Oncologic Home-Hospitalization Delivers a High-Quality and Patient-Centered Alternative to Standard Ambulatory Care: Results of a Randomized-Controlled Equivalence Trial.

PURPOSE: Given the increasing burden of cancer on patients, health care providers, and payers, the shift of certain outpatient procedures to the patients' homes (further indicated as oncologic home-hospitalization [OHH]) might be a high-quality, patient-centered, and cost-effective alternative to standard ambulatory cancer care (SOC). METHODS: A randomized-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the quality of a locally implemented model for OHH (n = 74) compared with SOC (n = 74). The model for OHH consisted of home administration of certain subcutaneous cancer drugs (full OHH) and home nursing assessments before ambulatory systemic cancer therapy (partial OHH). Quality was evaluated based on patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and related end points; service use and cost data; safety data; patient-reported satisfaction and preferences; and model efficiency. An equivalence design was used for primary end point analysis. Participants were followed during 12 weeks of systemic cancer treatment. RESULTS: This trial demonstrated equivalence of both models (OHH v SOC) in terms of patient-reported QoL (95% CI not exceeding the equivalence margin of 10%). Full OHH resulted in significantly less hospital visits (mean of 5.6 ± 3.0 v 13.2 ± 4.6; P = .011). Partial OHH reduced waiting times for therapy administration at the day care unit with 45% per visit (2 hours 36 minutes ± 1 hour 4 minutes v 4 hours ± 1 hour 4 minutes; P < .001). No safety issues were detected. Of the intervention group, 88% reported to be highly satisfied with the OHH model, and 77% reported a positive impact on their QoL. At study end, 60% of both study arms preferred OHH above SOC. CONCLUSION: The shift of particular procedures from the outpatient clinic to the patients' homes offers a high-quality and patient-centered alternative for a large proportion of patients with cancer. Further research is needed to evaluate potential cost-efficiency.

Exploring and Evaluating Patient Safety Culture in a Community-Based Primary Care Setting.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to measure patient safety culture in two home care services in Belgium (Flanders). In addition, variability based on respondents' profession was examined. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted by administering the SCOPE-Primary Care questionnaire in two home care service organizations. RESULTS: In total, 1875 valid questionnaires were returned from 2930 employees, representing a response rate of 64%. The highest mean patient safety culture score was found for "organizational learning" (mean [SD] = 3.81 [0.53]), followed by "support and fellowship" (mean [SD] = 3.76 [0.61]), "open communication and learning from error" (mean [SD] = 3.73 [0.64]), and "patient safety management" (mean [SD] = 3.71 [0.60]). The lowest mean scores were found for "handover and teamwork" (mean [SD] = 3.28 [0.58]) and "adequate procedures and working conditions" (mean [SD] = 3.30 [0.56]). Moreover, managers/supervisors scored significantly higher on the dimensions "open communication and learning from error," "adequate procedures and working conditions," "patient safety management," "support and fellowship," and "organizational learning" than clinical and nonclinical staff. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, organizational learning is perceived as most positive. However, large gaps remain in the continuity of care as "handover and teamwork" is perceived as the most negative safety culture dimension. With knowledge of the current patient safety culture, organizations can redesign processes or implement improvement strategies to avoid patient safety incidents and patient harm in the future.

Assessing Resident Safety Culture in Six Nursing Homes in Belgium.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to measure resident safety culture in six nursing homes in northern Belgium (Flanders). In addition, differences in safety culture perceptions between professions were also examined. Finally, results of the present study were compared with the Nursing Home Comparative Database from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (USA). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted by administering the Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture in six nursing homes in Belgium (Flanders). Each nursing home has 92 to 170 licensed nursing home beds. Data collection occurred between December 2016 and January 2017. RESULTS: Highest mean scores were found for "feedback and communication about incidents" (mean [SD] = 4.20 [0.58]), "overall perceptions of resident safety" (mean [SD] = 4.07 [0.52]), and "supervisor expectations and actions promoting resident safety" (mean [SD] = 4.04 [0.70]). The lowest mean score was found for "staffing" (mean [SD] = 2.99 [0.61]). In addition, managers/supervisors scored significantly higher on all resident safety dimensions, with the exception of the dimensions "teamwork" and "supervisor expectations and actions promoting resident safety." Finally, the present study scored higher on the dimensions "teamwork," "nonpunitive response to mistakes," "handoffs," "feedback and communication about incidents," and "communication openness" than the benchmarking data from the Nursing Home Comparative Database. CONCLUSIONS: More work is necessary to improve the safety of resident care in nursing homes, especially regarding staffing issues and turnover rates. The present research findings serve to shine a light on an often-overlooked patient population and emphasize the need to develop improvement strategies for preventing resident safety incidents in nursing homes.

