• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

“改变才能让艰难的时期变得更好”:一项以患者为中心的患者安全干预措施,与医院志愿者合作实施。

"Change is what can actually make the tough times better": A patient-centred patient safety intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers.

机构信息

Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.

School of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2019 Feb;22(1):102-113. doi: 10.1111/hex.12835. Epub 2018 Oct 21.

DOI:10.1111/hex.12835
PMID:30345726
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6351415/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention provides a way to systematically collect patient feedback to support service improvement. To provide a sustainable mechanism for the PRASE intervention, a 2-year improvement project explored the potential for hospital volunteers to facilitate the collection of PRASE feedback.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the implementation of the PRASE intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers from the perspectives of key stakeholders.

DESIGN

A qualitative case study design was utilized across three acute NHS trusts in the United Kingdom between March 2016 and October 2016. Ward level data (staff interviews; action planning meeting recordings; implementation fidelity information) were analysed taking a pen portrait approach. We also carried out focus groups with hospital volunteers and interviews with voluntary services/patient experience staff, which were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Whilst most ward staff reported feeling engaged with the intervention, there were discordant views on its use and usefulness. The hospital volunteers were positive about their involvement, and on some wards, worked with staff to produce actions to improve services. The voluntary services/patient experience staff participants emphasised the need for PRASE to sit within an organisations' wider governance structure.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of key stakeholders, hospital volunteers facilitating the collection of PRASE feedback is a feasible means of implementing the PRASE intervention. However, the variability around ward staff being able to use the feedback to make changes to services demonstrates that it is this latter part of the PRASE intervention cycle that is more problematic.

摘要

背景

PRASE(患者报告和安全环境行动)干预措施提供了一种系统收集患者反馈的方法,以支持服务改进。为了为 PRASE 干预措施提供一个可持续的机制,一个为期两年的改进项目探讨了医院志愿者促进 PRASE 反馈收集的潜力。

目的

从利益相关者的角度探讨与医院志愿者合作实施 PRASE 干预的情况。

设计

在 2016 年 3 月至 2016 年 10 月期间,在英国的三个 NHS 信托机构中,采用了定性案例研究设计。采用肖像法分析病房层面的数据(工作人员访谈;行动计划会议记录;实施保真度信息)。我们还与医院志愿者进行了焦点小组讨论,并对志愿服务/患者体验工作人员进行了访谈,对这些访谈进行了主题分析。

结果

尽管大多数病房工作人员对干预措施感到投入,但对其使用和有用性存在不同意见。医院志愿者对他们的参与感到满意,在一些病房,他们与工作人员合作制定了改进服务的行动。志愿服务/患者体验工作人员参与者强调,PRASE 需要置于组织的更广泛治理结构内。

结论

从利益相关者的角度来看,由医院志愿者来促进 PRASE 反馈的收集是实施 PRASE 干预的一种可行手段。然而,病房工作人员能够利用反馈来改变服务的能力存在差异,这表明 PRASE 干预措施的这后一部分更具挑战性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a6b1/6351415/7b054feac6a6/HEX-22-102-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a6b1/6351415/7b054feac6a6/HEX-22-102-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a6b1/6351415/7b054feac6a6/HEX-22-102-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
"Change is what can actually make the tough times better": A patient-centred patient safety intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers.“改变才能让艰难的时期变得更好”:一项以患者为中心的患者安全干预措施,与医院志愿者合作实施。
Health Expect. 2019 Feb;22(1):102-113. doi: 10.1111/hex.12835. Epub 2018 Oct 21.
2
A qualitative formative evaluation of a patient-centred patient safety intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers.与医院志愿者合作开展的以患者为中心的患者安全干预的定性形成性评价。
Health Expect. 2017 Oct;20(5):1143-1153. doi: 10.1111/hex.12560. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
3
The patient reporting and action for a safe environment (PRASE) intervention: a feasibility study.患者报告与安全环境行动(PRASE)干预措施:一项可行性研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Nov 28;16(1):676. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1919-z.
4
Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.评估PRASE患者安全干预措施——一项多中心整群试验及定性过程评估:一项随机对照试验的研究方案
Trials. 2014 Oct 29;15:420. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-420.
5
Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention.患者参与能否提高患者安全性?患者报告与安全环境行动(PRASE)干预的整群随机对照试验。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Aug;26(8):622-631. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005570. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
6
Exploring how ward staff engage with the implementation of a patient safety intervention: a UK-based qualitative process evaluation.探索病房工作人员如何参与患者安全干预措施的实施:一项基于英国的定性过程评估。
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 13;7(7):e014558. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014558.
7
Critical Care Network in the State of Qatar.卡塔尔国重症监护网络。
Qatar Med J. 2019 Nov 7;2019(2):2. doi: 10.5339/qmj.2019.qccc.2. eCollection 2019.
8
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医院环境中患者与护士以患者为中心的沟通体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
9
The Patient Feedback Response Framework - Understanding why UK hospital staff find it difficult to make improvements based on patient feedback: A qualitative study.患者反馈响应框架——了解英国医院工作人员为何难以根据患者反馈做出改进:一项定性研究。
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Apr;178:19-27. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.005. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
10
'It promoted a positive culture around falls prevention': staff response to a patient education programme-a qualitative evaluation.“它促进了围绕预防跌倒的积极文化”:工作人员对患者教育计划的反应——一项定性评估
BMJ Open. 2016 Dec 21;6(12):e013414. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013414.

