Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:02:28.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT UNIT PROCESSES FOR THE VALIDATION OF AN INFORMATION TOOL TO INVOLVE PATIENTS IN THE SAFETY OF THEIR CARE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2018

Thomas G. Poder Open the ORCID record for Thomas G. Poder [Opens in a new window] ,
Nathalie Carrier  and
Suzanne K. Bédard
Thomas G. Poder
Affiliation:
UETMIS and CRCHUS, CIUSSS de l'Estrie – CHUS, Sherbrookethomas.poder.ciussse-chus@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
Nathalie Carrier
Affiliation:
CRCHUS, CIUSSS de l'Estrie – CHUS, Sherbrooke
Suzanne K. Bédard
Affiliation:
CRCHUS, CIUSSS de l'Estrie – CHUS, Sherbrooke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Patients and families play an important role in preventing adverse events. The quality council at our hospital produced a communication tool in considering the main causes of adverse events and requested the health technology assessment (HTA) unit to validate it.

Objectives:

Assess the validity of the content of a tablemat sticker as an information tool for hospitalized patients.

Methods:

A qualitative validation was first performed with individual interviews and focus groups to evaluate the understanding of the content. The tool was modified and as a second step, a survey was conducted on patients and their families from a surgical care unit to validate their understanding and relevance of the content.

Results:

From the survey, patients and families found the tablemat attractive and stimulating (97 percent). It encouraged them to communicate with staff about the safety of their care (84 percent). They understood well the objective (79 percent) and text (90 percent), but less for the pictograms (30 percent to 62 percent). The communication and recommendations to avoid falling were good and 99 percent were wearing the medical identification. However, it was not clear that these indicators represented the real concerns of the patients and healthcare staff because no user evaluation was done when developing the tool.

Conclusions:

The tool was well understood, but some improvements are needed considering that pictograms were not always well understood and so need careful consideration from patient perspective. The HTA unit recommended conducting an unbiased survey to assess the concerns of patients and professionals to identify the most relevant indicators.

Keywords

Information toolValidationRelevanceHealthcareHealth technology assessment unit
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , 2018 , pp. 378 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We acknowledge all of the collaborators and participants in this study, especially the members of the quality council and healthcare staff at the surgical care unit at our institution for their continued support. Thomas G. Poder is member of the FRQS-funded Centre de recherche du CHUS (CRCHUS). This research received no specific grant from any funding agency or from commercial or not-for-profit sources.

