Cargando…

Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment intervention. DESIGN: A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Clusters were 33 hospital wards within five hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: All patients able to give informed consent w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lawton, Rebecca, O'Hara, Jane Kathryn, Sheard, Laura, Armitage, Gerry, Cocks, Kim, Buckley, Hannah, Corbacho, Belen, Reynolds, Caroline, Marsh, Claire, Moore, Sally, Watt, Ian, Wright, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5537521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28159854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005570
_version_ 1783254197225914368
author Lawton, Rebecca
O'Hara, Jane Kathryn
Sheard, Laura
Armitage, Gerry
Cocks, Kim
Buckley, Hannah
Corbacho, Belen
Reynolds, Caroline
Marsh, Claire
Moore, Sally
Watt, Ian
Wright, John
author_facet Lawton, Rebecca
O'Hara, Jane Kathryn
Sheard, Laura
Armitage, Gerry
Cocks, Kim
Buckley, Hannah
Corbacho, Belen
Reynolds, Caroline
Marsh, Claire
Moore, Sally
Watt, Ian
Wright, John
author_sort Lawton, Rebecca
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment intervention. DESIGN: A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Clusters were 33 hospital wards within five hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: All patients able to give informed consent were eligible to take part. Wards were allocated to the intervention or control condition. INTERVENTION: The ward-level intervention comprised two tools: (1) a questionnaire that asked patients about factors contributing to safety (patient measure of safety (PMOS)) and (2) a proforma for patients to report both safety concerns and positive experiences (patient incident reporting tool). Feedback was considered in multidisciplinary action planning meetings. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were routinely collected ward-level harm-free care (HFC) scores and patient-level feedback on safety (PMOS). RESULTS: Intervention uptake and retention of wards was 100% and patient participation was high (86%). We found no significant effect of the intervention on any outcomes at 6 or 12 months. However, for new harms (ie, those for which the wards were directly accountable) intervention wards did show greater, though non-significant, improvement compared with control wards. Analyses also indicated that improvements were largest for wards that showed the greatest compliance with the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Adherence to the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. Patient safety outcomes may represent too blunt a measure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing to provide feedback about the safety of their care. However, we were unable to demonstrate any overall effect of this intervention on either measure of patient safety and therefore cannot recommend this intervention for wider uptake. Findings indicate promise for increasing HFC where wards implement ≥75% of the intervention components. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN07689702; pre-results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5537521
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55375212017-08-03 Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention Lawton, Rebecca O'Hara, Jane Kathryn Sheard, Laura Armitage, Gerry Cocks, Kim Buckley, Hannah Corbacho, Belen Reynolds, Caroline Marsh, Claire Moore, Sally Watt, Ian Wright, John BMJ Qual Saf Original Research OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment intervention. DESIGN: A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Clusters were 33 hospital wards within five hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: All patients able to give informed consent were eligible to take part. Wards were allocated to the intervention or control condition. INTERVENTION: The ward-level intervention comprised two tools: (1) a questionnaire that asked patients about factors contributing to safety (patient measure of safety (PMOS)) and (2) a proforma for patients to report both safety concerns and positive experiences (patient incident reporting tool). Feedback was considered in multidisciplinary action planning meetings. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were routinely collected ward-level harm-free care (HFC) scores and patient-level feedback on safety (PMOS). RESULTS: Intervention uptake and retention of wards was 100% and patient participation was high (86%). We found no significant effect of the intervention on any outcomes at 6 or 12 months. However, for new harms (ie, those for which the wards were directly accountable) intervention wards did show greater, though non-significant, improvement compared with control wards. Analyses also indicated that improvements were largest for wards that showed the greatest compliance with the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Adherence to the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. Patient safety outcomes may represent too blunt a measure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing to provide feedback about the safety of their care. However, we were unable to demonstrate any overall effect of this intervention on either measure of patient safety and therefore cannot recommend this intervention for wider uptake. Findings indicate promise for increasing HFC where wards implement ≥75% of the intervention components. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN07689702; pre-results. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-08 2017-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5537521/ /pubmed/28159854 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005570 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Research
Lawton, Rebecca
O'Hara, Jane Kathryn
Sheard, Laura
Armitage, Gerry
Cocks, Kim
Buckley, Hannah
Corbacho, Belen
Reynolds, Caroline
Marsh, Claire
Moore, Sally
Watt, Ian
Wright, John
Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention
title Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention
title_full Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention
title_fullStr Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention
title_full_unstemmed Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention
title_short Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention
title_sort can patient involvement improve patient safety? a cluster randomised control trial of the patient reporting and action for a safe environment (prase) intervention
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5537521/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28159854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005570
work_keys_str_mv AT lawtonrebecca canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT oharajanekathryn canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT sheardlaura canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT armitagegerry canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT cockskim canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT buckleyhannah canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT corbachobelen canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT reynoldscaroline canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT marshclaire canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT mooresally canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT wattian canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention
AT wrightjohn canpatientinvolvementimprovepatientsafetyaclusterrandomisedcontroltrialofthepatientreportingandactionforasafeenvironmentpraseintervention