22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A cross-sectional survey using electronic distribution of a questionnaire to subscribers of educational material written by clinicians, for clinicians, to evaluate whether practice change resulted from reading the Clinical Communiqué

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To explore whether subscribers reported clinical practice changes as a result of reading the Clinical Communiqué (CC). Secondarily, to compare the characteristics of subscribers who self-reported changes to clinical practice with those who did not, and to explore subscribers’ perceptions of the educational value of the CC.

          Design, setting and participants

          Online cross-sectional survey between 21 July 2015 and 18 August 2015 by subscribers of the CC (response rate=29.9%, 1008/3373), conducted by a team from Monash University, Australia.

          Main outcome measures

          Change in clinical practice as a result of reading the CC.

          Results

          53.0% of respondents reported that their practice had changed after reading the CC. Respondents also found that the CC raised awareness (96.5%) and provided ideas about improving patient safety and care (94.1%) leading them to discuss cases with their colleagues (79.6%) and review their practice (75.7%). Multivariate analysis indicated that working in a residential aged care facility (p<0.05) and having taken part in an inquest (p<0.05) were significantly associated with practice change.

          Conclusion

          The design and content of the CC has generated a positive impact on the healthcare community. It is presented in a format that appears to be accessible and acceptable to readers and achieves its goals of promoting safer clinical care through greater awareness of the medico-legal context of practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Applied Logistic Regression

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

            Printed educational materials are widely used passive dissemination strategies to improve the quality of clinical practice and patient outcomes. Traditionally they are presented in paper formats such as monographs, publication in peer-reviewed journals and clinical guidelines. To assess the effect of printed educational materials on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient health outcomes.To explore the influence of some of the characteristics of the printed educational materials (e.g. source, content, format) on their effect on professional practice and patient outcomes. For this update, search strategies were rewritten and substantially changed from those published in the original review in order to refocus the search from published material to printed material and to expand terminology describing printed materials. Given the significant changes, all databases were searched from start date to June 2011. We searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), HealthStar, CINAHL, ERIC, CAB Abstracts, Global Health, and the EPOC Register. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) analyses that evaluated the impact of printed educational materials (PEMs) on healthcare professionals' practice or patient outcomes, or both. We included three types of comparisons: (1) PEM versus no intervention, (2) PEM versus single intervention, (3) multifaceted intervention where PEM is included versus multifaceted intervention without PEM. There was no language restriction. Any objective measure of professional practice (e.g. number of tests ordered, prescriptions for a particular drug), or patient health outcomes (e.g. blood pressure) were included. Two review authors undertook data extraction independently, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion among the review authors. For analyses, the included studies were grouped according to study design, type of outcome (professional practice or patient outcome, continuous or dichotomous) and type of comparison. For controlled trials, we reported the median effect size for each outcome within each study, the median effect size across outcomes for each study and the median of these effect sizes across studies. Where the data were available, we re-analysed the ITS studies and reported median differences in slope and in level for each outcome, across outcomes for each study, and then across studies. We categorised each PEM according to potential effects modifiers related to the source of the PEMs, the channel used for their delivery, their content, and their format. The review includes 45 studies: 14 RCTs and 31 ITS studies. Almost all the included studies (44/45) compared the effectiveness of PEM to no intervention. One single study compared paper-based PEM to the same document delivered on CD-ROM. Based on seven RCTs and 54 outcomes, the median absolute risk difference in categorical practice outcomes was 0.02 when PEMs were compared to no intervention (range from 0 to +0.11). Based on three RCTs and eight outcomes, the median improvement in standardised mean difference for continuous profession practice outcomes was 0.13 when PEMs were compared to no intervention (range from -0.16 to +0.36). Only two RCTs and two ITS studies reported patient outcomes. In addition, we re-analysed 54 outcomes from 25 ITS studies, using time series regression and observed statistically significant improvement in level or in slope in 27 outcomes. From the ITS studies, we calculated improvements in professional practice outcomes across studies after PEM dissemination (standardised median change in level = 1.69). From the data gathered, we could not comment on which PEM characteristic influenced their effectiveness. The results of this review suggest that when used alone and compared to no intervention, PEMs may have a small beneficial effect on professional practice outcomes. There is insufficient information to reliably estimate the effect of PEMs on patient outcomes, and clinical significance of the observed effect sizes is not known. The effectiveness of PEMs compared to other interventions, or of PEMs as part of a multifaceted intervention, is uncertain.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Adverse events in healthcare: learning from mistakes.

              Large national reviews of patient charts estimate that approximately 10% of hospital admissions are associated with an adverse event (defined as an injury resulting in prolonged hospitalization, disability or death, caused by healthcare management). Apart from having a significant impact on patient morbidity and mortality, adverse events also result in increased healthcare costs due to longer hospital stays. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of adverse events are preventable. Through identifying the nature and rate of adverse events, initiatives to improve care can be developed. A variety of methods exist to gather adverse event data both retrospectively and prospectively but these do not necessarily capture the same events and there is variability in the definition of an adverse event. For example, hospital incident reporting collects only a very small fraction of the adverse events found in retrospective chart reviews. Until there are systematic methods to identify adverse events, progress in patient safety cannot be reliably measured. This review aims to discuss the need for a safety culture that can learn from adverse events, describe ways to measure adverse events, and comment on why current adverse event monitoring is unable to demonstrate trends in patient safety.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2017
                29 May 2017
                : 7
                : 5
                : e014064
                Affiliations
                [1]departmentDepartment of Forensic Medicine , Monash University , Southbank, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Joseph Ibrahim; joseph.ibrahim@ 123456monash.edu
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-014064
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014064
                5730012
                28554912
                eede620a-72bd-489c-b5a4-85620fcc0e58
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 28 August 2016
                : 14 March 2017
                : 13 April 2017
                Categories
                Medical Education and Training
                Research
                1506
                1709
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                coroners,practice change,printed educational material,patient safety,narrative case reports,death prevention

                Comments

                Comment on this article