ObjectivesWe (1) collected instruments that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), activities of daily living (ADL) and social participation during follow-up after polytrauma, (2) described their use and (3) investigated other relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed in the studies.DesignSystematic Review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, as well as the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched from January 2005 to April 2018.Eligibility criteriaAll original empirical research published in English or German including PROs of patients aged 18–75 years with an Injury Severity Score≥16 and/or an Abbreviated Injury Scale≥3. Studies with defined injuries or diseases (e.g. low-energy injuries) and some text types (e.g. grey literature and books) were excluded. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded, but references screened for appropriate studies.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction, narrative content analysis and a critical appraisal (e.g. UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) were performed by two reviewers independently.ResultsThe search yielded 3496 hits; 54 publications were included. Predominantly, HRQoL was assessed, with Short Form-36 Health Survey applied most frequently. ADL and (social) participation were rarely assessed. The methods most used were postal surveys and single assessments of PROs, with a follow-up period of one to one and a half years. Other relevant PRO areas reported were function, mental disorders and pain.ConclusionsThere is a large variation in the assessment of PROs after polytrauma, impairing comparability of outcomes. First efforts to standardise the collection of PROs have been initiated, but require further harmonisation between central players. Additional knowledge on rarely reported PRO areas (e.g. (social) participation, social networks) may lead to their consideration in health services provision.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017060825.

Background: Current research acknowledges the relevance of the emotional safety of people living with dementia. However, available evidence regarding this topic is limited. A comprehensive view of this topic that equally considers the perspectives of people living in an early stage of dementia, relatives, and public stakeholders is lacking. Objective: This study aimed to obtain a multiperspective view of emotional safety in the context of dementia in the living environment. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted based on data collected through semi-structured guided interviews (n = 14), focus groups (n = 3), guided feedback, and participatory approaches. People living in an early stage of dementia (N = 6), relatives of people living with dementia (N = 11), and public stakeholders (N = 15) were included. Results: Considering “social togetherness”, “personal condition”, “health”, “physical environment”, and “society” in the light of “living and learning in relations” are preconditions for understanding emotional safety in the context of dementia. “Living and learning in relations” refers to the interaction of people in the context of dementia and relations to the topic of dementia. The focus lies on the (collective) learning. The individuality of each person and his or her situation is central, related to dementia-related, psychosocial, biographical, physical, and economic factors. Conclusion: Our study highlights the relevance of research on emotional safety in the context of dementia. Approaches to improving the emotional safety of people living in an early stage of dementia should consider the complex situations of each target group in relation to each other at the micro, meso, and macro levels.

ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the perception of the implementation success of reporting and learning systems in German hospitals, the perceived relevance of the implementation outcomes and whether and how these implementation outcomes are monitored. An reporting and learning system is a tool used worldwide for patient safety that identifies and analyses critical events, errors, risks and near misses in healthcare.MethodsA pretested exploratory cross-sectional online survey was conducted with reporting and learning system experts from 51 acute care hospitals. For communicative validation, the results were discussed in person in an expert panel discussion (N=23).ResultsFifty-three per cent (n=27) of the participants (N=51) of the online survey perceived that their reporting and learning system was being comprehensively and successfully implemented. However, no service or patient outcomes were reported to ultimately capture the concept of implementation success. Most of the participants reported a (high) relevance of the implementation outcomes’ acceptability and sustainability. In total, 44 measures were provided to monitor implementation outcomes. However, most of the quantitative measures were based on the (relative) number of entered reports. Qualitative measures were reported in relation to the ‘quality of the report’. In general, the measures were poorly specified.ConclusionThere is an underestimated need to develop validated ‘implementation patient safety indicator(s) (sets)’ to monitor implementation outcomes of reporting and learning systems. We also identified a potential need to facilitate awareness of the concept of implementation success and its relevance for patient safety. Drafts of indicators that could be used as a starting point for the further development of ‘implementation patient safety indicators’ were provided.