Fluent Essays

PICOT/Clinical question  - In the clinical setting, to what degree does the Hospital survey on patient safety culture (HSOPS) improve safety when compared to the facility specific quality indicator for catheter associated infections as it pertains to improved patient outcomes?  I have attached the 2 articles (please use this article)  and the paper instructions. Please Please follow the instructions. I do appreciate the help.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Review Assessing Patient Safety Culture in Hospital Settings Abdulmajeed Azyabi *, Waldemar Karwowski and Mohammad Reza Davahli * ���������� ������� Citation: Azyabi, A.; Karwowski, W.; Davahli, M.R. Assessing Patient Safety Culture in Hospital Settings. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph18052466 Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou Received: 29 January 2021 Accepted: 1 March 2021 Published: 3 March 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (A.A.); [email protected] (M.R.D.) Abstract: The current knowledge about patient safety culture (PSC) in the healthcare industry, as well as the research tools that have been used to evaluate PSC in hospitals, is limited. Such a limitation may hamper current efforts to improve patient safety worldwide. This study provides a systematic review of published research on the perception of PSC in hospitals. The research methods used to survey and evaluate PSC in healthcare settings are also explored. A list of academic databases was searched from 2006 to 2020 to form a comprehensive view of PSC’s current applications. The following research instruments have been applied in the past to assess PSC: the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ), the Patient Safety Climate in Health Care Organizations (PSCHO), the Modified Stanford Instrument (MSI-2006), and the Scottish Hospital Safety Questionnaire (SHSQ). Some of the most critical factors that impact the PSC are teamwork and organizational and behavioral learning. Reporting errors and safety awareness, gender and demographics, work experience, and staffing levels have also been identified as essential factors. Therefore, these factors will need to be considered in future work to improve PSC. Finally, the results reveal strong evidence of growing interest among individuals in the healthcare industry to assess hospitals’ general patient safety culture. Keywords: patient safety culture; safety climate; behavioral learning; healthcare 1. Introduction According to the World Health Organization, patient safety (PS) is about preventing medical errors and their adverse effects on patients during healthcare delivery [1–3]. Unsafe medical practices can lead to patient injury, death, or disability [4]. The proliferation of such incidents has led to the recognition of the need to imEvaluation of the association between Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) measures and catheter-associated infections: results of two national collaboratives Jennifer Meddings,1,2,3 Heidi Reichert,1 M Todd Greene,1,3 Nasia Safdar,4,5 Sarah L Krein,1,3 Russell N Olmsted,6 Sam R Watson,7 Barbara Edson,8 Mariana Albert Lesher,8 Sanjay Saint1,2,3 ▸ Additional material is published online only. To view please visit the journal online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs- 2015-005012). For numbered affiliations see end of article. Correspondence to Dr Jennifer Meddings, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Room 430 W, Ann Arbor, MI, 48019-2800, USA; [email protected] Received 4 November 2015 Revised 4 February 2016 Accepted 29 February 2016 Published Online First 25 May 2016 To cite: Meddings J, Reichert H, Greene MT, et al. BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:226– 235. ABSTRACT Background The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has funded national collaboratives using the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program to reduce rates of two catheter-associated infections—central-line- associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), using evidence-based intervention bundles to improve technical aspects of care and socioadaptive approaches to foster a culture of safety. Objective Examine the association between hospital units’ results for the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) and catheter- associated infection rates. Methods We analysed data from two prospective cohort studies from acute-care intensive care units (ICUs) and non-ICUs participating in the AHRQ CLABSI and CAUTI collaboratives. National Healthcare Safety Network catheter-associated infections per 1000 catheter-days were collected at baseline and quarterly postimplementation. The HSOPS was collected at baseline and again 1 year later. Infection rates were modelled using multilevel negative binomial models as a function of HSOPS components over time, adjusted for hospital-level characteristics. Results 1821 units from 1079 hospitals (CLABSI) and 1576 units from 949 hospitals (CAUTI) were included. Among responding units, infection rates declined over the project periods (by 47\% for CLABSI, by 23\% for CAUTI, unadjusted). No significant associations were found between CLABSI or CAUTI rates and HSOPS measures at baseline or over time. Conclusions We found no association between results of the HSOPS and catheter-associated infection rates when measured at baseline and postintervention in two successful large national collaboratives focused on prevention of CLABSI and CAUTI. These results suggest that it may be possible to improve CLABSI and CAUTI rates without making significant changes in safety culture, particularly as measured by instruments like HSOPS. INTRODUCTION Central-line-associated bloodstream infec- tion (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urNR449 Evidence-Based Practice RUA: Analyzing Published Research Guidelines NR449_RUA_Analyzing_Published_Research_Guidelines_Sept20_v2 1 Purpose The purpose of this paper is to interpret the two articles identified as most important to the group topic. Course outcomes: This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes. CO 2: Apply research principles to the interpretation of the content of published research studies. (POs 4 and 8) CO 4: Evaluate published nursing research for credibility and clinical significance related to evidence-based practice. (POs 4 and 8) Due date: Your faculty member will inform you when this assignment is due. The Late Assignment Policy applies to this assignment. Total points possible: 200 points Preparing the assignment 1. Follow these guidelines when completing this assignment. Speak with your faculty member if you have questions. 2. Please make sure you do not duplicate articles within your group. 3. The paper will include the following: a. Clinical Question (30 points/15\%) 1. Describe the problem: What is the focus of your group’s work? 2. Significance of problem: What health outcomes result from your problem? Or what statistics document this is a problem? You may find support on websites for government or professional organizations. 3. Purpose of the paper: What will your paper do or describe? ***Please note that although most of these questions are the same as you addressed in paper 1, the purpose of this paper is different. You can use your paper 1 for items 1 & 2 above, including any faculty suggestions for improvement provided as feedback. b. Evidence Matrix Table: Data Summary (Appendix A) - (60 points/30\%) Categorize items in the Matrix Table, including proper intext citations and reference list entries for each article. 1. References (recent publication within the last 5 years) 2. Purpose/Hypothesis/Study Question(s) 3. Variables: Independent (I) and Dependent (D) 4. Study Design 5. Sample Size and Selection 6. Data Collection Methods 7. Major Findings (Evidence) c. Description of Findings (60 points/30\%) Describe the data in the Matrix Table, including proper intext citations and reference list entries for each article. 1. Compare and contrast variables within each study. 2. What are the study design and procedures used in each study; qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method study, levels of confidence in each study, etc.? 3. Participant demographics and information. 4. Instruments used, including reliability and validity. 5. How do the research findings provide evidence to support your clinical problem, or what further evidence is needed to answer your question? 6. Next steps: Identify two questions that can help guide the group’s work. d. Conclusion (20 points/10\%) Review major findings in a summary paragraph. 1. Evidence to address your clinical problem. 2. Make a connection back to all the included sections.