Abstract
Abstract
Background
Healthcare professionals are sometimes forced to adjust their work to varying conditions leading to discrepancies between hospital protocols and daily practice. We will examine the discrepancies between protocols, ‘Work As Imagined’ (WAI), and daily practice ‘Work As Done’ (WAD) to determine whether these adjustments are deliberate or accidental. The discrepancies between WAI and WAD can be visualised using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM). FRAM will be applied to three patient safety themes: risk screening of the frail older patients; the administration of high-risk medication; and performing medication reconciliation at discharge.
Methods
A stepped wedge design will be used to collect data over 16 months. The FRAM intervention consists of constructing WAI and WAD models by analysing hospital protocols and interviewing healthcare professionals, and a meeting with healthcare professionals in each ward to discuss the discrepancies between WAI and WAD. Safety indicators will be collected to monitor compliance rates. Additionally, the potential differences in resilience levels among nurses before and after the FRAM intervention will be measured using the Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes) questionnaire. Lastly, we will monitor whether gaining insight into differences between WAI and WAD has led to behavioural and organisational change.
Discussion
This article will assess whether using FRAM to reveal possible discrepancies between hospital protocols (WAI) and daily practice (WAD) will improve compliance with safety indicators and employee resilience, and whether these insights will lead to behavioural and organisational change.
Trial registration
Netherlands Trial Register NL8778; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8778. Registered 16 July 2020. Retrospectively registered.
Funder
Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference72 articles.
1. Baines RJ, Langelaan M, De Bruijne M, Spreeuwenberg P, Wagner C. How effective are patient safety initiatives? A retrospective patient record review study of changes to patient safety over time. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(9):561–71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003702.
2. Baines RJ. Monitoring adverse events in hospitals: how safe are hospitals for patients? Vrije Universteit Amsterdam; 2018.
3. Langelaan M, Broekens MA, De Bruijne M, de Groot JF, Moesker MJ, Porte PJ, et al. Zorggerelateerde schade 2015/2016: Dossieronderzoek bij overleden patiënten in Nederlandse Ziekenhuizen (Adverse events 2015/2016: file research in Dutch Hospitals). 2017.
4. Benning A, Dixon-Woods M, Nwulu U, Ghaleb M, Dawson J, Barber N, et al. Multiple component patient safety intervention in English hospitals: controlled evaluation of second phase. BMJ. 2011;342(feb03 1):d199. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d199.
5. Bates DW, Singh H. Two decades since to err is human: an assessment of progress and emerging priorities in patient safety. Health Aff. 2018;37(11):1736–43. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0738.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献