References

REFERENCES

1.Accreditation Canada. Livret sur les pratiques organisationnelles requises. In 2014. p. 30.Google Scholar
2.Vincent, CA, Coulter, A. Patient safety: What about the patient? Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:76-80.Google Scholar
3.Manitoba Institute for Patient Safety. It's safe to ask [Internet]. 2014. www.safetoask.ca (accessed June 10, 2018).Google Scholar
4.Ontario Hospital Association. Your health care - Be involved [Internet]. 2009. https://www.oha.com/quality-safety-and-patient-and-family-centred-care/quality-and-patient-safety/tools-and-resources/your-health-care-be-involved (accessed June 10, 2018).Google Scholar
5.Alberta Haelth Services. Patient engagement [Internet]. 2016. http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/info/patientengagement.aspx (accessed June 10, 2018).Google Scholar
6.Kettunen, T, Poskiparta, M, Liimatainen, L. Empowering counseling--A case study: Nurse-patient encounter in a hospital. Health Educ Res. 2001;16:227-238.Google Scholar
7.Faulkner, M. Empowerment and disempowernent: Models of staff/patient interaction. NT Res. 2001;6:936-948.Google Scholar
8.Weingart, SN, Zhu, J, Chiappetta, L, et al. Hospitalized patients’ participation and its impact on quality of care and patient safety. Int J Qual Health Care. 2011;23:269-277.Google Scholar
9.Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Annual review 2013–2014: ASK-LISTEN-TALK [Internet]. http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/en/About/Documents/CPSIAnnualReview2014.pdf (accessed June 10, 2018).Google Scholar
10.Donaldson, L, Philip, P. Patient safety: A global priority. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:892.Google Scholar
11.Bellemare, CA, Fisette, J-F, Poder, TG, et al. The Health Technology Assessment Unit of the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (Canada). In: Sampietro-Colom, L, Martin, J, eds. Hospital-based health technology assessment. The next frontier for health technology Assessment. Switzerland: Adis; 2016:185-200.Google Scholar
12.Maurer, M, Dardess, P, Carman, KL, et al. Guide to patient and family engagement: environmental scan report. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Rockville, MD: American Institutes for Research; 2012 May. Report No.: AHRQ Publication No. 12-0042-EF.Google Scholar
13.Aujoulat, I, d'Hoore, W, Deccache, A. Patient empowerment in theory and practice: Polysemy or cacophony? Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66:13-20.Google Scholar
14.Hall, J, Peat, M, Birks, Y, et al. Effectiveness of interventions designed to promote patient involvement to enhance safety: A systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e10.Google Scholar
15.Berger, Z, Flickinger, TE, Pfoh, E, et al. Promoting engagement by patients and families to reduce adverse events in acute care settings: A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:548-555.Google Scholar
16.Spence Laschinger, HK, Gilbert, S, Smith, LM, et al. Towards a comprehensive theory of nurse/patient empowerment: Applying Kanter's empowerment theory to patient care. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18:4-13.Google Scholar
17.Schulz, PJ, Nakamoto, K. Health literacy and patient empowerment in health communication: The importance of separating conjoined twins. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90:4-11.Google Scholar
18.Kutty, S, Weil, S. “Your health care--Be involved”: The evaluation of a provincial patient afety tips initiative. Healthc Q Tor Ont. 2006;9 Spec No:102-7.Google Scholar
19.Schoonenboom, J, Johnson, RB. How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozialpsychol. 2017;69(Suppl 2):107-131.Google Scholar
20.Bravo, P, Edwards, A, Barr, PJ, et al. Conceptualising patient empowerment: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:252.Google Scholar
21.Jayadevappa, R, Chhatre, S. Patient centered care - A conceptual model and review of the state of the art. Open Health Serv Policy J [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2018 Mar 21];4(1). https://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOHSPJ-4-15 (accessed June 10, 2018).Google Scholar
22.Richards, T, Montori, VM, Godlee, F, et al. Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ. 2013;346:f2614.Google Scholar
23.St-Cyr Tribble, D, Gallagher, F, Paul, D, et al. Les pratiques d'empowerment en première ligne: compréhension et évaluation de l'efficacité des interventions infirmières et psychosociales conduites auprès des parents. Rapport de recherche, CSSS-IUGS, Sherbrooke; 2003.Google Scholar
24.St-Cyr Tribble, D, Gallagher, F, Bell, L, et al. Empowerment interventions, knowledge translation and exchange: Perspectives of home care professionals, clients and caregivers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:177.Google Scholar
25.Kettunen, T, Liimatainen, L, Villberg, J, et al. Developing empowering health counseling measurement. Preliminary results. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64:159-166.Google Scholar
26.Leonard, KJ, Dalziel, S, Charter, D. Projet d'engagement de patients: Communauté Mount Dennis. Toronto Central Local Health Integration Network, Patient Destiny; 2012.Google Scholar
27.Poder, TG. Using the health technology assessment toolbox to facilitate procurement: The case of smart pumps in a Canadian hospital. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:54-62.Google Scholar
28.Poder, TG, Bellemare, CA. Importance of contextual data in producing health technology assessment recommendations: A case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34:63-67.Google Scholar
29.Demirdjian, G. A 10-year hospital-based health technology assessment program in a public hospital in Argentina. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:103-110.Google Scholar
30.Poder, TG, Carrier, N, Bédard, SK. Interdisciplinarity in clinical practice in Quebec: Results of a survey with IPC59. Int J Hosp-Based Health Technol Assess. 2017;1:3-11.Google Scholar
31.Abrishami, P. Value in co-creation: Subjecting innovative in-hospital technologies to multi-stakeholder appraisal. Int J Hosp-Based Health Technol Assess. 2017;1:12-30.Google Scholar
32.Dagenais, P, Legault, G-A, Patenaude, J. Commentary on “Value in co-creation: Subjecting innovative in-hospital technologies to multi-stakeholder appraisal.” Int J Hosp-Based Health Technol Assess. 2017;1:31-33.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Poder et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Poder et al. supplementary material(File)
File 32.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Poder et al. supplementary material

Table S2

Download Poder et al. supplementary material(File)
File 30.7 KB