Fewer adverse events as a result of the SAFE or SORRY? programme in hospitals and nursing homes. Part I: primary outcome of a cluster randomised trial
Fewer adverse events as a result of the SAFE or SORRY? programme in hospitals and nursing homes. Part I: primary outcome of a cluster randomised trial
Background: patient care guidelines are usually implemented one at a time, yet patients are at risk for multiple, often preventable, adverse events simultaneously.
Objective: this study aimed to test the effect of the SAFE or SORRY? programme on the incidence of three adverse events (pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections and falls). This paper describes Part I of the study: the effect on the incidence of adverse events.
Design: a cluster randomised trial was conducted between September 2006 and November 2008. After a three-month baseline period the intervention was implemented followed by a nine-month follow-up period.
Settings: ten wards from four hospitals and ten wards from six nursing homes were stratified for institute and ward type and then randomised to intervention or usual care group.
Participants: during baseline and follow-up, patients (?18 years) with an expected length of stay of at least five days, were asked to participate.
Methods: the SAFE or SORRY? programme consisted of the essential recommendations of guidelines for the three adverse events. A multifaceted implementation strategy was used for the implementation: education, patient involvement and feedback on process and outcome indicators. The usual care group continued care as usual. Data were collected on the incidence of adverse events and a Poisson regression model was used to estimate the rate ratio of the adverse events between the intervention and the usual care group at follow-up.
Results: at follow-up, 2201 hospital patients with 3358 patient weeks and 392 nursing home patients with 5799 patient weeks were observed. Poisson regression analyses showed a rate ratio for the development of an adverse event in favour of the intervention group of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.34–0.95) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.48–0.99) for hospital patients and nursing home patients respectively.
Conclusion: this study showed that implementing multiple guidelines simultaneously is possible, which is promising. Patients in the intervention groups developed 43% and 33% fewer adverse events compared to the usual care groups in hospitals and nursing homes respectively. Even so, more research is necessary to underline these results
guidelines, hospitals, implementation, long-term care, multicentre studies, outcome indicators
1040-1048
Van Gaal, Betsie G.I.
1638dc4b-976d-4351-a790-efd1e7809965
Schoonhoven, Lisette
46a2705b-c657-409b-b9da-329d5b1b02de
Mintjes, Joke A.J.
f6eee935-6903-4245-9e47-69afdc5864a0
Borm, George Ff
a9c08c54-f7c4-4c68-aa28-f9e49d3177b4
Hulscher, Marlies E.J.L.
0c6ed244-b4ce-4240-a2cd-b38a88c5a8d6
Defloor, Tom
51beda91-f7d4-48c0-adb1-491e6f1c6492
Habets, Herbert
a3d3c680-166f-4c76-80e0-26edd1b2e824
Voss, Aandreas
8908528e-6830-46b5-b032-ff989bd84d7c
Vloet, Lilliam C.M.
61dc25df-1456-423d-9bdc-db15a432356a
Koopmans, Raymond T.C.M.
3df55d8d-a5cb-4353-80ff-87fdfbba5ab5
van Achterberg, Theo
eb49404e-62c6-427d-bb94-580254177a30
September 2011
Van Gaal, Betsie G.I.
1638dc4b-976d-4351-a790-efd1e7809965
Schoonhoven, Lisette
46a2705b-c657-409b-b9da-329d5b1b02de
Mintjes, Joke A.J.
f6eee935-6903-4245-9e47-69afdc5864a0
Borm, George Ff
a9c08c54-f7c4-4c68-aa28-f9e49d3177b4
Hulscher, Marlies E.J.L.
0c6ed244-b4ce-4240-a2cd-b38a88c5a8d6
Defloor, Tom
51beda91-f7d4-48c0-adb1-491e6f1c6492
Habets, Herbert
a3d3c680-166f-4c76-80e0-26edd1b2e824
Voss, Aandreas
8908528e-6830-46b5-b032-ff989bd84d7c
Vloet, Lilliam C.M.
61dc25df-1456-423d-9bdc-db15a432356a
Koopmans, Raymond T.C.M.
3df55d8d-a5cb-4353-80ff-87fdfbba5ab5
van Achterberg, Theo
eb49404e-62c6-427d-bb94-580254177a30
Van Gaal, Betsie G.I., Schoonhoven, Lisette, Mintjes, Joke A.J., Borm, George Ff, Hulscher, Marlies E.J.L., Defloor, Tom, Habets, Herbert, Voss, Aandreas, Vloet, Lilliam C.M., Koopmans, Raymond T.C.M. and van Achterberg, Theo
(2011)
Fewer adverse events as a result of the SAFE or SORRY? programme in hospitals and nursing homes. Part I: primary outcome of a cluster randomised trial.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48 (9), .
(doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.02.017).
(PMID:21419411)
Abstract
Background: patient care guidelines are usually implemented one at a time, yet patients are at risk for multiple, often preventable, adverse events simultaneously.
Objective: this study aimed to test the effect of the SAFE or SORRY? programme on the incidence of three adverse events (pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections and falls). This paper describes Part I of the study: the effect on the incidence of adverse events.
Design: a cluster randomised trial was conducted between September 2006 and November 2008. After a three-month baseline period the intervention was implemented followed by a nine-month follow-up period.
Settings: ten wards from four hospitals and ten wards from six nursing homes were stratified for institute and ward type and then randomised to intervention or usual care group.
Participants: during baseline and follow-up, patients (?18 years) with an expected length of stay of at least five days, were asked to participate.
Methods: the SAFE or SORRY? programme consisted of the essential recommendations of guidelines for the three adverse events. A multifaceted implementation strategy was used for the implementation: education, patient involvement and feedback on process and outcome indicators. The usual care group continued care as usual. Data were collected on the incidence of adverse events and a Poisson regression model was used to estimate the rate ratio of the adverse events between the intervention and the usual care group at follow-up.
Results: at follow-up, 2201 hospital patients with 3358 patient weeks and 392 nursing home patients with 5799 patient weeks were observed. Poisson regression analyses showed a rate ratio for the development of an adverse event in favour of the intervention group of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.34–0.95) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.48–0.99) for hospital patients and nursing home patients respectively.
Conclusion: this study showed that implementing multiple guidelines simultaneously is possible, which is promising. Patients in the intervention groups developed 43% and 33% fewer adverse events compared to the usual care groups in hospitals and nursing homes respectively. Even so, more research is necessary to underline these results
Text
van_Gaal_et_al_Safe_or_Sorry_part_I.pdf
- Version of Record
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
More information
e-pub ahead of print date: 17 March 2011
Published date: September 2011
Keywords:
guidelines, hospitals, implementation, long-term care, multicentre studies, outcome indicators
Organisations:
Faculty of Health Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 339204
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/339204
ISSN: 0020-7489
PURE UUID: 72fc6df1-7fc4-44a5-a0f9-f0de0507d345
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 25 May 2012 09:08
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:41
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Betsie G.I. Van Gaal
Author:
Joke A.J. Mintjes
Author:
George Ff Borm
Author:
Marlies E.J.L. Hulscher
Author:
Tom Defloor
Author:
Herbert Habets
Author:
Aandreas Voss
Author:
Lilliam C.M. Vloet
Author:
Raymond T.C.M. Koopmans
Author:
Theo van Achterberg
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics