is no consensus on what this concept entails. By conducting a discourse analysis, a qualitative method which uses language and text to reveal existing viewpoints, this article reveals three perspectives on medical leadership: administrative leadership, leadership within organisations and leadership within each doctor's daily practice. Text analysis shows that the first two perspectives refer to medical leadership mainly in a defensive manner: by demonstrating medical leadership doctors could 'take the lead' once again; patient care only seems to play a small part in the process. These perspectives are not free of consequences, they will determine how the medical profession is constructed. For this reason, it is argued that there should be more emphasis on the third perspective, in which the quality of care for patients is of primary importance.

Intensive care unit environment may affect the course of delirium.

PURPOSE: Delirium is a common disorder in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. It is unclear whether ICU environment affects delirium. We investigated the influence of ICU environment on the number of days with delirium during ICU admission. METHODS: In this prospective before-after study, ICU delirium was compared between a conventional ICU with wards and a single-room ICU with, among others, improved daylight exposure. We included patients admitted for more than 24 h between March and June 2009 (ICU with wards) or between June and September 2010 (single-room ICU). Patients who remained unresponsive throughout ICU admission were excluded. The presence of delirium in the preceding 24 h was assessed daily with the confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) by research physicians combined with evaluation of medical and nursing charts. The number of days with delirium was investigated with Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 55 patients (449 observation days) in the ICU with wards and 75 patients (468 observation days) in the single-room ICU. After adjusting for confounding, the number of days with delirium decreased by 0.4 days (95 % confidence interval 0.1-0.7) in the single-room ICU (p = 0.005). The incidence of delirium during ICU stay was similar in the ICU with wards (51 %) and in the single-room ICU (45 %, p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to show that ICU environment may influence the course of delirium in ICU patients.

Structure and function: planning a new ICU to optimize patient care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To survey the recent medical literature reporting effects of ICU design on patients' and family members' well being, safety and functionality. RECENT FINDINGS: Features of ICU design linked to the needs of patients and their family are single rooms, privacy, quiet surrounding, exposure to daylight, views of nature, prevention of infection, a family area and open visiting hours. Other features such as safety, working procedures, ergonomics and logistics have a direct impact on the patient care and the nursing and medical personnel. SUMMARY: An organization structured on the needs of the patient and their family is mandatory in designing a new ICU. The main aims in the design of a new department should be patient-centered care, safety, functionality, innovation and a future-proof concept.

Effectiveness of early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics in severe community acquired pneumonia: multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of an early switch to oral antibiotics with the standard 7 day course of intravenous antibiotics in severe community acquired pneumonia. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals and 2 university medical centres in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 302 patients in non-intensive care wards with severe community acquired pneumonia. 265 patients fulfilled the study requirements. INTERVENTION: Three days of treatment with intravenous antibiotics followed, when clinically stable, by oral antibiotics or by 7 days of intravenous antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical cure and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: 302 patients were randomised (mean age 69.5 (standard deviation 14.0), mean pneumonia severity score 112.7 (26.0)). 37 patients were excluded from analysis because of early dropout before day 3, leaving 265 patients for intention to treat analysis. Mortality at day 28 was 4% in the intervention group and 6% in the control group (mean difference 2%, 95% confidence interval -3% to 8%). Clinical cure was 83% in the intervention group and 85% in the control group (2%, -7% to 10%). Duration of intravenous treatment and length of hospital stay were reduced in the intervention group, with mean differences of 3.4 days (3.6 (1.5) v 7.0 (2.0) days; 2.8 to 3.9) and 1.9 days (9.6 (5.0) v 11.5 (4.9) days; 0.6 to 3.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics in patients with severe community acquired pneumonia is safe and decreases length of hospital stay by 2 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT00273676 [ClinicalTrials.gov].

Impact of rapid detection of viral and atypical bacterial pathogens by real-time polymerase chain reaction for patients with lower respiratory tract infection.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests with a high sensitivity for lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) could lead to improved patient care and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and associated costs. Diagnostic yields, feasibility, and costs of real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab specimens in the routine diagnostic work-up for LRTI were determined. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab specimens from patients admitted for antibiotic treatment of LRTI were evaluated by means of real-time PCR for respiratory viruses and atypical pathogens, as well as by conventional diagnostic procedures. Real-time PCR results for patients in the intervention group were reported to the treating physician; results for patients in the control group were not made available. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients (mean age [+/- standard deviation], 63.6+/-16.3 years) were included, of whom 55 were allocated to the intervention group. The pathogens detected most frequently were influenza virus (14 patients), Streptococcus pneumoniae (8), coronavirus (6), Staphylococcus aureus (5), and rhinoviruses (5). Real-time PCR increased the diagnostic yield from 23 cases (21% of patients) to 47 cases (43% of patients), compared with conventional diagnostic tests. The detection of viral pathogens by PCR was associated with the winter season, less infiltrates on chest radiographs, lower C-reactive protein levels, and shorter duration of symptoms. Use of real-time PCR results resulted in partial or total cessation of antibiotic treatment for 6 patients (11%; 95% confidence interval, 2-19), but overall antibiotic use was comparable in the intervention group and the control group (median duration of treatment, 10.0 vs. 9.0 days; P=not significant). Use of real-time PCR increased treatment and diagnostic costs with 318.17 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of real-time PCR for the etiological diagnosis of LRTI increased the diagnostic yield considerably, but it did not reduce antibiotic use or costs.

Severe community-acquired pneumonia: what's in a name?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Formerly, patients with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to an intensive care unit were considered as having the severe form of the disease. Recently, guidelines have distinguished severe and non-severe community-acquired pneumonia based on clinical definitions. In this review, we describe the different definitions of severe community-acquired pneumonia, and whether a differentiation based on these definitions reflects variation in etiology, risk factors, diagnostic approaches and treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: New definitions do not seem to accurately identify patients with high risks of mortality; patients not admitted to an intensive care unit could also be diagnosed as having severe community-acquired pneumonia. Host-factors, such as genetic factors and underlying diseases, can influence severity of presentation of community-acquired pneumonia. Distribution of pathogens in severe and non-severe disease forms is comparable. Initial antibiotic therapy in patients with severe disease should provide coverage of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila, as delay is associated with worse outcomes. However, recent studies also suggested an additional benefit of atypical coverage in non-severe disease. As a result, initial therapy with a beta-lactam plus a macrolide or an anti-pneumococcal fluoroquinolone is recommended for all patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Furthermore, the value of vaccination against pneumococci to prevent episodes of severe disease is yet unknown. SUMMARY: As current guidelines do not adequately identify patients with high risk of mortality and intensive care unit admittance, clinical judgment remains important. Based on distribution of pathogens, investigational procedures and therapy recommended in recent guidelines, differentiation between severe and non-severe community-acquired pneumonia does not seem useful. Whether atypical coverage indeed has additional value in non-severe or pneumococcal CAP, however, remains to be determined. In addition, the preventive benefit of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination for development of SCAP awaits further evidence.

Treatment failure of nelfinavir-containing triple therapy can largely be explained by low nelfinavir plasma concentrations.

The relationship between plasma concentrations of nelfinavir and virologic treatment failure was investigated to determine the minimum effective concentration of nelfinavir. Plasma samples were prospectively collected from treatment-naive patients who began taking nelfinavir, 1,250 mg BID + two nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitors (NRTIs). Nelfinavir concentration ratios were calculated by dividing each individual nelfinavir level by the time-adjusted population value. Virologic failure was defined as either no response (a detectable viral load after 6 months) or a relapse (detectable viral load after being undetectable, or an increase in viral load >1 log above nadir). Forty-eight patients were included with a median follow-up period of 8 months. The median concentration ratio of nelfinavir was 0.98 (interquartile range, 0.76-1.47). Virologic failure was observed in 29% of the patients. In a univariate analysis, the nelfinavir concentration ratio appeared to be the single determinant that was related to virologic failure (P = 0.039). Patients with a median ratio <0.90 had a relative risk of 3.0 (95% CI, 1.2-7.6) for virologic failure. Using this threshold, virologic failures were detected with 64% sensitivity and 74% specificity (P = 0.014). Virologic failure of nelfinavir-containing triple therapy can be explained, to a large extent, by low plasma levels of nelfinavir.