Search

Background: Quality indicators are registered to monitor and improve the quality of care. However, the number and effectiveness of quality indicators is under debate, and may influence the joy in work of physicians and nurses. Empirical data on the nature and consequences of the registration burden are lacking. The aim of this study was to identify and explore healthcare professionals’ perceived burden due to quality registrations in hospitals, and the effect of this burden on their joy in work. Methods: A mixed methods observational study, including participative observations, a survey and semi-structured interviews in two academic hospitals and one teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Study participants were 371 healthcare professionals from an intensive care unit (ICU), a haematology department and others involved in the care of elderly patients and patients with prostate or gastrointestinal cancer. Results: On average, healthcare professionals spend 52.3 minutes per working day on quality registrations. The average number of quality measures per department is 91, with 1380 underlying variables. Overall, 57% are primarily registered for accountability purposes, 19% for institutional governance and 25% for quality improvement objectives. Only 36% were perceived as useful for improving quality in everyday practice. Eight types of registration burden were identified, such as an excessive number of quality registrations, and the lack of usefulness for improving quality and inefficiencies in the registration process. The time healthcare professionals spent on quality registrations was not correlated with any measure of joy in work. Perceived unreasonable registrations were negatively associated with healthcare professionals’ joy in work (intrinsic motivation and autonomy). Healthcare professionals experienced quality registrations as diverting time from patient care and from actually improving quality. Conclusion: Registering fewer quality indicators, but more of what really matters to healthcare professionals, is key to increasing the effectiveness of registrations for quality improvement and governance. Also the efficiency of quality registrations should be increased through staffing and information and communications technology solutions to reduce the registration burden experienced by nurses and physicians.

Purpose Insufficient sleep burdens critically ill patients, optimizing sleep may enhance patient's outcomes. Current assessment methods may unnecessary burden patients. Therefore, a single numeric rating score was validated for sleep assessment. Materials and methods First, two cross-sectional measurements on two separate days, from cooperative patients from 19 centers assessed their sleep sufficiency, the numeric rating score (NRS) and the Richards Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ). Assessments were compared using a Bland Altman plot. A NRS cut-off was determined using regression analysis. Second, daily sleep assessment was implemented and monitored single center for a year. Results Multicenter, 194 patients assessed sleep quality, of which 53% was rated as sufficient. Mean (±SD) difference between RCSQ and NRS-Sleep using Bland-Altman analysis was 0.25 (±1.21, 95% limits of agreement −2.12 to 2.62). The optimal cut-off was >5. Single center, 1603 patients ranked 4532 ICU nights of sleep, of which 71% was sufficient; median NRS was 6 [IQR 5–7]. Conclusions A single numeric rating score for sleep is interchangeable for the RCSQ score for assessment of sleep quality. Optimal cut-off is >5. Use of a numeric rating score for sleep is a practical way to evaluate and monitor sleep as perceived by patients in daily ICU practice.