Patient safety room of horrors: a novel method to assess medical students and entering residents' ability to identify hazards of hospitalisation

Farnan, Jeanne M.; Gaffney, Seán; Poston, Jason; Slawinski, Kris; Cappaert, Melissa; Kamin, Barry; Arora, Vineet M.

doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004621

Cited by 44 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[26][27][28] At the same time, PU risk may still be under-detected. 29 However, the proportions of these high-risk groups in acute hospital care appear to be lower compared to aged and longterm care settings. Evidence indicates that the majority of long-term care receivers is at a high PU risk due to a number of functional impairments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patient transfer, surgical procedures, and the involvement of many disciplines and professions have especially been identified as typical environmental PU risk factors in hospitals . At the same time, PU risk may still be under‐detected . However, the proportions of these high‐risk groups in acute hospital care appear to be lower compared to aged and long‐term care settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring the quality of pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic mapping review of quality indicators

Kottner

Hahnel

Lichterfeld-Kottner

et al. 2017

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic overview of available pressure ulcer prevention quality indicators and to evaluate the underlying empirical evidence. A systematic mapping review was conducted with combined searches in Embase and Medline, and websites of relevant institutions and organisations. The eligibility criteria were clear use of the term "quality indicator" regarding pressure ulcer prevention; English or German language; and all settings, populations, and types of resources, including articles, brochures, and online material. In total, n = 146 quality indicators were identified. Most indicators were published in the United States (n = 50). The majority of indicators was developed for the hospital setting (n = 102). Process indicators were the most common (n = 71), followed by outcome indicators (n = 49). Less than half of identified indicators appeared to be practically used. Evidence supporting the validity and reliability were reported for n = 25 and n = 30 indicators respectively. The high number of indicators demonstrate the importance of measuring pressure ulcer prevention quality. This is not an indicator of our ability to accurately measure and evaluate this construct. There is an urgent need to develop evidence-based and internationally comparable indicators to help improve patient care and safety worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the quality of pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic mapping review of quality indicators

Kottner

Hahnel

Lichterfeld-Kottner

et al. 2017

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nine papers were ultimately included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses (Farnan et al, 2016;Jansson et al, 2015;Ginsburg et al, 2014;Daud-Gollotti et al, 2011;Madigosky et al, 2006;Aboumatar et al, 2012;Müller et al, 2012;Paxton and Rubinfeld, 2010;Thomas et al, 2015). The search flowchart is shown in Figure 1 and an overview of the included papers is shown in Table 1.…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-technical skills assessments in undergraduate medical education: A focused BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 54

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many medical schools have implemented curricula to teach non-technical skills, a personal set of complex social and cognitive skills which are grounded in human factors safety industries in and out of health. Consensus on how to assess these skills is lacking. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the evidence regarding non-technical skills assessments in undergraduate medical education, to describe the tools used, learning outcomes and the validity, reliability and psychometrics of the instruments. Given the discrete context, a focussed review model is being deployed. Methods Studies describing assessment methods as either the focus of the study or having non-technical skills assessment as an outcome measure of the research were considered. A standardized search of online databases was conducted and consensus reached on included studies. Data extraction, quality assessment and content analysis were conducted per Best Evidence in Medical Education guidelines. Results Nine papers met the inclusion criteria. Assessment methods broadly fell into three categories: simulated clinical scenarios, objective structured clinical examinations, and questionnaires or written assessments. Details of methodology were synthesised to support readers developing their own materials. Tools to assess non-technical skills were often developed locally, in 4 response to specific educational interventions, without reference to conceptual frameworks. Consequently, the tools were rarely validated, limiting dissemination and replication. The majority of studies achieved outcomes modifying knowledge and skills of participants. Two studies resulted in behavioural change and one resulted in change in practice. Conclusions There were clear themes in content and broad categories in methods of assessments employed, with the OSCE identified as most able to assess multiple related skills at once. The quality of this evidence was poor due to lack of theoretical underpinning, with most assessments not part of normal process, but rather produced as a specific outcome measure for a teaching based study. Data on validity, reliability and learning outcomes was not available so these questions cannot be addressed at this time. Whilst the current literature forms a good starting position for educators developing materials, there is a need for future work to address these weaknesses as such tools are required across health education.

show abstract

“…13,14 Thus, 6 of us in our bridging leadership roles spend time in these areas by necessity. Examples of new curricula designed through our roles include the incorporation of a patient safety ''room of horrors'' simulation in GME boot camp at the University of Chicago and the University of Colorado, 15 the development of patient safety modules during intern orientation at the University of Kentucky, and centralized quality improvement training for fellows at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Strategies for faculty development within our institutions are all multipronged and have common themes (TABLE 2).…”

Section: Curriculum and Faculty Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging Leadership Roles in Quality and Patient Safety: Experience of 6 US Academic Medical Centers

Myers

Tess

McKinney

et al. 2017

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient safety room of horrors: a novel method to assess medical students and entering residents' ability to identify hazards of hospitalisation

Cited by 44 publications

References 12 publications

Measuring the quality of pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic mapping review of quality indicators

Measuring the quality of pressure ulcer prevention: A systematic mapping review of quality indicators

Non-technical skills assessments in undergraduate medical education: A focused BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 54

Bridging Leadership Roles in Quality and Patient Safety: Experience of 6 US Academic Medical Centers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About