Hospital referrals of patients with acute poisoning by the Belgian Poison Centre: analysis of characteristics, associated factors, compliance and costs.

OBJECTIVE: Aims were (1) to assess the characteristics, associated factors and compliance of patients with acute poisoning advised by the Belgian Poison Centre (BPC) to go (conditionally) to the hospital, (2) to assess the compliance and potential health-economic impact. METHODS: Three types of referrals to the hospital of patients who called the BPC between 1 January and 30 June 2018 were analysed: referrals in case of deterioration in the patient's condition (Hosp-watchful-wait), referrals (Hosp-referral) or urgent referrals (Hosp-urgent-referral). Factors associated with type of recommendation were registered. A survey was conducted on a second dataset of patients who called the BPC between 1 March and 15 May 2019 and referred (conditionally) to the hospital. RESULTS: 5476 referrals were included: 72.4% accidental poisoning, 25.3% intentional self-harm, 1.2% substance abuse and 1.1% unclear intentionality. There were 2368 (43.2%) Hosp-watchful-wait cases, 2677 (48.9%) Hosp-referrals and 431 (7.9%) Hosp-urgent-referrals. In Hosp-watchful-wait cases, soaps and detergents were represented most (20.5%). In Hosp-referrals and Hosp-urgent-referrals, benzodiazepines (12.7% and 15.1%, respectively) predominated. Factors associated with hospitalisation type were number of symptoms, intentionality, type of agent(s) involved and advising antidotes. The survey showed that 7.8% of Hosp-watchful-wait patients went to the hospital versus 57.3% of Hosp-referrals and 59.6% of Hosp-urgent-referrals. The mean cost for Hosp-watchful-wait patients, Hosp-referrals and Hosp-urgent-referrals was estimated at €127, €767 and €796, respectively. CONCLUSION: Only a small proportion of patients followed the advice of the BPC to go (conditionally) to the hospital. A systematic follow-up of cases is warranted to examine the appropriateness of referrals and the compliance of patients.

Quality of blood samples collected at home does not affect clinical decision making for the administration of systemic cancer treatment.

The aim of this exploratory clinical study was to evaluate whether the preanalytical quality of blood samples subjected to delayed centrifugation and transport - as a result of home-sampling - is affected in a way it alters the clinical decision-making for patients under systemic cancer therapy. This evaluation is part of a comprehensive investigation of the opportunities for oncological home-hospitalization. Forty-nine patients with cancer donated two additional blood samples during their ambulatory hospital visit. Fifteen blood analytes were compared between routine blood samples and samples that were subjected to transport and delayed centrifugation in order to mimic a locally implemented model for oncological home-hospitalisation. Deviations were analysed by means of Deming regression. For those analytes showing statistically significant intercepts and/or slopes, the mean deviations were compared to the desirable analytical bias; and the intra-individual differences were compared with the limits for clinical decision-making. Statistically significant intercepts and/or slopes were observed for haematocrit (HCT), mean cellular volume (MCV), platelets count (PLT) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Differences exceeding the allowable margins of desirable analytical bias were observed for HCT and MCV. Risk of different clinical decision-making couldn't be observed for any of the analytes showing statistically significant differences. These results demonstrate that home-collection of blood samples, transported at room temperature and centrifuged within a mean time of five hours after sampling, has no effect on clinical decision-making with regards to systemic cancer therapy. However, attention should be paid to the potential occurrence of haemolysis during the preanalytical phase, which can negatively influence haemolysis-dependent variables.

Shifting specialized oncological care from hospital- to home-setting: is there support among patients, specialists and general practitioners?

OBJECTIVES: Oncological home-hospitalization (OHH) might be a patient-centred approach to deal with the increasing burden of cancer on health-care facilities and finances. Before implementation into practice, its feasibility, costs and support among stakeholders should be evaluated. The purpose of this trial was to explore patients', specialists' and general practitioners' (GPs) perspectives towards the opportunities of implementing OHH within the Belgian health-care system. METHODS: A regional cross-sectional survey study was launched in order to investigate the stakeholders' views on OHH and the current cancer care focusing on integration of primary care and continuous care. RESULTS: Of the responders, 37 out of 163 patients (23%), 45 of 62 GPs (73%) and 10 of 15 specialists (67%) feel positive about the opportunities for OHH. Nevertheless, 11/15 specialists (73%) and 51/62 GPs (82%) feel primary care might currently be (too) little involved in order to ensure continuous care for cancer patients. Opportunities for improved continuous care are seen in better communication between primary care and hospital, and more patient contacts for primary care during the cancer treatment process. CONCLUSION: The results of this local survey study demonstrated there is support among different stakeholder groups for the implementation of OHH within the Belgian health-care context. However, some barriers impeding transmural continuous care should be tackled before implementing such model into practice. Better communication between health-care professionals and more patients contacts are suggested, and an adjusted legal and financial framework is required.

Adults with acute poisoning admitted to a university hospital in Belgium in 2017: cost analysis benchmarked with national data.

Objective: Aims were to (1) analyse the direct cost charged by a university hospital to the government and the patient in case of an admission for acute poisoning, (2) identify the factors associated with the cost, and (3) compare the cost in the hospital studied with national data from the government.Methods: Patient records and invoices of all poisoning-related episodes of patients 14 years or older admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) of Ghent University Hospital (GUH) in 2017 were analysed. A generalised linear model with gamma loglink was applied to assess the variables associated with the cost. Our GUH data collected in 2017 were compared with national data 2016 for all Belgian hospitals on the one hand, and for the subgroup of GUH 2016 data on the other hand. To do this, we used data provided by the Technical Unit of the Federal Public Service Health, containing All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups 812 (poisoning by medicinal agents) and 816 (toxic effects by non-medicinal substances).Results: The total direct cost for the treatment of 1,175 poisoned patients amounted to $1,830,870. Median direct cost per patient was $512 per episode, with $199 for ambulatory patients, $1,575 for patients admitted to the ED-observation-unit, $3,398 for hospitalised patients and $4,859 for patients treated in the intensive care unit. Factors associated with the cost were gender, degree of severity, type of hospitalisation, intentionality, and involvement of ethanol, paracetamol, antidepressants or amphetamines. Median hospitalisation cost per admission in GUH for medicinal agents was 70.5% higher than the cost reported in national hospitalisation data. Median cost per admission in case of non-medicinal agents was 54.5% higher than the national median 2016.Conclusion: The type of hospitalisation has a high impact on the cost, a.o. primarily due to the length of hospital stay, with accommodation accounting for a large proportion of the costs. It is important to benchmark individual hospital data with (inter)national data to evaluate its own cost management in the context of continuous improvement.

Characteristics and costs in adults with acute poisoning admitted to the emergency department of a university hospital in Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess the characteristics of all acute poisoning admissions among adult emergency department (ED) patients, to identify factors associated with admission and to calculate direct medical cost. METHODS: Data of 2017 (1st January to 31st December) were collected and analyzed retrospectively using patients' medical records and hospital invoices. Factors associated with type of hospitalization were identified using appropriate statistics. RESULTS: A total of 1,214 hospital admissions were included, accounting for 3.6% of all ED admissions. Men (62.2%) and the age group 21-40 years (43.0%) accounted for the largest proportion. Substances most commonly involved were ethanol (52.9%), benzodiazepines (9.7%), cocaine (4.9%), cannabis (4.6%), antidepressants (4.6%) and psychostimulants (4.6%). A total of 4,561 treatment acts were recorded, most commonly monitoring of vital signs (63.6%) and medication and/or intravenous drip administration (62.9%). Patients were discharged home after having received care in the emergency department (ED-amb) in 54.5% of admissions, were admitted to the emergency-department-24-hours-observation unit (ED-24h) or were hospitalized (Hosp) in 24.6% and 20.9% of admissions, respectively. Factors found to be associated with hospitalization type were age, hour of admission, victim location, degree of severity, use of antidotes, involvement of antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychostimulants, benzodiazepines and ethanol. Total cost was €1,512,346 with an average of €1,287 per admission. CONCLUSION: Poisonings entail a considerable percentage of patients admitted to an ED and financial burden. In particular, ethanol poisonings account for the largest proportion of all ED admissions. Comparison of our figures with other data is hampered by the heterogeneity in inclusion criteria. Availability of a uniform template would facilitate comparison and allow better monitoring policies for prevention and cost reduction.

Belgian Poison Centre impact on healthcare expenses of unintentional poisonings: a cost-benefit analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the impact of the Belgian Poison Centre (BPC) on national healthcare expenses for calls from the public for unintentional poisonings. METHODS: The probability of either calling the BPC, consulting a general practitioner (GP) or consulting an emergency department (ED) was examined in a telephone survey (February-March 2016). Callers were asked what they would have done in case of unavailability of the BPC. The proportion and cost for ED-ambulatory care, ED 24-h observation or hospitalisation were calculated from individual invoices. A cost-benefit analysis was performed. RESULTS: Unintentional cases (n = 485) from 1045 calls to the BPC were included. After having called the BPC, 92.1% did not seek further medical help, 4.2% consulted a GP and 3.7% went to an ED. In the absence of the BPC, 13.8% would not have sought any further help, 49.3% would have consulted a GP and 36.9% would have gone to the hospital. The cost-benefit ratio of the availability of the BPC as versus its absence was estimated at 5.70. CONCLUSIONS: Financial savings can be made if people first call the BPC for unintentional poisonings.

An observational pilot study to evaluate the feasibility and quality of oncological home-hospitalization.

PURPOSE: The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of oncological home-hospitalization and to compare its quality with standard ambulatory hospital care in terms of patient-reported quality of life and related endpoints by means of a set of validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: An observational cohort study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03073499) was conducted, allocating patients to (partial) home-hospitalization or standard ambulatory hospital care. PROMs were completed by both cohorts at start of treatment and eight weeks later. An additional study-specific questionnaire was presented to the intervention cohort at study-end assessing their satisfaction with and preferences for the provided homecare. RESULTS: Thirty patients received home-hospitalization, corresponding to 116 interventions. For twenty-eight patients, this comprised all assessments required prior to administration of treatment, which resulted in a significant reduction of waiting time for treatment administration at the hospital in comparison with the control cohort (n = 24) (average reduction of 1:12 h, p < 0.001). Two patients received actual subcutaneous therapy at home. None of the PROM's evaluated revealed significant differences between both cohorts (all p > 0.05). 29/30 patients of the intervention cohort were satisfied with the provided homecare and preferred to have it continued, 22/25 patients declared to feel at home at least as safe as in the hospital. No serious safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study suggest that (partial) oncological home-hospitalization is feasible, safe and statistically not affecting patient-reported quality of life. Furthermore, this care model was acceptable and preferred by a substantial number of cancer patients.

Organization, quality and cost of oncological home-hospitalization: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Home-hospitalization might be a patient-centred approach facing the increasing burden of cancer on societies. This systematic review assessed how oncological home-hospitalization has been organized and to what extent its quality and costs were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-four papers describing parenteral cancer drug administration to adult patients in their homes were included. Most papers concluded oncological home-hospitalization had no significant effect on patient-reported quality of life (7/8 = 88%), but large majority of patients were satisfied (12/13, 92%) and preferred home treatment (7/8, 88%). No safety risks were associated with home-hospitalization (10/10, 100%). The cost of home-hospitalization was found beneficial in five trials (5/9, 56%); others reported no financial impact (2/9, 22%) or additional costs (2/9, 22%). CONCLUSION: Despite heterogeneity, majority of reported models for oncological home-hospitalization demonstrated that this is a safe, equivalent and acceptable alternative to ambulatory hospital care. More well-designed trials are needed to evaluate its economic impact.

