Medication Errors in Anesthesiology: Is It Time to Train by Example? Vignettes Can Assess Error Awareness, Assessment of Harm, Disclosure, and Reporting Practices.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative medication errors (MEs) are complex, multifactorial, and a significant source of in-hospital patient morbidity. Anesthesiologists' awareness of error and the potential for harm is not well understood, nor is their attitude to reporting and disclosure. Anesthesiologists are not routinely exposed to medication safety training. METHODS: Ten clinical vignettes, describing an ME or a near miss, were developed using eDelphi consensus. An online survey instrument presented these vignettes to anesthesiologists along with a series of questions assessing error awareness, potential harm severity, the likelihood of reporting, and the likelihood of open disclosure to the patient. The study also explored the influence of prior medication safety training. RESULTS: Eighty-nine anesthesiologists from 14 hospitals across Ireland (53.9% were residents, and 46.1% were attendings) completed the survey. Just 35.6% of anesthesiologists recalled having had medication safety training, more commonly among residents than attendings, although this failed to reach significance (P < 0.081). Medication error awareness varied with the vignette presented. Harm severity assessment was positively associated with error awareness. The likelihood of patient disclosure and incident reporting was both low and independent of harm severity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative ME awareness and assessment of potential harm by anesthesiologists is variable. Self-reported rates of incident reporting and error disclosure fall short of the standards that might apply in an environment focused on candor and safety. An extensive education program is required to raise awareness of error and embed appropriate reporting and disclosure behaviors. Vignettes, designed by consensus, may be valuable in the delivery of such a curriculum.

Systematic review of interventions to improve gender equity in graduate medicine.

Women are substantially underrepresented in senior and leadership positions in medicine and experience gendered challenges in their work settings. This systematic review aimed to synthesise research that has evaluated interventions for improving gender equity in medicine. English language electronic searches were conducted across MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Reference list screening was also undertaken. Peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and March 2020 that evaluated interventions to improve gender equity, or the experiences of women, in academic or clinical medicine were reviewed. Dual reviewer data extraction on setting, participants, type of intervention, measurement and outcomes was completed. Methodological rigour and strength of findings were evaluated. In total, 34 studies were included. Interventions were typically focused on equipping the woman (82.4%), that is, delivering professional development activities for women. Fewer focused on changing cultures (20.6%), ensuring equal opportunities (23.5%) or increasing the visibility or valuing of women (23.5%). Outcomes were largely positive (87.3%) but measurement typically relied on subjective, self-report data (69.1%). Few interventions were implemented in clinical settings (17.6%). Weak methodological rigour and a low strength of findings was observed. There has been a focus to-date on interventions which Equip the Woman Interventions addressing systems and culture change require further research consideration. However, institutions cannot wait on high quality research evidence to emerge to take action on gender equity. Data collated suggest a number of recommendations pertaining to research on, and the implementation of, interventions to improve gender equity in academic and clinical settings.

What discontinued trials teach us about trial registration?

OBJECTIVE: Trial registries were set up to improve transparency, remove duplication, improve awareness and avoid waste. Many trials never reach the point of patient enrolment due to a myriad of reasons. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons for and characteristics of discontinuation of trials. RESULTS: A total of 163 discontinued trials were identified and compared to completed trials. A Survey was designed to further explore the nature and conduct of the trial. No differences in registered and categorised information was observed between discontinued and completed trials. Most trials discontinue due to patient or participant recruitment issues, often related to funding. Substantial changes to procedures or the protocol or changes to recruitment strategy were also commonly cited reasons. Survey information was available for 21 discontinued and 28 completed trials and no obvious differences could be identified. Our findings highlight the underlying problem of lack of detail, suboptimal recording, dated information and incomplete reporting of trials within a trial registry which hampers sharing and learning. To date, important progress has been made by the implementation of standards and the requirement of trials to be registered. Our review identifies areas where further improvements can be made.

A longitudinal and multicentre study of burnout and error in Irish junior doctors.

