Cargando…
Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk‐assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Serious preventable surgical events still occur despite considerable efforts to improve patient safety. In addition to learning from retrospective analyses, prospective risk‐assessment methods may help to decrease preventable events further by targeting perioperative hazards. The aim of...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093778/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32207569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50246 |
_version_ | 1783510346665820160 |
---|---|
author | Heideveld‐Chevalking, A. J. Calsbeek, H. Hofland, J. Meijerink, W. J. H. J. Wolff, A. P. |
author_facet | Heideveld‐Chevalking, A. J. Calsbeek, H. Hofland, J. Meijerink, W. J. H. J. Wolff, A. P. |
author_sort | Heideveld‐Chevalking, A. J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Serious preventable surgical events still occur despite considerable efforts to improve patient safety. In addition to learning from retrospective analyses, prospective risk‐assessment methods may help to decrease preventable events further by targeting perioperative hazards. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the methods used to identify perioperative patient safety risks prospectively, and to describe the risk areas targeted, the quality characteristics and feasibility of methods. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. All studies describing the development and results of prospective methods to identify perioperative patient safety risks were included and assessed on methodological quality. Exclusion criteria were interventional studies, studies targeting one specific issue, studies reporting on structural factors relating to fundamental hospital items, and non‐original or case studies. RESULTS: The electronic search resulted in 16 708 publications, but only 20 were included for final analysis, describing five prospective risk‐assessment methods. Direct observation was used in most studies, often in combination. Direct (16 studies) and indirect (4 studies) observations identified (potential) adverse events (P)AEs, process flow disruptions, poor protocol compliance and poor practice performance. (Modified) Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA™) (5 studies) targeted potential process flow disruption failures, and direct (P)AE surveillance (3 studies) identified (P)AEs prospectively. Questionnaires (3 studies) identified poor protocol compliance, surgical flow disturbances and patients' willingness to ask questions about their care. Overall, quality characteristics and feasibility of the methods were poorly reported. CONCLUSION: The direct (in‐person) observation appears to be the primary prospective risk‐assessment method that currently may best help to target perioperative hazards. This is a reliable method and covers a broad spectrum of perioperative risk areas. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7093778 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70937782020-03-26 Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk‐assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review Heideveld‐Chevalking, A. J. Calsbeek, H. Hofland, J. Meijerink, W. J. H. J. Wolff, A. P. BJS Open Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND: Serious preventable surgical events still occur despite considerable efforts to improve patient safety. In addition to learning from retrospective analyses, prospective risk‐assessment methods may help to decrease preventable events further by targeting perioperative hazards. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the methods used to identify perioperative patient safety risks prospectively, and to describe the risk areas targeted, the quality characteristics and feasibility of methods. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. All studies describing the development and results of prospective methods to identify perioperative patient safety risks were included and assessed on methodological quality. Exclusion criteria were interventional studies, studies targeting one specific issue, studies reporting on structural factors relating to fundamental hospital items, and non‐original or case studies. RESULTS: The electronic search resulted in 16 708 publications, but only 20 were included for final analysis, describing five prospective risk‐assessment methods. Direct observation was used in most studies, often in combination. Direct (16 studies) and indirect (4 studies) observations identified (potential) adverse events (P)AEs, process flow disruptions, poor protocol compliance and poor practice performance. (Modified) Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA™) (5 studies) targeted potential process flow disruption failures, and direct (P)AE surveillance (3 studies) identified (P)AEs prospectively. Questionnaires (3 studies) identified poor protocol compliance, surgical flow disturbances and patients' willingness to ask questions about their care. Overall, quality characteristics and feasibility of the methods were poorly reported. CONCLUSION: The direct (in‐person) observation appears to be the primary prospective risk‐assessment method that currently may best help to target perioperative hazards. This is a reliable method and covers a broad spectrum of perioperative risk areas. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2019-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7093778/ /pubmed/32207569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50246 Text en © 2019 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Reviews Heideveld‐Chevalking, A. J. Calsbeek, H. Hofland, J. Meijerink, W. J. H. J. Wolff, A. P. Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk‐assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review |
title | Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk‐assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review |
title_full | Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk‐assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk‐assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk‐assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review |
title_short | Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk‐assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review |
title_sort | prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk‐assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review |
topic | Systematic Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7093778/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32207569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50246 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT heideveldchevalkingaj prospectivemethodsforidentifyingperioperativeriskassessmentmethodsforpatientsafetyover20yearsasystematicreview AT calsbeekh prospectivemethodsforidentifyingperioperativeriskassessmentmethodsforpatientsafetyover20yearsasystematicreview AT hoflandj prospectivemethodsforidentifyingperioperativeriskassessmentmethodsforpatientsafetyover20yearsasystematicreview AT meijerinkwjhj prospectivemethodsforidentifyingperioperativeriskassessmentmethodsforpatientsafetyover20yearsasystematicreview AT wolffap prospectivemethodsforidentifyingperioperativeriskassessmentmethodsforpatientsafetyover20yearsasystematicreview |