Prenatal Remote Monitoring of Women With Gestational Hypertensive Diseases: Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring in obstetrics is relatively new; some studies have shown its effectiveness for both mother and child. However, few studies have evaluated the economic impact compared to conventional care, and no cost analysis of a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up program for women diagnosed with gestational hypertensive diseases (GHD) has been published. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the costs of remote monitoring versus conventional care relative to reported benefits. METHODS: Patient data from the Pregnancy Remote Monitoring (PREMOM) study were used. Health care costs were calculated from patient-specific hospital bills of Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (Genk, Belgium) in 2015. Cost comparison was made from three perspectives: the Belgian national health care system (HCS), the National Institution for Insurance of Disease and Disability (RIZIV), and costs for individual patients. The calculations were made for four major domains: prenatal follow-up, prenatal admission to the hospital, maternal and neonatal care at and after delivery, and total amount of costs. A simulation exercise was made in which it was calculated how much could be demanded of RIZIV for funding the remote monitoring service. RESULTS: A total of 140 pregnancies were included, of which 43 received remote monitoring (30.7%) and 97 received conventional care (69.2%). From the three perspectives, there were no differences in costs for prenatal follow-up. Compared to conventional care, remote monitoring patients had 34.51% less HCS and 41.72% less RIZIV costs for laboratory test results (HCS: mean €0.00 [SD €55.34] vs mean €38.28 [SD € 44.08], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €21.09 [SD €27.94] vs mean €36.19 [SD €41.36], P<.001) and a reduction of 47.16% in HCS and 48.19% in RIZIV costs for neonatal care (HCS: mean €989.66 [SD €3020.22] vs mean €1872.92 [SD €5058.31], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €872.97 [SD €2761.64] vs mean €1684.86 [SD €4702.20], P<.001). HCS costs for medication were 1.92% lower in remote monitoring than conventional care (mean €209.22 [SD €213.32] vs mean €231.32 [SD 67.09], P=.02), but were 0.69% higher for RIZIV (mean €122.60 [SD €92.02] vs mean €121.78 [SD €20.77], P<.001). Overall HCS costs for remote monitoring were mean €4233.31 (SD €3463.31) per person and mean €4973.69 (SD €5219.00) per person for conventional care (P=.82), a reduction of €740.38 (14.89%) per person, with savings mainly for RIZIV of €848.97 per person (23.18%; mean €2797.42 [SD €2905.18] vs mean €3646.39 [SD €4878.47], P=.19). When an additional fee of €525.07 per month per pregnant woman for funding remote monitoring costs is demanded, remote monitoring is acceptable in their costs for HCS, RIZIV, and individual patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the current organization of Belgian health care, a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up of women with GHD is cost saving for the global health care system, mainly via savings for the insurance institution RIZIV.

Patient perspectives on electronic health record accessibility and patient participation: a questionnaire survey.

Objectives To explore patient perceptions on personal comfort with participation in their own care process and on support of this patient participation through electronic health record (EHR) accessibility. Methods Explorative quantitative questionnaire study in ambulatory patients visiting the departments of General Internal Medicine or Head, Neck and Maxillo-Facial Surgery of a Belgian tertiary referral center. Results Patients were recruited by convenience sampling of 438 out of the total of 1270 patients visiting either one of these departments within a time period of two weeks. Overall response rate was 97.3% (n = 426; 45.3% male; mean age 42.5 ± 15.4 years). Most patients (89.7%) indicated a desire to make healthcare decisions in partnership with their physician. They were in need of transparent and comprehensible health information. The EHR was perceived as a suitable and effective means to inform patients about their health and to increase involvement in care and treatment (77.6%). Furthermore, access to the EHR was perceived to result in a more effective communication transfer between physician and patient (65.5%), increased patient compliance (64.3%), and satisfaction (57.4%). Conclusion Patients indicate a desire for proactive participation in their individual care process. They felt that medical record accessibility could support decision-making and assist in managing and coordinating individual and personalized care choices.

