医院和初级保健机构正在采取哪些措施来减轻严重不良事件的社会影响
[What are hospitals and primary care doing to mitigate the social impact of serious adverse events].
作者信息
Mira José Joaquín, Carrillo Irene, Lorenzo Susana
机构信息
Centro de Salud Hospital-Plá, Departamento de Salud Alicante-Sant Joan, Alicante, España; Departamento de Psicología de la Salud, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), España.
Departamento de Psicología de la Salud, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche (Alicante), España.
出版信息
Gac Sanit. 2017 Mar-Apr;31(2):150-153. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.07.015. Epub 2016 Oct 15.
OBJECTIVE
To explore what hospitals and primary care (PC) are doing to reduce the negative social impact of a serious adverse event (AE).
METHODS
We surveyed 195 hospital (n=113) and PC (n=82) managers from eight autonomous communities to explore the level of implementation of five interventions recommended after an AE to protect the reputation of healthcare institutions.
RESULTS
Most institutions (70, 45.2% PC, and 85, 54.8% hospitals) did not have a crisis plan to protect their reputation after an AE. Internal (p=0.0001) and external (p=0.012) communications were addressed better in PC than in hospitals. Very few institutions had defined the managers' role in case of an AE (10.7% hospitals versus 6.25% PC).
CONCLUSION
A majority of healthcare institutions have not planned crisis intervention after an AE with severe consequences nor have they defined plans to recover citizens' trust after an AE.
目的
探讨医院和基层医疗（PC）机构为减少严重不良事件（AE）的负面社会影响所采取的措施。
方法
我们对来自八个自治区的195名医院管理人员（n = 113）和基层医疗管理人员（n = 82）进行了调查，以探究在不良事件发生后为保护医疗机构声誉而推荐的五项干预措施的实施程度。
结果
大多数机构（70家，45.2%为基层医疗机构，85家，54.8%为医院）在不良事件发生后没有保护其声誉的危机计划。基层医疗在内部（p = 0.0001）和外部（p = 0.012）沟通方面比医院做得更好。很少有机构明确了不良事件发生时管理人员的职责（医院为10.7%，基层医疗机构为6.25%）。
结论
大多数医疗机构在严重不良事件发生后没有规划危机干预措施，也没有制定在不良事件后恢复民众信任的计划。
Zotero 插件