引用本文的文献

1
Estimating the link between service-user patient safety perceptions, incidents and subsequent contagion in acute mental health wards.估算急性心理健康病房中服务使用者/患者对患者安全的感知、事件和后续感染之间的关联。
BMC Psychiatry. 2024 Nov 28;24(1):857. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-06261-6.
2
Improving the safety and experience of transitions from hospital to home: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of the 'Your Care Needs You' intervention versus usual care.改善从医院到家庭过渡的安全性和体验:一项“您的护理需要您”干预措施与常规护理的整群随机对照可行性试验。
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Oct 1;8(1):222. doi: 10.1186/s40814-022-01180-3.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Creating space for quality improvement.为质量改进留出空间。
BMJ. 2018 May 17;361:k1924. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1924.
2
Changing how we think about healthcare improvement.改变我们对医疗保健改善的看法。
BMJ. 2018 May 17;361:k2014. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2014.
3
Making soft intelligence hard: a multi-site qualitative study of challenges relating to voice about safety concerns.使软智能变硬:一项关于与安全顾虑相关的声音的多地点定性研究。
Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review.
绘制患者和公众参与医疗创新不同阶段的作用图谱:范围综述。
Health Expect. 2022 Jun;25(3):840-855. doi: 10.1111/hex.13437. Epub 2022 Feb 17.
4
Does team reflexivity impact teamwork and communication in interprofessional hospital-based healthcare teams? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.团队反思是否会影响跨专业医院医疗团队的团队合作和沟通?系统评价和叙述性综合。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Aug;29(8):672-683. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009921. Epub 2020 Jan 7.
5
Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10.修订后的患者安全测量指标的验证:患者安全测量指标-30和患者安全测量指标-10。
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 28;9(11):e031355. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031355.
6
How to analyse longitudinal data from multiple sources in qualitative health research: the pen portrait analytic technique.如何在定性健康研究中分析来自多个来源的纵向数据:肖像分析技术。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Aug 2;19(1):169. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0810-0.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Sep;27(9):710-717. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007579. Epub 2018 Feb 19.
4
Advancing the literature on designing audit and feedback interventions: identifying theory-informed hypotheses.推进关于设计审计和反馈干预的文献:确定有理论依据的假设。
Implement Sci. 2017 Sep 29;12(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0646-0.
5
Exploring how ward staff engage with the implementation of a patient safety intervention: a UK-based qualitative process evaluation.探索病房工作人员如何参与患者安全干预措施的实施:一项基于英国的定性过程评估。
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 13;7(7):e014558. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014558.
6
A qualitative formative evaluation of a patient-centred patient safety intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers.与医院志愿者合作开展的以患者为中心的患者安全干预的定性形成性评价。
Health Expect. 2017 Oct;20(5):1143-1153. doi: 10.1111/hex.12560. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
7
The Patient Feedback Response Framework - Understanding why UK hospital staff find it difficult to make improvements based on patient feedback: A qualitative study.患者反馈响应框架——了解英国医院工作人员为何难以根据患者反馈做出改进:一项定性研究。
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Apr;178:19-27. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.005. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
8
Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention.患者参与能否提高患者安全性?患者报告与安全环境行动(PRASE)干预的整群随机对照试验。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Aug;26(8):622-631. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005570. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
9
The patient reporting and action for a safe environment (PRASE) intervention: a feasibility study.患者报告与安全环境行动(PRASE)干预措施:一项可行性研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Nov 28;16(1):676. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1919-z.
10
How might health services capture patient-reported safety concerns in a hospital setting? An exploratory pilot study of three mechanisms.在医院环境中,医疗服务机构如何获取患者报告的安全问题?对三种机制的探索性初步研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jan;26(1):42-53. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004260. Epub 2016 Feb 4.