Seen through the patients' eyes: surgical safety and checklists.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore the views patients have towards surgical safety and checklists. As a secondary aim, we explored if previous experience of error or other patient characteristics influence these views. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey study design was applied. PARTICIPANTS: The Flemish Patients' Platform network and social media were used to recruit participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): An 11-item questionnaire was designed to assess the following constructs: perception of surgical safety, attitudes towards the WHO surgical safety checklist and attitudes regarding checklist usage. RESULTS: Respondents' view (N = 444) on the risk of an adverse event showed considerable variation. Respondents were positive towards the checklist, strongly agreeing that it would impact positively on their safety. However, this positive perception did not translate into an attitude where patients will actively inform themselves whether a checklist is used. The majority of respondents have no difficulty with repetitive verification of identity, procedure and location of the surgery. Respondents with a clinical background were the least anxious. Views were divided regarding hearing discussions around blood loss or airway problems. CONCLUSIONS: Patients perceive the checklist as a reliable safety tool. They do not mind repetitive verification of identity and procedure. However, hearing staff discussing specific, explicit, risks could cause anxiousness in some patients. Building a supportive and collaborative environment is needed to involve and empower patients to contribute in the realization of a safe hospital environment.

Nurses' Sedation Practices During Weaning of Adults From Mechanical Ventilation in an Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Sedation and analgesia have an important impact on the outcome of patients treated with mechanical ventilation. International guidelines recommend use of sedation protocols to ensure best patient care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the sedation practice of intensive care nurses weaning adults from mechanical ventilation. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey with a self-administered questionnaire was used to determine sedation practices of Flemish critical care nurses during weaning. Consensus on content validity was achieved through a Delphi procedure among experts. Data were collected during the 32nd Annual Congress of the Flemish Society of Critical Care Nurses in Ghent, Belgium, December 2014. RESULTS: A total of 342 nurses were included in the study. Of these, 43.7% had a sedation protocol in their unit that was used by 61.8% of the respondents. Sedation protocols were more often available (P < .001) in academic hospitals (72%) than in general hospitals (41.5%). Sedatives were administered via continuous infusion with bolus doses if needed (81%). Level of sedation was assessed every 2 hours (56%), mostly via the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (59.1%). Daily interruption of sedation was used by 16.5% of respondents. The biggest barriers to daily interruption were patient comfort (49.4%) and fear of respiratory worsening (46.6%). CONCLUSIONS: A considerable discrepancy exists between international recommendations and actual sedation practices. Standardization of sedation practices across different institutions on a regional and national level may improve the quality of care.

Systematic psychometric review of self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care.

AIMS: To give an overview of empirical studies using self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care and to synthesize psychometric properties of these instruments. BACKGROUND: A key condition for improving patient safety is creating a supportive safety culture to identify weaknesses and to develop improvement strategies so recurrence of incidents can be minimized. However, most tools to measure and strengthen safety culture have been developed and tested in hospitals. Nevertheless, primary care is facing greater risks and a greater likelihood of causing unintentional harm to patients. DESIGN: A systematic literature review of research evidence and psychometric properties of self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care. DATA SOURCES: Three databases until November 2016. REVIEW METHODS: The review was carried out according to the protocol for systematic reviews of measurement properties recommended by the COSMIN panel and the PRISMA reporting guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 1.229 records were retrieved from multiple database searches (Medline = 865, Web of Science = 362 and Embase = 2). Resulting from an in-depth literature search, 14 published studies were identified, mostly originated from Western high-income countries. As these studies come with great diversity in tools used and outcomes reported, comparability of the results is compromised. Based on the psychometric review, the SCOPE-Primary Care survey was chosen as the most appropriate instrument to measure patient safety culture in primary care as the instrument had excellent internal consistency with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.70-0.90 and item factor loadings ranging from 0.40-0.96, indicating a good structural validity. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present review suggest that the SCOPE-Primary Care survey is the most appropriate tool to assess patient safety culture in primary care. Further psychometric techniques are now essential to ensure that the instrument provides meaningful information regarding safety culture.

A tailored intervention to improving the quality of intrahospital nursing handover.