BACKGROUND: Junior doctors have been found to suffer from high levels of burnout. AIMS: To measure burnout in a population of junior doctors in Ireland and identify if: levels of burnout are similar to US medical residents; there is a change in the pattern of burnout during the first year of postgraduate clinical practice; and burnout is associated with self-reported error. METHODS: The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey was distributed to Irish junior doctors from five training networks in the last quarter of 2015 when they were approximately 4 months into their first year of clinical practice (time 1), and again 6 months later (time 2). The survey assessed burnout and whether they had made a medical error that had 'played on (their) mind'. RESULTS: A total of 172 respondents out of 601 (28.6%) completed the questionnaire on both occasions. Irish junior doctors at time 2 were more burned out than a sample of US medical residents (72.6% and 60.3% burned out, respectively; p=0.001). There was a significant increase in emotional exhaustion from time 1 to time 2 (p=0.007). The association between burnout and error was significant at time 2 only (p=0.03). At time 2, of those respondents who were burned out, 81/122 (66.4%) reported making an error. A total of 22/46 (47.8%) of the junior doctors who were not burned out at time 2 reported an error. CONCLUSION: Current levels of burnout are unsustainable and place the health of both junior doctors and their patients at risk.

Abnormal glucose tolerance post-gestational diabetes mellitus as defined by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria.

OBJECTIVE: An increase in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) prevalence has been demonstrated across many countries with adoption of the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria. Here, we determine the cumulative incidence of abnormal glucose tolerance among women with previous GDM, and identify clinical risk factors predicting this. DESIGN: Two hundred and seventy women with previous IADPSG-defined GDM were prospectively followed up for 5years (mean 2.6) post-index pregnancy, and compared with 388 women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) in pregnancy. METHODS: Cumulative incidence of abnormal glucose tolerance (using American Diabetes Association criteria for impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method of survival analysis. Cox regression models were constructed to test for factors predicting abnormal glucose tolerance. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of women with previous GDM had abnormal glucose tolerance vs 4% with NGT, with the log-rank test demonstrating significantly different survival curves (P<0.001). Women meeting IADPSG, but not the World Health Organization (WHO) 1999 criteria, had a lower cumulative incidence than women meeting both sets of criteria, both in the early post-partum period (4.2% vs 21.7%, P<0.001) and at longer-term follow-up (13.7% vs 32.6%, P<0.001). Predictive factors were glucose levels on the pregnancy oral glucose tolerance test, family history of diabetes, gestational week at testing, and BMI at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of women developing abnormal glucose tolerance remains high among those with IADPSG-defined GDM. This demonstrates the need for continued close follow-up, although the optimal frequency and method needs further study.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: The clinical outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: To examine the clinical outcomes of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in primary care versus secondary care, in the Irish healthcare system. DESIGN AND METHODS: A parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) of screening for GDM in primary versus secondary care was used to examine (i) prevalence, (ii) gestational week of screen, (iii) time to access specialist care, and (iv) maternal and neonatal outcomes. In total 781 women were recruited for screening in primary care (n=391) or secondary care (n=390). RESULTS: The prevalence of GDM and gestational week of screen were similar in both locations. There was a trend towards a longer time to access diabetes care in primary care (24days) versus secondary care (19days), a difference of 5days (p=0.09). Women screened in primary care also showed a trend towards a higher rate of large for gestational age (LGA) infants (20%) than those screened in secondary care (14.7%), (p=0.09). There were no differences between groups in maternal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This RCT suggests that screening for GDM in secondary care may be associated with potentially faster time to access specialist antenatal diabetes care and possibly lower LGA rates. Further research is needed to clarify these findings and to improve the delay in accessing specialist care requires an urgent focus. Further research is needed to test these findings in other health systems.

