DSpace

DSpace at RU >    University Library >    Academic bibliography >

SFX Query

Title: The SAFE or SORRY? programme. part II: effect on preventive care
Author(s): Gaal, H.G.I. van (298982714)
Schoonhoven, L. (244212236)
Mintjes, J.A.
Borm, G.F. (073546852)
Koopmans, R.T.C.M. (116902175)
Achterberg, T. van (124310338)
Publication year: 2011
Document type: Article / Letter to editor
Journal: International Journal of Nursing Studies
ISSN: 0020-7489
Volume: vol. 48
Issue: iss. 9
Start page: p. 1049
End page: p. 1057
Annotation: van Gaal, Betsie G I Schoonhoven, Lisette Mintjes, Joke A J Borm, George F Koopmans, Raymond T C M van Achterberg, Theo Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't England Int J Nurs Stud. 2011 Sep;48(9):1049-57. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.02.018. Epub 2011 Mar 26.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Patient care guidelines are usually implemented one at a time, yet patients are at risk for multiple, often preventable, adverse events simultaneously. OBJECTIVE: The SAFE or SORRY? programme targeted three adverse events (pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections and falls) and was successful in reducing the incidence of these events. This article explores the process of change and describes the effect on the preventive care given. DESIGN: Separate data on preventive care were collected along the cluster randomised trial, which was conducted between September 2006 and November 2008. SETTINGS: Ten hospital wards and ten nursing home wards. PARTICIPANTS: We monitored nursing care given to adult patients with an expected length of stay of at least five days. METHODS: The SAFE or SORRY? programme consisted of the essential recommendations of guidelines for pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections and falls. A multifaceted implementation strategy was used to implement this multiple guidelines programme. Data on preventive care given to patients were collected in line with these guidelines and the difference between the intervention and the usual care group at follow-up was analysed. RESULTS: The study showed no overall difference in preventive pressure ulcer measures between the intervention and the usual care group in hospitals (estimate=6%, CI: -7-19) and nursing homes (estimate=4%, CI: -5-13). For urinary tract infections, even statistically significantly fewer hospital patients at risk received preventive care (estimate=19%, CI: 17-21). For falls in hospitals and nursing homes, no more patients at risk received preventive care. CONCLUSION: Though the SAFE OR SORRY? programme effectively reduced the number of adverse events, an increase in preventive care given to patients at risk was not demonstrated. These results seem to emphasise the difficulties in measuring the compliance to guidelines. More research is needed to explore the possibilities for measuring the implementation of multiple guidelines using process indicators.
Subject: NCEBP 11: Alzheimer Centre
NCEBP 2: Evaluation of complex medical interventions
NCEBP 4: Quality of hospital and integrated care
NCEBP 6: Quality of nursing and allied health care
NCEBP 6: Quality of nursing and allied health care ONCOL 4: Quality of Care
NCEBP 7: Effective primary care and public health
Organization: IQ Healthcare
UMCN Extern
Epidemiology, Biostatistics & HTA
Primary Healthcare
Geriatrics
Appears in Collections:Academic bibliography

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2066/96406

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

  DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2011  Duraspace - Feedback