INTRODUCTION: Nursing handover is a process central to the delivery of high-quality and safe care. We aimed to improve the quality of nursing handover from the emergency department to ward and intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group pre-test - post-test design was applied. Handover quality was measured using the Handover Evaluation Scale (HES). A tailored intervention, inspired by appreciative inquiry, was designed to improve the implementation of an existing handover form and procedure. RESULTS: In total 130 nurses participated, 66 before and 64 after the intervention. Initial structure of the HES showed no good fit to our data; the questions were reshaped into 3 dimensions: Quality of information, Interaction and support, and Relevance of information. Following the intervention, mean changes in HES factor scores ranged from -3.99 to +15.9. No significant difference in factor scoring by ward and ICU nurses was found. Emergency department nurses, however, perceived Interaction and support to be improved following the intervention. CONCLUSION: The intervention did not result in an improved perception of handover quality by ward and ICU nurses. There was improvement in the perception of Interaction and support among emergency department nurses. The intervention positively effected teamwork and mutual understanding concerning nursing handover practice amongst emergency nurses. In order to improve intrahospital nursing handover, hospital-wide interventions are suggested. These interventions should be aimed at creating a generative story, improving mutual understanding, and establishing a supportive attitude regarding standardised procedures to reduce human error.

Economic and social impact of increased cardiac rehabilitation uptake and cardiac telerehabilitation in Belgium - a cost-benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation for ischaemic heart disease effectively reduces cardiovascular readmission rate and mortality. Current uptake rates however, remain low. This study assesses the social and economic impact of increasing centre-based cardiac rehabilitation uptake and the additional value of cardiac telerehabilitation using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in Belgium. METHODS: Cost-benefit analysis was conducted to analyse three scenarios: (1) current situation: 20% uptake rate of cardiac rehabilitation; (2) alternative scenario one: 40% uptake rate of cardiac rehabilitation; and (3) alternative scenario two: 20% uptake of cardiac rehabilitation and 20% uptake of both cardiac rehabilitation and telerehabilitation. Impacts considered included cardiac (tele)rehabilitation programme costs, direct inpatient costs, productivity losses and burden of disease. RESULTS: Compared to the current situation, there was a net total monetised benefit of 9.18 M€ and 9.10 M€ for scenarios one and two, respectively. Disability Adjusted Life Years were 12,805-12,980 years lower than the current situation. This resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.52 and 1.43 for scenarios one and two, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Increased cardiac rehabilitation uptake rates can reduce the burden of disease, and the resulting benefits exceed its costs. This research supports the necessity for greater promotion and routine referral to cardiac rehabilitation to be made standard practice. The implementation of telerehabilitation as an adjunct is to be encouraged, especially for those patients unable to attend centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.

A Factorial Survey on Safety Behavior Providing Opportunities to Improve Safety.

OBJECTIVES: To realize safe, high-quality treatment, employees should behave according to patient safety standards. Periodic measurement of safety behavior could provide management-relevant information to adjust the implementation of interventions and maximize improvement. Therefore, we constructed a factorial survey measuring safety awareness and intentions for behavior. METHODS: Cross-sectional results of the factorial survey were compared with results from the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, distributed in MAASTRO radiotherapy in 2010 to 2011. Respondents were presented 20 scenarios about incidents, randomly varying on work pressure, person causing incident, whether patient level was reached, severity of harm, notification by patient, and management support. After each scenario, questions were asked about safety awareness and behavior. χ and multilevel regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Response rates were 64% (n = 54) for the culture survey and 62% (n = 52) for the factorial survey on intentions. The culture survey reflected positive opinions regarding nonpunitive response and incident reporting, in accordance with high scores (factorial survey) on safety awareness (9.0; scale, 1-10) and reporting intentions (8.7). Whether an incident reached the patient level predicted safety awareness and intentions for safety behavior (ß = -1.3/-3.08) most strongly. Severity of harm showed minimal additional effects (ß = -0.24/-0.42). CONCLUSIONS: The factorial survey presented practical information on safety awareness and intentions for behavior. Therefore, it created additional opportunities for improving safety interventions. Because behavior is expected to change before values, one could hypothesize that factorial surveys would be more sensitive to change than culture surveys. Longitudinal research should further study the surveys' sensitivity to measure changes.