Welchen Einfluss haben Schulungen auf die Qualität der Patientenidentifikation? – Ergebnisse aus einer randomisierten, multizentrischen und multimodalen Interventionsstudie

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Die eindeutige Zuordnung von Versorgungsleistungen und Patienten ist eine wesentliche Säule der Patientensicherheit. Das Aktionsbündnis Patientensicherheit e. V. hat dazu eine Empfehlung veröffentlicht.

Fragestellung: Die vorliegende Studie untersucht, ob und in welchem Ausmaß die interprofessionelle Schulung von Empfehlungsinhalten die Dokumentationsqualität als Bestandteil der Patientenidentifikation positiv beeinflussen kann.

Methode: In der randomisierten, multizentrischen und multimodalen Studie wurden Ärzte und Pflegende von 8 Stationen in 4 Krankenhäusern der Regel- und Maximalversorgung gemeinsam geschult und mit begleitenden Informations- und Schulungsmaterialien ausgestattet. Ungeschulte Stationsteams stellten die Kontrollgruppe dar. Die Effekte der Intervention wurden durch die Ermittlung von Dokumentationsfehlern in Patientenakten vor und nach der Schulung gemessen.

Ergebnisse: Nach der Schulung und Verteilung von Begleitmaterialien war in der Interventionsgruppe die Anzahl fehlerhafter Dokumente pro Akte im Vergleich zur Kontrollgruppe um 37,3% geringer (p<0,001).

Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse der Studie deuten darauf hin, dass die Schulung von Ärzten und Pflegenden ein wirksames Instrument darstellt, identifizierungsrelevante Dokumentationsfehler zu minimieren und damit das Risiko für Patientenverwechslungen zu reduzieren. Regelmäßige Wiederholungen und Vertiefungen erscheinen sinnvoll, um die Effekte von Schulungsmaßnahmen über kurze Zeiträume hinaus zu sichern und weiter zu verbessern.

Abstract

Background: Attributing clinical care to patients unambiguously is a precondition for patient safety. The German Coalition for Patient Safety has published a recommendation on this topic.

Issue: The here presented study examined whether and to what extent documentation quality as one determining factor of correct patient identification can be improved positively by inter-professional training.

Method: In our randomised multi-centric study physicians and nurses from 8 units in 4 hospitals were trained. The control group consisted of untrained unit teams. Effects of the intervention were measured by investigating documentation errors in clinical records before and after the training.

Results: As a result of our intervention the number of documents with documentation errors/patient charts could be reduced by 37.3% (p<0.001).

Conclusion: The results of the study point to the training of recommendations on preventing errors as an effective instrument for the improvement of patient safety.

• Literatur

• 1 The Joint Commission.editors. Sentinel Event Data. Event Type by Year 1995 – June 2013.Im Internet: http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/Event_Type_by_Year_1995-2Q2013.pdf Stand: 22.01.2014
  PubMed
• 2 Murphy MF, Kay JD. Patient identification: problems and potential solutions. Vox Sang 2004; 87 (Suppl. 02) 197-202
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Stainsby D, Russell J, Cohen H. et al. Reducing adverse events in blood transfusion. Br J Haematol 2005; 131: 8-12
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Galanter W, Falck S, Burns M. et al. Indication-based prescribing prevents wrong-patient medication errors in computerized provider order entry (CPOE). JAMIA 2013; 20: 477-481
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Tridandapani S, Ramamurthy S, Galgano SJ. et al. Increasing rate of detection of wrong-patient radiographs: use of photographs obtained at time of radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 345-352
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 James MA, Seiler JG, Harrast JJ. et al. The occurrence of wrong-site surgery self-reported by candidates for certification by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: e2 (1–12)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Seiden SC, Barach P. Wrong-side/wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and wrong-patient adverse events: Are they preventable?. Arch Surg 2006; 141: 931-939
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Aktionsbündnis Patientensicherheit e. V.editors. Empfehlungen zur sicheren Patientenidentifikation. Im Internet: http://www.aps-ev.de/fileadmin/fuerRedakteur/PDFs/Handlungsempfehlungen/Patientenidentifikation/08-03-03_PID_Empfehlung_final_0.pdf (Stand: 02.04.2015)
  PubMed
• 9 Milliken GA, Johnson DE. Analysis of Messy Data. Vol. 1: 2nd EditionBoca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC Research Notes in Mathematics Series; 2004
  PubMed
• 10 College of American Pathologists . Valenstein PN, Raab SS, Walsh MK. Identification errors involving clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of patient and specimen identification errors at 120 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130: 1106-1113
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Meyer E, Underwood RS, Padmanabhan V. Patient misidentification in Papanicolaou tests: a systems-based approach to reducing errors. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 1297-1300
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Gray JE, Suresh G, Ursprung R. et al. Patient misidentification in the neonatal intensive care unit: quantification of risk. Pediatrics 2006; 117: e43-e47
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Schulmeister S. Patient Misidentification in Oncology Care. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2008; 12: 495-498
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Friedman C, Sideli R. Tolerating spelling errors during patient validation. Comput Biomed Res 1992; 25: 486-509
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Parisi LL. Patient Identification. The Foundation for a Culture of Patient Safety. J Nurs Care Qual 2003; 1: 73-79
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Elfering A, Semmer NK, Grebner S. Work stress and patient safety: observer-rated work stressors as predictors of characteristics of safety-related events reported by young nurses. Ergonomics 2006; 49: 457-469
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Hautemanière A, Quantin C, Hartemann P. Quantifying errors in the identification of patients’ medical records in an active filing. Sante Publique 2009; 21: 45-54
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Wickström G, Bendix T. The „Hawthorne effect“ – what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show?. Scand J Work Environ Health 2000; 26: 363-367
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Edwards KE, Hagen SM, Hannam J. et al. A randomized comparison between records made with an anesthesia information management system and by hand, and evaluation of the Hawthorne effect. Can J Anaesth 2013; 60: 990-997
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Sax HC, Browne P, Mayewski RJ. et al. Can aviation-based team training elicit sustainable behavioral change?. Arch Surg 2009; 144: 1133-1137
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Dunn AG, Ong MS, Westbrook JI. et al. A simulation framework for mapping risks in clinical processes: the case of in-patient transfers. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18: 259-266
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Chassin MR, Becher EC. The wrong patient. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136: 826-833
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Marshall S, Harrison J, Flanagan B. The teaching of a structured tool improves the clarity and content of interprofessional clinical communication. Qual Saf Health Care 2009; 18: 137-140
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Henneman PL, Marquard JL, Fisher DL. et al. Bar-code Verification: Reducing but not Eliminating Medication Errors. J Nurs Adm 2012; 42: 562-566
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Levin HI, Levin JE, Docimo SG. “I meant that med for Baylee not Bailey!”: a mixed method study to identify incidence and risk factors for CPOE patient misidentification. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2012; 2012: 1294-1301
  PubMedGoogle Scholar