DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Using difference in differences model, BIMC Hospitals and Siloam Hospital Bali were compared before and after shift schedule realignment to test the association between shift schedule realignment and patient safety culture.
FINDINGS: Shift schedule realignment was associated with a significant improvement in staffing (coefficient 1.272; 95% CI 0.842 - 1.702; p<0.001), teamwork within units (coefficient 1.689; 95% CI 1.206 - 2.171; p<0.001), teamwork across units (coefficient 1.862; 95% CI 1.415 - 2.308; p<0.001), handoffs and transitions (coefficient 0.999; 95% CI 0.616 - 1.382; p<0.001), frequency of error reported (coefficient 1.037; 95% CI 0.581 - 1.493; p<0.001), feedback and communication about error (coefficient 1.412; 95% CI 0.982 - 1.841; p<0.001) and communication openness (coefficient 1.393; 95% CI 0.968 - 1.818; p<0.001).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: With positive impact on patient safety culture, shift schedule realignment should be considered as quality improvement initiative. It stretches the compressed workload suffered by staff while maintaining 40 h per week in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Shift schedule realignment, designed to improve patient safety culture, has never been implemented in any Indonesian private hospital. Other hospital managers might also appreciate knowing about the shift schedule realignment to improve the patient safety culture.
METHODS: CINAHL and Medline (via EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest, Sage Journals, and Science Direct were searched. Both quantitative and/or qualitative studies in the English language were included. Intervention studies and studies focusing on HL assessment tools and prevalence of low HL were excluded. The risk of biasness reduced with the involvement of two reviewers independently assessing study eligibility and quality.
RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included, which consist of 19 quantitative, 9 qualitative, and 2 mixed-method studies. Out of 17 studies, 13 reported deficiency of HL-related knowledge among healthcare providers and 1 among patients. Three studies showed a positive attitude of healthcare providers towards learning about HL. Another three studies demonstrated patients feel shame exposing their literacy and undergoing HL assessment. Common HL communication techniques reported practiced by healthcare providers were the use of everyday language, teach-back method, and providing patients with reading materials and aids, while time constraint was the most reported HL perceived barriers by both healthcare providers and patients.
CONCLUSION: Significant gaps exists in HL knowledge among healthcare providers and patients that needs immediate intervention. Such as, greater effort placed in creating a health system that provides an opportunity for healthcare providers to learn about HL and patients to access health information with taking consideration of their perceived barriers.
METHOD: A qualitative methodological approach was performed between March-May 2018. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore current RT policy and service availability. Key-informants were identified from a detailed stakeholder analysis of RT system in Malaysia. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded with ATLAS.ti software and underwent thematic analysis thoroughly.
RESULTS: Eight key-informants participated in the study. Barriers and related solutions were classified using the socio-ecological model (SEM). As reported, the barriers and solutions of RT in Malaysia are the results of a complex interplay of personal, cultural, and environmental factors. Key barriers are linked to public's attitude and perception towards RT and the unaccommodating practices in the healthcare fraternity for RT. Key-informants provided a systematic solution that shed light on how RT could be improved at each SEM level via effective communication, education and inter-agency collaboration.
CONCLUSION: The SEM provided a framework to foster a better understanding of current practice, barriers, and solutions to RT in Malaysia. This study is the first to explore the barriers and related solutions to RT comprehensively as a whole. Implications of these findings could prompt a policy change for a better RT service delivery model not just for Malaysia but also for other LMIC. Further stakeholder engagement and evaluation of the systems are required to provide insight into best practices that will help to improve the RT rates and service in Malaysia.
METHODS: 11 key informant interviews were conducted with policy makers and health care providers from the Ministry of Health in Malaysia from October 2009 to May 2010. Interviewees' perceptions were explored on current and organized cervical screening program based on their expertise and experience.
RESULTS: The results highlighted that the existing cervical screening program in Malaysia faced flaws at all levels that failed to reduce cervical cancer morbidity and mortality. The identified weaknesses were poor acceptance by women, lack of commitment by health care providers, nature of the program, an improper follow-up system, limited resources and other competing needs. Complementarily, all interviewees perceived an organized cervical screening program as an alternative approach both feasible and acceptable by women and government to practice in Malaysia.
CONCLUSION: Better screening coverage depends on an effective screening program that incorporates a behaviour-based strategy. A new program should be focused in the policy-making context to improve screening coverage and to effectively combat cervical cancer.
METHODS: The Question, Persuade, Refer program materials were translated and adapted for implementation in the hospital setting for nonpsychiatric health professionals. There were 159 (mean age = 35.75 years; SD = 12.26) participants in this study. Most participants were female (84.9%), staff/community nurses (52.2%), who worked in the general medical department (30.2%) and had no experience managing suicidal patients (64.2%). Intervention participants (n = 53) completed a survey questionnaire at pretraining, immediately after training, and after three months. Control participants (n = 106) were not exposed to the training program and completed the same questionnaire at baseline and three months later.
