Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

Adverse events (AEs) cause harm in patients and disturbance for the professionals involved in the event (second victims). This study assessed the impact of AEs in primary care (PC) and hospitals in Spain on second victims. A cross-sectional study was conducted. We carried out a survey based on a random sample of doctors and nurses from PC and hospital settings in Spain. A total of 1087 health professionals responded, 610 from PC and 477 from hospitals. A total of 430 health professionals (39.6%) had informed a patient of an error. Reporting to patients was carried out by those with the strongest safety culture (Odds Ratio –OR- 1.1, 95% Confidence Interval –CI- 1.0-1.2), nurses (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.3), those under 50 years of age (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and primary care staff (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9). A total of 381 (62.5%, 95% CI 59-66%) and 346 (72.5%, IC95% 69-77%) primary care and hospital health professionals, respectively, reported having gone through the second-victim experience, either directly or through a colleague, in the previous 5 years. The emotional responses were: feelings of guilt (521, 58.8%), anxiety (426, 49.6%), re-living the event (360, 42.2%), tiredness (341, 39.4%), insomnia (317, 38.0%) and persistent feelings of insecurity (284, 32.8%). In doctors, the most common responses were: feelings of guilt (OR 0.7 IC95% 0.6-0.8), re-living the event (OR 0.7, IC95% o.6-0.8), and anxiety (OR 0.8, IC95% 0.6-0.9), while nurses showed greater solidarity in terms of supporting the second victim, in both PC (p = 0.019) and hospital (p = 0.019) settings. Adverse events cause guilt, anxiety, and loss of confidence in health professionals. Most are involved in such events as second victims at least once in their careers. They rarely receive any training or education on coping strategies for this phenomenon.

Medication errors have been analyzed as a health professionals' responsibility (due to mistakes in prescription, preparation or dispensing). However, sometimes, patients themselves (or their caregivers) make mistakes in the administration of the medication. The epidemiology of patient medication errors (PEs) has been scarcely reviewed in spite of its impact on people, on therapeutic effectiveness and on incremental cost for the health systems. This study reviews and describes the methodological approaches and results of published studies on the frequency, causes and consequences of medication errors committed by patients at home. A review of research articles published between 1990 and 2014 was carried out using MEDLINE, Web-of-Knowledge, Scopus, Tripdatabase and Index Medicus. The frequency of PE was situated between 19 and 59%. The elderly and the preschooler population constituted a higher number of mistakes than others. The most common were: incorrect dosage, forgetting, mixing up medications, failing to recall indications and taking out-of-date or inappropriately stored drugs. The majority of these mistakes have no negative consequences. Health literacy, information and communication and complexity of use of dispensing devices were identified as causes of PEs. Apps and other new technologies offer several opportunities for improving drug safety.

Adverse events (AE) are also the cause of suffering in health professionals involved. This study was designed to identify and analyse organization-level strategies adopted in both primary care and hospitals in Spain to address the impact of serious AE on second and third victims. A cross-sectional study was conducted in healthcare organizations assessing: safety culture; health organization crisis management plans for serious AE; actions planned to ensure transparency in communication with patients (and relatives) who experience an AE; support for second victims; and protective measures to safeguard the institution’s reputation (the third victim). A total of 406 managers and patient safety coordinators replied to the survey. Deficient provision of support for second victims was acknowledged by 71 and 61 % of the participants from hospitals and primary care respectively; these respondents reported there was no support protocol for second victims in place in their organizations. Regarding third victim initiatives, 35 % of hospital and 43 % of primary care professionals indicated no crisis management plan for serious AE existed in their organization, and in the case of primary care, there was no crisis committee in 34 % of cases. The degree of implementation of second and third victim support interventions was perceived to be greater in hospitals (mean 14.1, SD 3.5) than in primary care (mean 11.8, SD 3.1) (p < 0.001). Many Spanish health organizations do not have a second and third victim support or a crisis management plan in place to respond to serious AEs.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

Background: There are doubts on whether patients feel that they have sufficient information for actively participating in clinical decisions.Objective: To describe the type of information that patients receive. To determine whether patients consider this information sufficient, and whether it contributes or not to improve clinical safety. To identify the barriers for patient participation in clinical decision making.Study Design: Cross‐sectional study with 764 patients and 327 physicians.Study Setting and participants: Fourteen health centres belonging to three primary care districts and three hospitals in Spain.Principal Findings: Just 35.1% (268) (95% CI 32.2, 39.1%) of patients preferred to have the last word in clinical decisions. Age (39 vs. 62%, P < 0.001) and severity of illness (38 vs. 46%, P = 0.002) increased the tendency to take a passive role. In 85.1% (650) (95% CI 83.3, 88.3%) of the cases, patients reported having received sufficient information. Lack of consultation time (29.6%, 95% CI 25.8, 32.5%) and patients' use of Internet or other sources (19.2%, 95% CI 16.4, 22.2%) were identified as new obstacles to doctor–patient communication by the patients. Only 19.6% (64) (95% CI 15.4, 24.2%) of doctors considered that they could intervene to involve patients in the decisions.Discussions and Conclusions: The majority of patients prefer the decisions to be made by their doctor, especially those with more severe illnesses, and older patients. Patients are not normally informed about medication interactions, precautions and foreseeable complications. The information provided by general practitioners does not seem to contribute enough to the patient involvement in clinical safety.