Dataset Information

Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff.

ABSTRACT: Underreporting of intraoperative events in anaesthesia is well-known and compromises quality documentation. The reasons for such omissions remain unclear. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey of anaesthesia staff to explore perceived barriers to reliable documentation during anaesthesia.Participants anonymously completed a paper-based questionnaire. Predefined answers referred to potential barriers. Additional written comments were encouraged. Differences between physician and nurse anaesthetists were tested with t-tests and chi-square tests.Twenty-five physician and 30 nurse anaesthetists (81% of total staff) completed the survey. The reported problems referred to three main categories: (I) potential influences related to working conditions and practices of data collection, such as premature entry of the data (indicated by 85% of the respondents), competing duties (87%), and interfering interruptions or noise (67%); (II) problems referring to institutional management of the data, for example lacking feedback on the results (95%) and lacking knowledge about what the data are used for (75%); (III) problems related to specific attitudes, e.g., considering these data not useful for quality improvement (47%). Physicians were more sceptical than nurses regarding the relevance of these data for quality and patient safety.The common perceived difficulties reported by physician and nurse anaesthetists resemble established barriers to incident reporting and may similarly act as barriers to quality documentation during anaesthesia. Further studies should investigate if these perceived obstacles have a causal impact on quality reporting in anaesthesia.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT01524484. Registration date: January 21, 2012.

SUBMITTER: Wacker J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4429922 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff.

Wacker Johannes J Steurer Johann J Manser Tanja T Leisinger Elke E Stocker Reto R Mols Georg G

BMC anesthesiology 20150131

<h4>Background</h4>Underreporting of intraoperative events in anaesthesia is well-known and compromises quality documentation. The reasons for such omissions remain unclear. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey of anaesthesia staff to explore perceived barriers to reliable documentation during anaesthesia.<h4>Methods</h4>Participants anonymously completed a paper-based questionnaire. Predefined answers referred to potential barriers. Additional written comments were encouraged. Differences ...[more]

PMID: 25971791

Similar Datasets

Project description:Effective spontaneous AEFI reporting is the first step to ensuring vaccine safety. Half of the global population lives in countries with weak vaccine safety monitoring systems, especially in the African, Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Pacific regions. Further, Immunisation services have been upscaled without commensurate effective AEFI surveillance systems. Hence, this study aims to comprehensively investigate the impediments to an effective AEFI surveillance system. Given the programmatic and regulatory implications, understanding these impediments would facilitate the development and implementation of policies and strategies to strengthen the AEFI surveillance system in Nigeria. A qualitative research design (using a grounded theory approach) was employed by conducting ten key informant interviews and two Focus Group Discussion sessions among the study population to identify the barriers impeding optimal AEFI surveillance and documentation in Nigeria. This study found that the AEFI surveillance system is in place in Nigeria. However, its functionality is sub-optimal, and the potential capacity is yet to be fully harnessed due to health systems and socio-ecological impediments. The identified impediments are human-resource-related issues- knowledge gaps; limited training; lack of designated officers for AEFI; excessive workload; poor supportive supervision and attitudinal issues; caregiver's factor; governance and leadership- moribund AEFI committee; lack of quality supervisory visit and oversight and weak implementation of AEFI policy guidance. Others include funding and logistics issues- no dedicated budget provision and weak referral mechanism; insecurity; socio-economic and infrastructural deficits- poverty, geographical barriers, limited ICT skills, and infrastructure; and poor feedback and weak community engagement by the health workers. Findings from this study provide empirical evidence and serve as an advocacy tool for vaccine pharmacovigilance strengthening in Nigeria. Addressing the impediments requires health system strengthening and a whole-of-the-society approach to improve vaccine safety surveillance, restore public confidence and promote vaccine demand, strengthen PHC services, and contribute to attaining UHC and SDGs.