RESULTS: Significant improvement occurred among intervention participants in terms of perceived knowledge, self-efficacy, and understanding of/willingness to help suicidal patients immediately after training and when compared with the control participants 3 months later. Improvements in declarative knowledge were not maintained at the 3-month follow-up.
DISCUSSION: This study confirmed the short-term effectiveness of the gatekeeper training program. Gatekeeper suicide training is recommended for implementation for nonpsychiatric health professionals nationwide.
METHODS: We trained twenty-three participants from twelve Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies about international guidelines for medical device vigilance. We developed and used six virtual cases and six questions. We divided participants into six groups and compared their opinions. We also surveyed the country's opinion to investigate the beginning point of 'patient use'. The phases of 'patient use' are divided into: 1) inspecting, 2) preparing, and 3) applying medical device.
RESULTS: As for the question on the beginning point of 'patient use,' 28.6%, 35.7%, and 35.7% of participants provided answers regarding the first, second, and third phases, respectively. In training for applying international guidelines to virtual cases, only one of the six questions reached a consensus between the two groups in all six virtual cases. For the other five questions, different judgments were given in at least two groups.
CONCLUSION: From training courses using virtual cases, we found that there was no consensus on 'patient use' point of view of medical devices. There was a significant difference in applying definitions of adverse events written in guidelines regarding the medical device associated incidents. Our results point out that international harmonization effort is needed not only to harmonize differences in regulations between countries but also to overcome diversity in perspectives existing at the site of medical device use.
METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental study conducted in 20 intervention and 20 matched control clinics. We surveyed all HCPs who were directly involved in patient management. A self-administered questionnaire which included six questions on job satisfaction were assessed on a scale of 1-4 at baseline (April and May 2017) and post-intervention phase (March and April 2019). Unadjusted intervention effect was calculated based on absolute differences in mean scores between intervention and control groups after implementation. Difference-in-differences analysis was used in the multivariable linear regression model and adjusted for providers and clinics characteristics to detect changes in job satisfaction following EnPHC interventions. A negative estimate indicates relative decrease in job satisfaction in the intervention group compared with control group.
RESULTS: A total of 1042 and 1215 HCPs responded at baseline and post-intervention respectively. At post-intervention, the intervention group reported higher level of stress with adjusted differences of - 0.139 (95% CI -0.266,-0.012; p = 0.032). Nurses, being the largest workforce in public clinics were the only group experiencing dissatisfaction at post-intervention. In subgroup analysis, nurses from intervention group experienced increase in work stress following EnPHC interventions with adjusted differences of - 0.223 (95% CI -0.419,-0.026; p = 0.026). Additionally, the same group were less likely to perceive their profession as well-respected at post-intervention (β = - 0.175; 95% CI -0.331,-0.019; p = 0.027).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that EnPHC interventions had resulted in some untoward effect on HCPs' job satisfaction. Job dissatisfaction can have detrimental effects on the organisation and healthcare system. Therefore, provider experience and well-being should be considered before introducing healthcare delivery reforms to avoid overburdening of HCPs.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted between February and April 2016 among healthcare providers working in four public and two private health facilities in Freetown Sierra Leone. Linear regression analysis, one-way ANOVA and independent t-test were employed for data analysis.
RESULTS: Among 706 respondents that participated in the study more than half were females 378 (53.6%), nurses 425 (60.4%), and the majority were between the age group of 20-39 years 600 (85.3%). Only 46 (6.5%) were vaccinated against influenza. Key reasons for not vaccinated against influenza were less awareness about influenza vaccination among HCPs 580 (82.73%) with (β = 0.154; CI 0.058-0.163), the high cost of influenza vaccines and therefore not normally purchased 392 (55.92%) having (β = 0.150; CI 0.063-0.186). More than half believed that HCPs are less susceptible to influenza infections than other people. Also, majority 585 (84.3%) of HCPs thought that influenza disease could be transmitted after symptoms appear. In addition, 579 (83.2%) of HCPs felt that symptoms usually appear 8-10 days after exposure. Close to half 321 (46.0%) of HCPs were not aware of the influenza immunisation guidelines published by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and Centre for Disease Control.
CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccine coverage among healthcare professionals in Freetown Sierra Leone was low. High cost, inadequate knowledge about influenza and its vaccine as well as the lack of awareness of vaccine availability were key barriers. Increasing access to influenza vaccine and the use of appropriate educational interventions to increase knowledge and awareness are required to improve influenza vaccination coverage among HCPs.