Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the prevalence of medication errors (MEs) and the factors affecting them among nurses of hospitals affiliated to Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences (KUMS) in 2016. Design/methodology/approach This is a cross-sectional and descriptive-analytic study. In total, 503 nurses were selected using census method from six hospitals affiliated to KUMS. A self-constructed questionnaire was employed to collect information on nurses’ socio-demographic characteristics (6 items), the prevalence and type of MEs (21 items) and their perceptions about the main causes of MEs (40 items). Data were collected from August 15 to October 15, 2016. In addition, nonparametric and linear regression tests were used to describe the descriptive statistics and analyze the data. Findings The response rate was 73 percent and the monthly reported MEs per nurse was 6.27±11.95. Giving medication at non-scheduled time (28.4 percent), giving multiple oral medications together (22.4 percent) and giving painkillers after operation without physician’s prescription (15.3 percent) were three types of repetitive MEs, respectively. Gender, work experience, and having a second job affected the total number of MEs. “Long and unconventional nursing shifts,” “changing the dosage of medications for patients under observation due to multiple consultations and different doctors’ orders” as well as “failure to give feedback about the causes of errors to nurses by supervisors” were the three prioritized factors for MEs. Originality/value There is a need to reduce MEs in order to improve patient safety. It seems that in order to reduce MEs, systemic and managerial reforms such as reducing the working hours and workload of nurses, giving feedback about the causes of MEs to nurses, and using initiatives to reduce the stress in nurses are necessary.

Background: Hip, vertebral and wrist fractures are the most common consequences of osteoporosis. This study aimed at analyzing the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide (CinnoPar®), compared with alendronate and risedronate, in the treatment of women aged 60 and over with postmenopausal osteoporosis in Iran. Methods: A decision tree model with a 2-year time horizon was used to compare treatment with teriparatide (CinnoPar®) with the following treatment strategies: two years of treatment with alendronate and two years of treatment with risedronate in women aged 60 years and over or those at risk of osteoporosis. Cost per QALY was calculated for 3 treatment strategies from the model. After base case analysis, one-way sensitivity analysis was performed on key parameters of the model to assess their impact on the study results and the cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies and the model robustness. TreeAge Pro 2006 software was used for modeling and data analysis. Results: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of alendronate and teriparatide than risedronate (base treatment) were US$- 2178.03 and US$483,783.67 per QALY, respectively. Therefore, the dominant and cost-effective treatment option was alendronate. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the impact of annual 25% increase or decrease in the teriparatide cost on its ICER was remarkable. Also, reducing the discount rate from 0.03 to 0.0 had the greatest impact on the ICER of the teriparatide. Conclusion: The treatment strategy of teriparatide is more expensive than risedronate and alendronate and is associated with very little increase in QALYs. A significant reduction in teriparatide price and a limit in its use only for high-risk women and for acute and short-term treatment courses can contribute to its cost-effectiveness.

Background: Standards of Joint Commission International emphasize on the organizational performance level in basic functional domains including patient right, patient care, medical safety and infection control. These standards are focused on two principles: expectations of the actual organizational performance and assessment of organizational capabilities to provide high quality and safe health care services. The aim of this study is to evaluate the possibility of improvement in Access to Care and Continuity of Care for patients (ACC) in teaching hospitals of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in hospitals affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences during 2012. Data collection was performed using author-designed questionnaire of "Access to Care and Continuity of Care patients" based on JCI standards (2013). A total of 171 questionnaires were sent to 26 hospitals and 154 (90%) questionnaires were successfully completed and used for data analysis. The questionnaire was reviewed by experts and the Cronbach's alpha was calculated to be 0.967. The effects of the two variables of hospital type (general, specialty) and the number of beds on mean scores of ACC standards and each of its domains were analyzed using T-test or Mann-Whitney test depending on the distribution due to Kolmogorov-Smirnov test result. Results: In general, the mean of ACC standards was found comprehendible and applicable by 82.3 (SD = 11) of the respondents. The highest and lowest mean scores of ACC questions belonged to hospitals H21 (90 ± 6) and H14 (67 ± 12), respectively. There were not any significant effects of hospital type and the number of beds on the ACC scores. Conclusion: There was not any important effect of hospital type and bed numbers on ACC, although there was a 9%-15% possibility of improvement in accreditation scores of ACC standards in hospitals of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. A complete accreditation score in this domain didn't seem achievable in these hospitals. However, it is proposed that future managerial planning of the studied hospitals lead to a complete accreditation score.

Introduction: Various pay for performance (PFP) models have been used for different purposes in many countries. The present study aimed to investigate the general framework and feasibility of the PFP program that was implemented in Iran (IR-PFP). Methodology: In 2016, a document analysis was performed to achieve the original framework, and to evaluate its validity with the help of 2 expert panels, and both phases were managed using a four-stage Hermeneutic cycle. Findings:The results of reviewing the documentation revealed that the framework required some prerequisites and determining the PFP of the department and individuals. The expert panels confirmed these 3 components, however, a fourth component namely determining the payment time was added to the model. In addition, the status of the key factors in the design and implementation of the program was reported. Conclusions: The model prerequisites proved helpful in considering the work diversity in hospitals. Furthermore, determining the PFP in 2 stages allowed the inclusion of more indicators in the structure of the program, however, it seems that determining the payment time in 3 months has not been practical for the Iranian health system. The framework has some instruments to strengthen teamwork and decentralize the human resources control and performance measurement in hospitals, however, hospital managers should always be careful about the unwanted side effects.

No abstract