Project description:BackgroundDespite considerable efforts to promote and support guideline use, adherence is often suboptimal. Barriers to adherence vary not only across guidelines but also across recommendations within guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to guideline adherence among GPs by focusing on key recommendations within guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey among 703 GPs in the Netherlands. Sixteen key recommendations were derived from four national guidelines. Six statements were included to address the attitudes towards guidelines in general. In addition, GPs were asked to rate their perceived adherence (one statement) and the perceived barriers (fourteen statements) for each of the key recommendations, based on an existing framework.Results264 GPs (38%) completed the questionnaire. Although 35% of the GPs reported difficulties in changing routines and habits to follow guidelines, 89% believed that following guidelines leads to improved patient care. Perceived adherence varied between 52 and 95% across recommendations (mean: 77%). The most perceived barriers were related to external factors, in particular patient ability and behaviour (mean: 30%) and patient preferences (mean: 23%). Lack of applicability of recommendations in general (mean: 22%) and more specifically to individual patients (mean: 25%) were also frequently perceived as barriers. The scores on perceived barriers differed largely between recommendations [minimum range 14%; maximum range 67%].ConclusionsDutch GPs have a positive attitude towards the NHG guidelines, report high adherence rates and low levels of perceived barriers. However, the perceived adherence and perceived barriers varied largely across recommendations. The most perceived barriers across recommendations are patient related, suggesting that current guidelines do not always adequately incorporate patient preferences, needs and abilities. It may be useful to provide tools such as decision aids, supporting the flexible use of guidelines to individual patients in practice.

Project description:BackgroundTherapeutic staff-patient interaction is fundamental in psychiatric care. It is recognized as a key to healing in and of itself, or a premise to enhance psychiatric treatment adherence. Still, little is known about how these interactions are recorded in nursing documentation. The purpose of the study was to assess the quality and quantity of staff-patient interactions as recorded in progress notes in nursing documentation.MethodsThe study has an observational registry study design. A random sample of 3858 excerpts was selected from progress notes in 90 patient journals on an acute psychiatric unit and an open inpatient district psychiatric centre (DPC) in Norway. The Scale for the Evaluation of Staff-Patient Interactions in progress notes (SESPI) was used to assess the progress note excerpts. It is developed to assess the quality and quantity in excerpt descriptions of staff-patient interactions in terms of empathic attunement. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the total sample and for each ward separately. Ordinal and multinomial logistic regression were used to estimate control for shift type, staff education level, and type of hospital ward.ResultsOnly 7.6% of the total number of excerpts (N = 3858) described staff-patient interactions sufficiently to analyze them in terms of attunement. Compared to the DPC, the acute ward reported more staff-patient interactions. The evening excerpts reported more successful types of attunement than those from the night shifts. Education level did not contribute significantly to our models.ConclusionThese findings present a unique insight into the quality and quantity of mental health nursing documentation regarding staff-patient interactions. Therapeutic interactions where staff tried to attune to the patients were rarely described. However, this is the first study measuring nursing documentation with the SESPI, and more studies are required to validate the scale and our findings. One potential clinical implication of this research is the development of a scale that personnel in psychiatric wards can have for evaluation of the quality of their reporting practice with emphasis on staff-patient interactions. By regular use this may help keeping up emphasis on emphatic attunement in milieu treatment contexts.

Project description:ObjectivesThis body of work aimed to elicit ambulance service staff's perceptions on the barriers and facilitators to adoption, and clinical utility of incorporating rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing during ambulance assessments.DesignA mixed-methods survey-based project using a framework analysis method to organise qualitative data.SettingEmergency and non-emergency care ambulatory services in the UK were approached to take part.ParticipantsCurrent, practising members of the UK ambulance service (paramedics, technicians, assistants and other staff) were included in this body of work.ResultsSurvey 1: 226 responses were collected between 3 December 2020 and 11 January 2021, 179 (79.2%) of which were completed in full. While the majority of respondents indicated that an ambulance-based testing strategy was feasible in concept (143/190, 75.3%), major barriers to adoption were noted. Many open-ended responses cited concerns regarding misuse of the service by the general public and other healthcare services, timing and conveyance issues, and increased workloads, alongside training and safety concerns. Survey 2: 26 responses were received between 8 February 2021 and 22 February 2021 to this follow-up survey. Survey 2 revealed conveyance decision-making, and risk stratification to be the most frequently prioritised use cases among ambulance service staff. Optimal test characteristics for clinical adoption according to respondents were; accuracy (above 90% sensitivity and specificity), rapidity (<30 min time to results) and ease of sample acquisition.ConclusionsThe majority of commercially available lateral flow devices are unlikely to be supported by paramedics as their duty of care requires both rapid and accurate results that can inform clinical decision making in an emergency situation. Further investigation is needed to define acceptable test characteristics and criteria required for ambulance service staff to be confident and supportive of deployment of a SARS-CoV-2 test in an emergency care setting.

Dataset Information

Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff.

Publications

Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets