Background: Health care organizations are constantly changing as a result of technological advancements, ageing populations, changing disease patterns, new discoveries for the treatment of diseases and political reforms and policy initiatives. Changes can be challenging because they contradict humans' basic need for a stable environment. The present study poses the question: what characterizes successful organizational changes in health care? The aim was to investigate the characteristics of changes of relevance for the work of health care professionals that they deemed successful. Methods: The study was based on semi-structured interviews with 30 health care professionals: 11 physicians, 12 registered nurses and seven assistant nurses employed in the Swedish health care system. An inductive approach was applied using questions based on the existing literature on organizational change and change responses. The questions concerned the interviewees' experiences and perceptions of any changes that they considered to have affected their work, regardless of whether these changes were "objectively" large or small changes. The interviewees' responses were analysed using directed content analysis. Results: The analysis yielded three categories concerning characteristics of successful changes: having the opportunity to influence the change; being prepared for the change; valuing the change. The interviewees emphasized the importance of having the opportunity to influence the organizational changes that are implemented. Changes that were initiated by the professionals themselves were considered the easiest and were rarely resisted. Changes that were clearly communicated to allow for preparation increased the chances for success. The interviewees did not support organizational changes that were perceived to be implemented unexpectedly and/or without prior communication. They conveyed that it was important for them to understand the need for and benefits of organizational changes. They particularly valued and perceived as successful organizational changes with a patient focus, with clear benefits to patients. Conclusions: Organizational changes in health care are more likely to succeed when health care professionals have the opportunity to influence the change, feel prepared for the change and recognize the value of the change, including perceiving the benefit of the change for patients.

The results do not encourage the use of the GTT for making comparisons between hospitals. The use of the GTT to this end would require substantial training to achieve better agreement across reviewer teams.

ObjectiveHome healthcare is an increasingly common part of healthcare. The patients are often aged, frail and have multiple diseases, and multiple caregivers are involved in their treatment. This study explores the origin, incidence, types and preventability of adverse events (AEs) that occur in patients receiving home healthcare.DesignA study using retrospective record review and trigger tool methodology.Setting and methodsTen teams with experience of home healthcare from nine regions across Sweden reviewed home healthcare records in a two-stage procedure using 38 predefined triggers in four modules. A random sample of records from 600 patients (aged 18 years or older) receiving home healthcare during 2015 were reviewed.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe cumulative incidence of AEs found in patients receiving home healthcare; secondary measures were origin, types, severity of harm and preventability of the AEs.ResultsThe patients were aged 20–79 years, 280 men and 320 women. The review teams identified 356 AEs in 226 (37.7%; 95% CI 33.0 to 42.8) of the home healthcare records. Of these, 255 (71.6%; 95% CI 63.2 to 80.8) were assessed as being preventable, and most (246, 69.1%; 95% CI 60.9 to 78.2) required extra healthcare visits or led to a prolonged period of healthcare. Most of the AEs (271, 76.1%; 95% CI 67.5 to 85.6) originated in home healthcare; the rest were detected during home healthcare but were related to care outside home healthcare. The most common AEs were healthcare-associated infections, falls and pressure ulcers.ConclusionsAEs in patients receiving home healthcare are common, mostly preventable and often cause temporary harm requiring extra healthcare resources. The most frequent types of AEs must be addressed and reduced through improvements in interprofessional collaboration. This is an important area for future studies.

BackgroundThere has been a theoretical debate as to which retrospective record review method is the most valid, reliable, cost efficient and feasible for detecting adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and capability of two common retrospective record review methods, the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” in detecting adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients.MethodsWe performed a three-stage structured retrospective record review process in a random sample of 350 orthopaedic admissions during 2009 at a Swedish university hospital. Two teams comprised each of a registered nurse and two physicians were assigned, one to each method. All records were primarily reviewed by registered nurses. Records containing a potential adverse event were forwarded to physicians for review in stage 2. Physicians made an independent review regarding, for example, healthcare causation, preventability and severity. In the third review stage all adverse events that were found with the two methods together were compared and all discrepancies after review stage 2 were analysed. Events that had not been identified by one of the methods in the first two review stages were reviewed by the respective physicians.ResultsAltogether, 160 different adverse events were identified in 105 (30.0%) of the 350 records with both methods combined. The “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method identified 155 of the 160 (96.9%, 95% CI: 92.9-99.0) adverse events in 104 (29.7%) records compared with 137 (85.6%, 95% CI: 79.2-90.7) adverse events in 98 (28.0%) records using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Adverse events “causing harm without permanent disability” accounted for most of the observed difference. The overall positive predictive value for criteria and triggers using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” was 40.3% and 30.4%, respectively.ConclusionsMore adverse events were identified using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method than using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Differences in review methodology, perception of less severe adverse events and context knowledge may explain the observed difference between two expert review teams in the detection of adverse events.

The perceptions about how to interpret palliative care differed as well as when palliative care should be offered and decided, which might have practical consequences. How long a person has left to live is of great significance for decision-making, caregiving and preparation in palliative care. The challenge is to use interprofessional communication to promote understanding and collaborate across varied care levels. Integrating palliative care across diverse care levels could be one way to reduce the ambiguity of palliative care.