A mixed-methods study of the causes and impact of poor teamwork between junior doctors and nurses.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to collect and analyse examples of poor teamwork between junior doctors and nurses; identify the teamwork failures contributing to poor team function; and ascertain if particular teamwork failures are associated with higher levels of risk to patients. DESIGN: Critical Incident Technique interviews were carried out with junior doctors and nurses. SETTING: Two teaching hospitals in the Republic of Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Junior doctors (n = 28) and nurses (n = 8) provided descriptions of scenarios of poor teamwork. The interviews were coded against a theoretical framework of healthcare team function by three psychologists and were also rated for risk to patients by four doctors and three nurses. RESULTS: A total of 33 of the scenarios met the inclusion criteria for analysis. A total of 63.6% (21/33) of the scenarios were attributed to 'poor quality of collaboration', 42.4% (14/33) to 'poor leadership' and 48.5% (16/33) to a 'lack of coordination'. A total of 16 scenarios were classified as high risk and 17 scenarios were classified as medium risk. Significantly more of the high-risk scenarios were associated with a 'lack of a shared mental model' (62.5%, 10/16) and 'poor communication' (50.0%, 8/16) than the medium-risk scenarios (17.6%, 3/17 and 11.8%, 2/17, respectively). CONCLUSION: Poor teamwork between junior doctors and nurses is common and places patients at considerable risk. Addressing this problem requires a well-designed complex intervention to develop the team skills of doctors and nurses and foster a clinical environment in which teamwork is supported.

Perspectives on the provision of GDM screening in general practice versus the hospital setting: a qualitative study of providers and patients.

OBJECTIVE: A novel gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening programme which involved offering screening at the patient's general practitioner (GP) compared with the traditional hospital setting was trialled. This study investigates perspectives of involved stakeholders on the provision of GDM screening at both settings. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the receiving and provision of GDM screening in both the GP and hospital settings drawn from focus groups and interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 3 groups of participants are included in this research--patient participants, GP screening providers and hospital screening providers. All were recruited from a larger sample who participated in a randomised controlled screening trial. Purposeful sampling was utilised to select participants with a wide variety of perspectives on the provision of GDM screening. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a geographical area covered by 3 hospitals in Ireland. RESULTS: 4 themes emerged from thematic analysis--namely (1) travel distance, (2) best care provision, (3) sense of ease created and (4) optimal screening. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of travel distance from the screening site is the most important factor influencing willingness to attend for GDM screening among women who live a considerable distance from the hospital setting. For patients who live equidistance from both settings, other factors are important; namely the waiting facilities including parking, perceived expertise of screening provider personnel, access to emergency treatment if necessary, accuracy of tests and access to timely results and treatment. Optimal screening for GDM should be specialist led, incorporate expert advice of GDM screening, treatment and management, should be provided locally, offer adequate parking and comfort levels, provide accurate tests, and timely access to results and treatment. Such a service should result in improved rates of GDM screening uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN41202110.

The cost-effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary and secondary care in the Republic of Ireland.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in primary and secondary care settings, compared with a no-screening option, in the Republic of Ireland. METHODS: The analysis was based on a decision-tree model of alternative screening strategies in primary and secondary care settings. It synthesised data generated from a randomised controlled trial (screening uptake) and from the literature. Costs included those relating to GDM screening and treatment, and the care of adverse outcomes. Effects were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The impact of the parameter uncertainty was assessed in a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Screening in either setting was found to be superior to no screening, i.e. it provided for QALY gains and cost savings. Screening in secondary care was found to be superior to screening in primary care, providing for modest QALY gains of 0.0006 and a saving of €21.43 per screened case. The conclusion held with high certainty across the range of ceiling ratios from zero to €100,000 per QALY and across a plausible range of input parameters. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The results of this study demonstrate that implementation of universal screening is cost-effective. This is an argument in favour of introducing a properly designed and funded national programme of screening for GDM, although affordability remains to be assessed. In the current environment, screening for GDM in secondary care settings appears to be the better solution in consideration of cost-effectiveness.

Health related quality of life two to five years after gestational diabetes mellitus: cross-sectional comparative study in the ATLANTIC DIP cohort.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the effect of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for the mother in the short or long term. In this study we examined HRQOL in a group of women who had GDM in the index pregnancy 2 to 5 years previously and compared it to a group of women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) in the index pregnancy during the same time period. METHODS: The sample included 234 women who met International Association of Diabetes Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for GDM in the index pregnancy and 108 who had NGT. The sample was drawn from the ATLATIC-DIP (Diabetes In Pregnancy) cohort - a network of antenatal centers along the Irish Atlantic seaboard serving a population of approximately 500,000 people. HRQOL was measured using the visual analogue component of the EQ-5D-3 L instrument in a cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: The difference in HRQOL between GDM and NGT groups was not significant when adjusted for the effects of the covariates. HRQOL was negatively affected by increased BMI and abnormal glucose tolerance post-partum in the NGT group. Moderate alcohol consumption was positively associated with HRQOL in the NGT group only. The negative association with smoking on HRQOL was substantially higher in the GDM group. CONCLUSIONS: A diagnosis of GDM does not appear to have an adverse effect on HRQOL, 2 to 5 years after the index pregnancy. On the contrary, its diagnosis might lead to the development of coping strategies, which, consequently attenuates the adverse effect of the subsequent acquisition of abnormal glucose tolerance post-partum on HRQOL. Women whose pregnancy was affected by GDM are more susceptible to the adverse effects on HRQOL of alcohol use and tobacco smoking.

