Search

The 2020 onset of the COVID-19 pandemic globally strained healthcare. Healthcare systems worldwide had to rapidly reorganize, impacting service delivery, patient care, and care-seeking behaviors. This left little time to assess the pandemic's effects on patient safety. This paper investigates COVID-19's influence on patient safety in a Danish region, using data from the national reporting system for adverse events during the initial COVID-19 surge in early 2020. This retrospective analysis investigated how the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (January–September 2020) affected the incidence of adverse events in a Danish Region, comparing it to the same period in 2019. Data were sourced from the Danish Patient Safety Database and regional systems. Adverse events were reported numerically. Descriptive statistics were employed to describe the percentage difference in adverse events and hospital activity, as well as the rate of adverse events per 1000 activities. Additionally, COVID-19-specific adverse events from April 2020 to March 2021 were identified and analyzed, categorizing them into seven risk areas across various healthcare sectors. During Denmark's initial COVID-19 surge in early 2020, the North Denmark Region's hospitals reported a significant decrease in adverse events, with a 42.5% drop in March 2020 compared to March 2019. From January to September 2020, the number of adverse events dropped 8.5% compared to the same period in 2019. In the same period, hospital activity declined by 10.2%. The ratio of reported adverse events per 1000 hospital activities thus decreased in early 2020 but showed only a minor difference overall for January–September compared to 2019. Between April 2020 and March 2021, out of 5703 total adverse events, 324 (5.7%) were COVID-19 related. COVID-19-related events were categorized into seven distinct risk areas, reflecting diverse impacts across healthcare sectors including hospitals, general practices, pre-hospital care, and specialized services. The initial decline in reporting of adverse events likely resulted from rapid healthcare changes and under-prioritization of the reporting system during the acute phase. However, a near return to pre-pandemic reporting levels suggests a resilient reporting system despite the crisis. The study's strength lies in the comprehensive data from Danish reporting systems, though it acknowledges potential underreporting and doesn't measure the pandemic's overall impact on patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The dissemination of scientific data on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continually builds but, in April 2020, could not keep up with the spread of the disease. Through technology, surgeons in Italy and the UK, representing both peak and pre-peak infective time zones, were able to communicate so that the urgent lessons on the huge expected demands of care learned in Italy could be brought to the UK in advance. This paper specifically discusses the issues related to paediatric surgery, currently under-reported in the literature. Methods The aim of this paper is to conjoin experience from the field to provide a framework for a safe assessment and treatment of paediatric patients by adopting a systemic approach aimed at reducing the risk of contamination. We reviewed the processes and good practices that were undertaken in contexts of emergency such as in Italy and the UK and then adapted them within the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework to provide an assessment of how to reorganize the services in order to cope with an unexpected situation. The SEIPS model is the adopted theoretical framework, which allows to analyse the system in its main components with a human factors and ergonomics (HFE) perspective. Results The results introduce some of the good practices and recommendations developed during the emergency in the surgical scenario with a focus on the paediatric patients. They represent the lessons learned from the combination of the little existing evidence of literature and the experience from surgical teams who responded in an impromptu and unrehearsed way. Conclusions Lessons learned from the frontline 'on the fly' during COVID-19 emergency should be consolidated and taken into the future. In order to prepare proactively for the next phases and get ahead of the curve of these hospital accesses, there is a need for a risk assessment of the new clinical pathways with a multidisciplinary approach centred on HFE with the adoption of the SEIPS model and an involvement of all the surgical teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of clinical supervision, a professional support and clinical governance mechanism, to patients, healthcare workers and organizations has been well documented. Clinical supervision has been shown to support healthcare workers during challenging times, by reducing burnout, enhancing mental health and wellbeing at work, and improving job satisfaction. However, clinical supervision participation and effectiveness are pre-requisites for realising these benefits. During times of stress and increased workloads (e.g. during the Coronavirus pandemic), healthcare workers tend to prioritise clinical duties and responsibilities over clinical supervision. Effective supervision practices can be restored, and healthcare workers can be better supported in their roles during and in the post-pandemic period only if healthcare workers, policy makers, healthcare organizations, clinical supervision trainers and researchers join forces. This paper sheds light on this important topic and offers a number of practical recommendations to reboot effective clinical supervision practices at the point of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background While individual countries have gained considerable knowledge and experience in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) management, an international, comparative perspective is lacking, particularly regarding the measures taken by different countries to tackle the pandemic. This paper elicits the views of health system staff, tapping into their personal expertise on how the pandemic was initially handled. Methods From May to July 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, online, purpose-designed survey comprising 70 items. Email lists of contacts provided by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, the Italian Network for Safety in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation were used to access healthcare professionals and managers across the world. We snowballed the survey to individuals and groups connected to these organizations. Key outcome measures were attitudes and information about institutional approaches taken; media communication; how acute hospitals were re-organized; primary health organization; personal protective equipment; and staffing and training. Results A total of 1131 survey participants from 97 countries across the World Health Organization (WHO) regions responded to the survey. Responses were from all six WHO regions; 57.9% were female and the majority had 10 or more years of experience in healthcare; almost half (46.5%) were physicians; and all other major clinical professional groups participated. As the pandemic progressed, most countries established an emergency task force, developed communication channels to citizens, organized health services to cope and put in place appropriate measures (e.g. pathways for COVID-19 patients, and testing, screening and tracing procedures). Some countries did this better than others. We found several significant differences between the WHO regions in how they are tackling the pandemic. For instance, while overall most respondents (71.4%) believed that there was an effective plan prior to the outbreak, this was only the case for 31.9% of respondents from the Pan American Health Organization compared with 90.7% of respondents from the South-East Asia Region (SEARO). Issues with swab testing (e.g. delay in communicating the swab outcome) were less frequently reported by respondents from SEARO and the Western Pacific Region compared with other regions. Conclusion The world has progressed in its knowledge and sophistication in tackling the pandemic after early and often substantial obstacles were encountered. Most WHO regions have or are in the process of responding well, although some countries have not yet instituted widespread measures known to support mitigation, for example, effective swab testing and social control measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]