Organisation of care for patients using direct oral anticoagulants

Gulpen, Anouk J W; Dijk, J K van; Damen, Nikki L.; Cate, Hugo Ten; Schalla, Simon; Cate‐Hoek, Arina J. ten

doi:10.1007/s12471-020-01436-8

Cited by 6 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of papers (n = 27; 87.1%) developed FRAM models representing the complexity of a process 2,7,18-21,23-25,27-41,43-45 . Models were most often (n = 25, 80.6%) informed by collecting qualitative data from front-line clinicians doing the everyday work of the process 2,7,10,19-21,23-25,27-34,36-41,43,45 . Four papers (12.9%) additionally collected qualitative data from patients to inform FRAM models 2,7,36,40 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10,29,34,35,39,43 Of the remaining literature, three (9.7%) records each were from Turkey 22,23,32 and Brazil, 18,38,44 and two (6.5%) from The Netherlands. 31,40 There was one (3.2%) each from Canada, 36 Italy, 28 Norway, 7 Scotland, 25 and Sweden. 45 The majority of the literature were research studies (n ¼ 27; 87.1%), with 16 of these (51.6%) being qualitative descriptive studies, 7,20,21,[24][25][26][27][28][31][32][33][34][35]37,40,41 four (12.9%) case studies, 19,29,34,39 four (12.9%) mixed methods studies, 22,23,30,36 and one (3.2%) each of secondary analysis of qualitative data 2 and grounded theory.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…31,40 There was one (3.2%) each from Canada, 36 Italy, 28 Norway, 7 Scotland, 25 and Sweden. 45 The majority of the literature were research studies (n ¼ 27; 87.1%), with 16 of these (51.6%) being qualitative descriptive studies, 7,20,21,[24][25][26][27][28][31][32][33][34][35]37,40,41 four (12.9%) case studies, 19,29,34,39 four (12.9%) mixed methods studies, 22,23,30,36 and one (3.2%) each of secondary analysis of qualitative data 2 and grounded theory. 18 Most of the research studies took place in a hospital, including three (9.7%) each in intensive care 21,27,41 and in the emergency department, 33,38,42 two (6.5%) in neonatal intensive care, 22,23 and one (3.2%) each in an operating room, 45 geriatric evaluation and management, 19 cardiosurgical department, 20 neurosurgery, 28 and a spine center.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…34 An additional nine (29.0%) studies were hospital-wide, examining more than one location in a hospital. 7,24,29,31,32,35,37,39,43 The remaining settings include the transition between the hospital and the community (n ¼ 3, 9.7%), 2,36,40 primary care (n ¼ 3; 9.7%), 10,18,25 radiopharmaceutical dispatch (n ¼ 1, 3.2%), 44 and a dental practice (n ¼ 1; 3.2%). 30 Detailed characteristics of the included papers are presented in Appendix III.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Functional Resonance Analysis Method as a health care research methodology: a scoping review

McGill

Smith

Morris

et al. 2021

JBI Evidence Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The objective of this review was to examine and map the literature on the use of the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) in health care research.Introduction:The FRAM is a resilient health care tool tat offers an approach to deconstruct complex systems by mapping health care processes to identify essential activities, how they are interrelated, and the variability that emerges, which can strengthen or compromise outcomes. Insight into how the FRAM has been operationalized in health care can help researchers and policy-makers understand how this method can be used to strengthen health care systems.Inclusion criteria:This scoping review included research and narrative reports on the application of the FRAM in any health care setting. The focus was to identify the key concepts and definitions used to describe the FRAM; the research questions, aims, and objectives used to study the FRAM; the methods used to operationalize the FRAM; the health care processes examined; and the key findings.Methods:A three-step search strategy was used to find published and unpublished research and narrative reports conducted in any country. Only papers published in English were considered. No limits were placed on the year of publication. CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Inspec Engineering Village, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health were searched originally in June 2020 and again in March 2021. A search of the gray literature was also completed in March 2021. Data were extracted from papers by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. Search results are summarized in a flow diagram, and the extracted data are presented in tabular format.Results:Thirty-one papers were included in the final review, and most (n = 25; 80.6%) provided a description or definition of the FRAM. Only two (n = 2; 6.5%) identified a specific research question. The remaining papers each identified an overall aim or objective in applying the FRAM, the most common being to understand a health care process (n = 20; 64.5%). Eleven different methods of data collection were identified, with interviews being the most common (n = 21; 67.7%). Ten different health care processes were explored, with safety and risk identification (n = 8; 25.8%) being the most examined process. Key findings identified the FRAM as a mapping tool that can identify essential activities or functions of a process (n = 20; 64.5%), how functions are interdependent or coupled (n = 18; 58.1%), the variability that can emerge within a process (n = 20; 64.5%), discrepancies between work as done and work as imagined (n = 20; 64.5%), the resiliency that exists within a process (n = 12; 38.7%), and the points of risk within a process (n = 10, 32.3%). Most papers (n = 27; 87.1%) developed models representing the complexity of a process.Conclusions:The FRAM aims to use a systems approach to examine complex processes and, as evidenced by this review, is suited for use within the health care domain. Interest in the FRAM is growing, with most of ...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Functional Resonance Analysis Method as a health care research methodology: a scoping review

McGill

Smith

Morris

et al. 2021

JBI Evidence Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The absence of a common electronic system and of a standard communication method makes a multidisciplinary collaboration even more difficult. 110 …”

Section: Integrated Management Of Atrial Fibrillation Patients and Th...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing adherence and persistence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy in atrial fibrillation

Farinha

Jones

Lip

2022

European Heart Journal Supplements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which can be prevented by the use of oral anticoagulation. Although non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have become the first choice for stroke prevention in the majority of patients with non-valvular AF, adherence and persistence to these medications remain suboptimal, which may translate into poor health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Factors influencing adherence and persistence have been suggested to be patient-related, physician-related, and healthcare system-related. In this review, we discuss factors influencing patient adherence and persistence to NOACs and possible problem solving strategies, especially involving an integrated care management, aiming for the improvement in patient outcomes and treatment satisfaction.

show abstract

Positive approaches to safety: Learning from what we do well

Plunkett

2022

Pediatric Anesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historical and current methodologies in patient safety are based on a deficit‐based model, defining safety as the absence of harm. This model is aligned with the human innate negativity bias and the general philosophy of health care: to diagnose and cure illness and to relieve suffering. While this approach has underpinned measurable progress in healthcare outcomes, a common narrative in the healthcare literature indicates that this progress is stalling or slowing. It is important to learn from and improve poor outcomes, but the deficit‐based approach has some theoretical limitations. In this article, we discuss some of the theoretical limitations of the prevailing approach to patient safety and introduce emerging, complementary approaches in this field of practice. Safety‐II and resilience engineering represent a new paradigm of safety, characterized by focusing on the entirety of work, with a system‐wide lens, rather than single incidents of failure. More overtly positive approaches are available, specifically focusing on success—both outstanding success and everyday success—including exnovation, appreciative inquiry, learning from excellence and positive deviance. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. The new methods described in this article are not intended as replacements of the current methods, rather they are presented as complementary tools, designed to allow the reader to take a balanced and holistic view of patient safety.

show abstract

Organisation of care for patients using direct oral anticoagulants

Cited by 6 publications

References 24 publications

The Functional Resonance Analysis Method as a health care research methodology: a scoping review

The Functional Resonance Analysis Method as a health care research methodology: a scoping review

Optimizing adherence and persistence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy in atrial fibrillation

Positive approaches to safety: Learning from what we do well

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About