Jan Mainz

Randomised controlled trial of a shared care programme for newly referred cancer patients: bridging the gap between general practice and hospital

Objective: To determine the effect of a shared care programme on the attitudes of newly referred cancer patients towards the healthcare system and their health related quality of life and performance status, and to assess patients’ reports on contacts with their general practitioner (GP). Setting: Department of Oncology at Aarhus University Hospital and general practices. Design: Randomised controlled trial in which patients completed questionnaires at three time points. The shared care programme included transfer of knowledge from the oncologist to the GP, improved communication between the parties, and active patient involvement. Participants: 248 consecutive cancer patients recently referred to the department. Main outcome measures: Patients’ attitudes towards the healthcare services, their health related quality of life, performance status, and reports on contacts with their GPs. Results: The shared care programme had a positive effect on patient evaluation of cooperation between the primary and secondary healthcare sectors. The effect was particularly significant in men and in younger patients (18–49 years) who felt they received more care from the GP and were left less in limbo. Young patients in the intervention group rated the GP’s knowledge of disease and treatment significantly higher than young patients in the control group. The number of contacts with the GP was significantly higher in the intervention group. The EORTC quality of life questionnaire and performance status showed no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusions: An intersectoral shared care programme in which GPs and patients are actively involved has a positive influence on patients’ attitudes towards the healthcare system. Young patients and men particularly benefit from the programme.

National quality measurement using clinical indicators: the Danish National Indicator Project.

This article describes the Danish National Indicator Project that aims to document and improve the quality of care at national level. Specific clinical indicators, standards, and prognostic factors have been developed for eight diseases (e.g. lung cancer). It has been implemented in all clinical departments in Denmark. Participation is mandatory. Results related to lung cancer are presented and discussed. The experiences from 2000 to 2008 indicate that the quality of care related to the eight diseases improve over time and that that performance and outcome measurement will get paid in terms of quality improvement. J. Surg. Oncol. 2009;99:500–504.

Quality of Care and Mortality Among Patients With Stroke: A Nationwide Follow-up Study

Background:The relationship between process and outcome measures among patients with stroke is unclear. Objectives:To examine the association between quality of care and mortality among patients with stroke in a nationwide population-based follow-up study. Methods:Using data from The Danish National Indicator Project, a quality improvement initiative with participation of all Danish hospital departments caring for patients with stroke, we identified 29,573 patients hospitalized with stroke between January 13, 2003 and October 31, 2005. Quality of care was measured in terms of 7 specific criteria: early admission to a stroke unit, early initiation of antiplatelet or oral anticoagulant therapy, early examination with computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging scan, and early assessment by a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, and of nutritional risk. Data on 30- and 90-day mortality rates were obtained through the Danish Civil Registration System. Results:Six of 7 of these criteria were associated with lower 30- and 90-day mortality rates. Adjusted mortality rate ratios corrected for clustering by department ranged from 0.41 to 0.83. We found indication of an inverse dose-response relationship between the number of quality of care criteria met and mortality; the lowest mortality rate was found among patients whose care met all criteria compared with patients whose care failed to meet any criteria (ie, adjusted 30-day mortality rate ratios: 0.45, 95% confidence interval: 0.24–0.66). When analyses were stratified by age and sex, the dose-response relationship was found in all subgroups. Conclusions:Higher quality of care during the early phase of stroke was associated with substantially lower mortality rates.

Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators

OBJECTIVE To review and update the conceptual framework, indicator content and research priorities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Developments (OECD) Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) project, after a decade of collaborative work. DESIGN A structured assessment was carried out using a modified Delphi approach, followed by a consensus meeting, to assess the suite of HCQI for international comparisons, agree on revisions to the original framework and set priorities for research and development. SETTING International group of countries participating to OECD projects. PARTICIPANTS Members of the OECD HCQI expert group. RESULTS A reference matrix, based on a revised performance framework, was used to map and assess all seventy HCQI routinely calculated by the OECD expert group. A total of 21 indicators were agreed to be excluded, due to the following concerns: (i) relevance, (ii) international comparability, particularly where heterogeneous coding practices might induce bias, (iii) feasibility, when the number of countries able to report was limited and the added value did not justify sustained effort and (iv) actionability, for indicators that were unlikely to improve on the basis of targeted policy interventions. CONCLUSIONS The revised OECD framework for HCQI represents a new milestone of a long-standing international collaboration among a group of countries committed to building common ground for performance measurement. The expert group believes that the continuation of this work is paramount to provide decision makers with a validated toolbox to directly act on quality improvement strategies.

Selection of indicators for continuous monitoring of patient safety: recommendations of the project 'safety improvement for patients in Europe'

BACKGROUND Initiatives to improve patient safety have high priority among health professionals and politicians in most developed countries. Currently, however, assessment of patient safety problems relies mainly on case-based methodologies. The evidence for their efficiency and reproducibility, proving that safety of care has improved with their usage, is questionable. The exact incidence and prevalence of patient safety quality problems are unknown. Therefore, there is a need for firm, evidence-based methods to survey and develop patient safety and derived activities. OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper is to describe a method to select patient safety indicators and present the indicators derived through this process. METHODS The patient safety indicators were derived and recommended for use in a formalized consensus process based on literature review, targeted information gathering, expert consultation and rating procedures. RESULTS A total of 42 indicators, of which 28 originated from existing international indicator programmes, were selected. The processes and outcome indicators that were recommended for institutional-level use in Europe were 24, covering safety of care aspects such as culture, infections, surgical complications, medication errors, obstetrics, falls and specific diagnostic areas. CONCLUSION The patient safety indicators recommended present a set of possible measures of patient safety. One of the future perspectives of implementing patient safety indicators for systematic monitoring is that it will be possible to continuously estimate the prevalence and incidence of patient safety quality problems. The lesson learnt from quality improvement is that it will pay off in terms of improving patient safety.

Effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice.

Randomized trials were performed in Denmark and The Netherlands to determine the effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice. In both countries, general practitioners handed out questionnaires to 200 adult patients who came to visit them. An intervention group of 100 patients received reminders at 3 weeks after the visit, whereas a control group of the remaining 100 patients did not receive reminders. The response rate was significantly higher in the intervention groups than in the control group in The Netherlands (86% versus 55%, respectively) but not in Denmark (87% versus 81%, respectively). Mailed reminders can improve the response rate in surveys related to a general practice, but they are not effective in all situations.

The medication process in a psychiatric hospital: are errors a potential threat to patient safety?

Purpose To investigate the frequency, type, and potential severity of errors in several stages of the medication process in an inpatient psychiatric setting. Methods A cross-sectional study using three methods for detecting errors: (1) direct observation; (2) unannounced control visits in the wards collecting dispensed drugs; and (3) chart reviews. All errors, except errors in discharge summaries, were assessed for potential consequences by two clinical pharmacologists. Setting Three psychiatric wards with adult patients at Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark, from January 2010–April 2010. The observational unit The individual handling of medication (prescribing, dispensing, and administering). Results In total, 189 errors were detected in 1,082 opportunities for error (17%) of which 84/998 (8%) were assessed as potentially harmful. The frequency of errors was: prescribing, 10/189 (5%); dispensing, 18/189 (10%); administration, 142/189 (75%); and discharge summaries, 19/189 (10%). The most common errors were omission of pro re nata dosing regime in computerized physician order entry, omission of dose, lack of identity control, and omission of drug. Conclusion Errors throughout the medication process are common in psychiatric wards to an extent which resembles error rates in somatic care. Despite a substantial proportion of errors with potential to harm patients, very few errors were considered potentially fatal. Medical staff needs greater awareness of medication safety and guidelines related to the medication process. Many errors in this study might potentially be prevented by nursing staff when handling medication and observing patients for effect and side effects of medication. The nurses’ role in psychiatric medication safety should be further explored as nurses appear to be in the unique position to intercept errors before they reach the patient.

Quality improvement and accountability in the Danish health care system

Denmark has unique opportunities for quality measurement and benchmarking since Denmark has well-developed health registries and unique patient identifier that allow all registries to include patient-level data and combine data into sophisticated quality performance monitoring. Over decades, Denmark has developed and implemented national quality and patient safety initiatives in the healthcare system in terms of national clinical guidelines, performance and outcome measurement integrated in clinical databases for important diseases and clinical conditions, measurement of patient experiences, reporting of adverse events, national handling of patient complaints, national accreditation and public disclosure of all data on the quality of care. Over the years, Denmark has worked up a progressive and transparent just culture in quality management; the different actors at the different levels of the healthcare system are mutually attentive and responsive in a coordinated effort for quality of the healthcare services. At national, regional, local and hospital level, it is mandatory to participate in the quality initiatives and to use data and results for quality management, quality improvement, transparency in health care and accountability. To further develop the Danish governance model, it is important to expand the model to the primary care sector. Furthermore, a national quality health programme 2015-18 recently launched by the government supports a new development in health care focusing upon delivering high-quality health care-high quality is defined by results of value to the patients.

How should medication errors be defined? Development and test of a definition.

Aims: Definitions of medication errors vary widely in the literature, and prevalence from 2–75% in part because of this lack of consensus. Thus, clarification of the concept is urgently needed. The objective was to develop a clear-cut definition of medication errors and specify relevant error types in the medication process. Methods: Based on existing taxonomy and through a modified Delphi-process consensus of definition and error types were reached among Danish experts appointed by 13 healthcare organisations and the project group. The experts prioritised five definitions of medication errors and score the relevance of 76 error types. Based on explicit criteria, the project group settled non-consensus cases. Results: The panel consisted of 12 physicians, seven pharmacists, and six nurses. Consensus was reached for the definition “An error in the stages of the medication process – ordering, dispensing, administering and monitoring the effect – causing harm or implying a risk of harming the patient”. Moreover, consensus for 60 of 76 error types was achieved. Applied to a historic dataset the definition reduced the number of medication errors from 34% to 7%. Conclusions: Experts deemed a definition using harm or risk of harm as cut-off point as the most appropriate in Danish hospital settings. In addition, they agreed on a list of 60 error types covering the medication process. Interestingly, a substantial lower occurrence of medication errors was found when applied to historic data. The definition is in accordance with international taxonomy, thus is assumed to be applicable to modern healthcare settings abroad.

National benchmarking between the Nordic countries on the quality of care

This paper describes the Nordic Indicator Project that aims at describing and analysing the quality of care for important diseases in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden). The Council of Ministers decided to appoint a working group for quality mapping with the aim of giving Nordic citizens, politicians, health workers and authorities the opportunity to evaluate and compare performance across the Nordic countries. The working group selected 36 prioritised quality indicators, including cancer indicators, for benchmarking between the Nordic countries. Additionally, 40 ‘potential indicators’ have been identified for future developments. This international projects document how difficult it is to do international benchmarking. The experience of the Nordic Council of Ministers Quality Project has shown that even for common indicators as survival and mortality rates for breast cancer, colorectal cancer and lung cancer etc., it is difficult to yield data that are representative to the international nations as a whole. It seems that modern health care systems are not able do document their quality. At national and international level we need to invest in quality measurement systems and in international collaboration. J. Surg. Oncol. 2009;99:505–507.