Can the Onset of Type 2 Diabetes Be Delayed by a Group-Based Lifestyle Intervention in Women with Prediabetes following Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM)? Findings from a Randomized Control Mixed Methods Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a 12-week group-based lifestyle intervention programme for women with prediabetes following gestational diabetes (GDM). DESIGN: A two-group, mixed methods randomized controlled trial in which 50 women with a history of GDM and abnormal glucose tolerance postpartum were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 24) or wait control (n = 26) and postintervention qualitative interviews with participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Modifiable biochemical, anthropometric, behavioural, and psychosocial risk factors associated with the development of type 2 diabetes. The primary outcome variable was the change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from study entry to one-year follow-up. RESULTS: At one-year follow-up, the intervention group showed significant improvements over the wait control group on stress, diet self-efficacy, and quality of life. There was no evidence of an effect of the intervention on measures of biochemistry or anthropometry; the effect on one health behaviour, diet adherence, was close to significance. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention programmes must tackle the barriers to participation faced by this population; home-based interventions should be investigated. Strategies for promoting long-term health self-management need to be developed and tested.

Feasibility, acceptability and uptake rates of gestational diabetes mellitus screening in primary care vs secondary care: findings from a randomised controlled mixed methods trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: It is postulated that uptake rates for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening would be improved if offered in a setting more accessible to the patient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of uptake of GDM screening in the primary vs secondary care setting, and to qualitatively explore the providers' experiences of primary care screening provision. METHODS: This mixed methods study was composed of a quantitative unblinded parallel group randomised controlled trial and qualitative interview trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of uptake of screening in both the primary and secondary care settings. All pregnant women aged 18 years or over, with sufficient English and without a diagnosis or diabetes or GDM, who attended for their first antenatal appointment at one of three hospital sites along the Irish Atlantic seaboard were eligible for inclusion in this study. Seven hundred and eighty-one pregnant women were randomised using random permutated blocks to receive a 2 h 75 g OGTT in either a primary (n = 391) or secondary care (n = 390) setting. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 primary care providers. Primary care providers who provided care to the population covered by the three hospital sites involved were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the primary care (n = 391) and secondary care (n = 390) arms for uptake (52.7% vs 89.2%, respectively; effect size 36.5 percentage points, 95% CI 30.7, 42.4; p < 0.001), crossover (32.5% vs 2.3%, respectively; p < 0.001) and non-uptake (14.8% vs 8.5%, respectively; p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in uptake based on the presence of a practice nurse or the presence of multiple general practitioners in the primary care setting. There was evidence of significant relationship between probability of uptake of screening and age (p < 0.001). Primary care providers reported difficulties with the conduct of GDM screening, despite recognising that the community was the most appropriate location for screening. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Currently, provision of GDM screening in primary care in Ireland, despite its acknowledged benefits, is unfeasible due to poor uptake rates, poor rates of primary care provider engagement and primary care provider concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://isrctn.org ISRCTN02232125 FUNDING: This study was funded by the Health Research Board (ICE2011/03).

ATLANTIC-DIP: prevalence of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus by International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups criteria.

Women with previous gestational diabetes (GDM) are a high-risk group for future development of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. The new International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria significantly increase the number of women diagnosed with GDM. The long-term metabolic outcome in these women is unknown. We set out to determine the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, using adult treatment panel-III criteria; and insulin resistance, using HOMA2-IR, in white European women with previous GDM. Using a cohort design, we invited women meeting IADPSG GDM criteria across four Irish antenatal centres between 2007 and 2010 to participate. Two hundred and sixty-five women with previous values meeting IADPSG criteria for GDM participated (44 % of the population eligible for participation). Mean age was 36.7 years (SD 5.0). These women were compared with a randomly selected control group of 378 women (mean age 37.6 years, SD 5.1) known to have normal glucose tolerance (NGT) in pregnancy during the same period. A total of 25.3 % of women with previous IADPSG-defined GDM met metabolic syndrome criteria, compared to 6.6 % of women with NGT [at 2.6 (SD 1.0) vs. 3.3 years (SD 0.7) post-partum]. The prevalence of HOMA2-IR >1.8 was higher in women with previous IADPSG-defined GDM (33.6 vs. 9.1 % with NGT, p < 0.001). Women with previous GDM by IADPSG criteria demonstrate a greater than threefold prevalence of metabolic syndrome compared to women with NGT in pregnancy. Efforts to prevent projected long-term consequences of this should focus on interventions both in the preconception and post-partum periods.

A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of crew resource management training in acute care domains.

The healthcare industry has seen an increase in the adoption of team training, such as crew resource management (CRM), to improve teamwork and coordination within acute care medical teams. A meta-analysis was carried out in order to quantify the effects of CRM training on reactions, learning, behaviour and clinical care outcomes. Biases in the research evidence are identified and recommendations for training development and evaluation are presented. PUBMED, EMBASE and PsychInfo were systematically searched for all relevant papers. Peer reviewed papers published in English between January 1985 and September 2013, which present empirically based studies focusing on interventions to improve team effectiveness in acute health care domains, were included. A total of 20 CRM-type team training evaluation studies were found to fulfil the a priori criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Overall, CRM trained participants responded positively to CRM (mean score 4.25 out of a maximum of 5), the training had large effects on participants' knowledge (d=1.05), a small effect on attitudes (d=0.22) and a large effect on behaviours (d=1.25). There was insufficient evidence to support an effect on clinical care outcomes or long term impacts. The findings support the premise that CRM training can positively impact teamwork in healthcare and provide estimates of the expected effects of training. However, there is a need for greater precision in outcome assessment, improved standardisation of methods and measures, and more robust research design. Stronger evidence of effectiveness will require multi-level, multicentre, multispecialty and longitudinal studies.

Reasons for participation and non-participation in a diabetes prevention trial among women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes. Lifestyle intervention can prevent progression to type 2 diabetes in high risk populations. We designed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of an established lifestyle intervention compared to standard care for delaying diabetes onset in European women with recent GDM. Recruitment into the RCT was more challenging than anticipated with only 89 of 410 (22%) women agreeing to participate. This paper identifies factors that could enhance participation of the target population in future interventions. METHODS: We hypothesised that women who agreed to participate would have higher diabetes risk profiles than those who declined, and secondly that it would be possible to predict participation on the bases of those risk factors. To test our hypothesis, we identified the subset of women for whom we had comprehensive data on diabetes risks factors 3-5 years following GDM, reducing the sample to 43 participants and 73 decliners. We considered established diabetes risk factors: smoking, daily fruit and vegetable intake, participation in exercise, family history of diabetes, glucose values and BMI scores on post-partum re-screens, use of insulin during pregnancy, and age at delivery. We also analysed narrative data from 156 decliners to further understand barriers to and facilitators of participation. RESULTS: Two factors differentiated participants and decliners: age at delivery (with women older than 34 years being more likely to participate) and insulin use during pregnancy (with women requiring the use of insulin in pregnancy less likely to participate). Binary logistic regression confirmed that insulin use negatively affected the odds of participation. The most significant barriers to participation included the accessibility, affordability and practicality of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Women with recent GDM face multiple barriers to lifestyle change. Intervention designers should consider: (i) the practicalities of participation for this population, (ii) research designs that capitalise on motivational differences between participants, (iii) alleviating concerns about long-term diabetes management. We hope this work will support future researchers in developing interventions that are more relevant, effective and successful in recruiting the desired population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41202110.

Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The risks associated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are well recognized, and there is increasing evidence to support treatment of the condition. However, clear guidance on the ideal approach to screening for GDM is lacking. Professional groups continue to debate whether selective screening (based on risk factors) or universal screening is the most appropriate approach. Additionally, there is ongoing debate about what levels of glucose abnormalities during pregnancy respond best to treatment and which maternal and neonatal outcomes benefit most from treatment. Furthermore, the implications of possible screening options on health care costs are not well established. In response to this uncertainty there have been repeated calls for well-designed, randomised trials to determine the efficacy of screening, diagnosis, and management plans for GDM. We describe a randomised controlled trial to investigate screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening in primary versus secondary care settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be an unblinded, two-group, parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT). The target population includes 784 women presenting for their first antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation at two hospitals in the west of Ireland: Galway University Hospital and Mayo General Hospital. Participants will be offered universal screening for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks gestation in either primary care (n=392) or secondary care (n=392) locations. The primary outcome variable is the uptake rate of screening. Secondary outcomes include indicators of clinical effectiveness of screening at each screening site (primary and secondary) including gestational week at time of screening, time to access antenatal diabetes services for women diagnosed with GDM, and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes for women with GDM. In addition, parallel economic and qualitative evaluations will be conducted. The trial will cover the period from the woman's first hospital antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation, until the completion of the pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN02232125.

"Excuse me:" teaching interns to speak up.

BACKGROUND: A consistent finding in health care is that interns (junior physicians) are unwilling to "speak up" to attendings or consultants (senior physicians), which involves the related behaviors of challenging or questioning the actions of attendings, seeking guidance about one's own performance, and reporting one's errors. Training designed to encourage interns to speak up was designed, conducted, and evaluated at University Hospital Galway, an academic teaching hospital affiliated with the National University of Ireland, Galway, in January 2012-March 2012 and November 2012-January 2013. METHOD: Training, which was based on the Crew Resource Management model, was constructed around filmed stories of attending physicians describing situations in which, when they were interns, their communication and assertiveness skills were challenged, and their reflections on what they could have done better. RESULTS: A total of 110 interns attended the training. The feedback from participants was positive. There was a significant increase in knowledge as a result of the training, and some evidence to support a shift in attitudes in the desirable direction relating to the need to speak up to seniors. No effect of the training was found on behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The willingness to share examples of poor performance is an important part of building a good safety culture. Listening to the stories ofattendings describing and reflecting on a situation in which they struggled is a powerful teaching method for training interns in the communication and assertiveness skills that are critical to their job. However, a sustained change in attitudes and behavior to speaking up will require a reinforcement of learning with deliberate practice to develop the skills introduced through the training program.

An evaluation of Croí MyAction community lifestyle modification programme compared to standard care to reduce progression to diabetes/pre-diabetes in women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Universal screening using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria has identified a prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) of 12.4% in women living in Ireland. Women with prior GDM are at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes later in life. A number of risk factors linked to the development of type 2 diabetes are potentially modifiable through lifestyle and behaviour changes, and medical management. No previous Irish studies have adequately investigated the efficacy of lifestyle intervention programmes in reducing these risk factors in women with prior GDM. Through a two-group, parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT), this study aims to assess the clinical impact, cost-effectiveness and psychological experience of the Croí MyAction intensive lifestyle modification programme for women with prior GDM. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 54 women with a history of GDM and persistent post-partum glucose dysfunction (impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG)), are randomly assigned to a control arm (n=27) or to the Croí MyAction intervention group (n=27). The control arm receives usual health care advice--written information on diet and lifestyle changes for reducing diabetes risks and visits with general practitioners as required. The intervention group receives usual health care as per the control group in addition to attending a 12-week intensive lifestyle modification programme known as Croí MyAction. Croí MyAction involves 2.5 hour sessions once per week (for 12 weeks) comprising a group exercise programme, group health promotion or education seminars, and one-to-one meetings with a multidisciplinary health care team to personalise risk factor reductions. Randomisation and allocation to the intervention arms is carried out by an independent researcher, ensuring that the allocation sequence is concealed from study researchers until the interventions are assigned. The primary analysis is based on glucose dysfunction, comparing a mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels on a 75 gram oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in the two groups at a one-year, post-intervention follow-up. The trial is funded by the Irish Health Research Board (HRB). Ethics approval was obtained on 27 March 2012 from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee, Galway University Hospitals, Health Service Executive of Ireland (Ref: C.A.691). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41202110.