Background: A bundle is a set of three to five evidence-based interventions designed to improve the quality and outcomes of care processes. Numerous international studies have evaluated the effectiveness of Bundles/Care Bundles (BCB) in reducing morbidity and mortality. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has defined the concept of a bundle but has not outlined the development process. Objective: To identify the BCB development process in clinical risk scenarios from September 2005 to September 2023. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to identify studies describing the BCB development process in managing clinical risk situations. The databases consulted included PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL, along with manual searches on institutional websites. Relevant studies concerning the BCB development process were included. Results: A total of 1372 studies were retrieved, of which 16 were included. Duplicates were removed, and titles and abstracts were analyzed. The identified methods for BCB development include IHI guidelines, expert opinions, international guidelines, and flowcharts. The most common BCBs relate to the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia, surgical site infections, catheter-associated infections, and sepsis. Conclusions: This study has identified the development processes of Care Bundles (BCBs) in clinical risk scenarios, highlighting how these tools facilitate compliance monitoring among members of the healthcare team. The review has revealed effective methods for designing evidence-based BCBs. However, the scarcity of studies on the methodology for developing BCBs is a limitation, suggesting the need for further research. In Italy, there is a growing interest in the use of care packages. It is essential to encourage research that optimizes the effectiveness of intervention strategies.

Aim(s): To adapt and validate the HSOPS 2 instrument for the Italian context and to describe the current patient safety culture amongst healthcare personnel working in Italian hospitals. Design: Cross‐sectional study. Methods: We adapted and validated the HSOPS 2 instrument following the COSMIN guidelines: we performed a forward‐backward translation , calculated the content validity index, evaluated face validity, acceptability (percentage of participants responding to all items on the questionnaire and to every specific item), construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis), and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha for each dimension). We then performed a cross‐sectional study following the guidelines of the original instrument: we categorised the responses into “positive,” “negative,” and “midpoints.” For each dimension we calculated the average percentage of positive responses. We repeated this process, dividing the responses by various sample characteristics (e.g., profession), and compared them using the chi‐square test. Data were collected between April and November 2023. Results: A total of 633 hospital personnel participated in the survey, and 473 completed the questionnaire in its entirety. The dimensions of “teamwork”, “supervisor”, “manager”, or “clinical leader support”, and “communication about error” emerged as dimensions with higher percentages of positive responses, while those that received lower percentages were “hospital management support for patient safety”, “staffing and work pace”, and “response to error”. We identified statistically significant differences in many dimensions between gender, profession, and clinical inpatient units. Conclusions: These findings provide a comprehensive overview of challenges and opportunities within the healthcare sector as regards patient safety culture and can inform the development of targeted interventions aimed at improving patient safety across healthcare organisations. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: Proper assessment of safety culture, one of the main indicators of patient safety, can inform the development of effective strategies and interventions to enhance patient safety. Impact: What problem did the study address? To effectively assess patient safety culture, it is essential to use valid and reliable tools. It is crucial to proactively assess patient safety culture in hospital personnel, whether employed in clinical units, in management, or in support services, to develop initiatives aimed at improving patient safety. What were the main findings? The use of the adapted and validated version of the HSOPS 2 will produce valid and reliable evidence on patient safety culture. Perception of patient safety culture differs amongst respondents according to gender, profession, clinical setting. The dimensions of “hospital management support for patient safety”, “staffing and work pace”, and “response to error” were identified as those with the greatest need for improvement. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? Patient safety heavily impacts care at every level; therefore, this study could have an impact on healthcare organisations as well as healthcare workers, patients, and their families. By making available an instrument that can contribute to a proper assessment of patient safety culture, this study might contribute to the development of appropriate strategies and targeted interventions to improve patient safety, quality of care and satisfaction while decreasing adverse events and related costs. Reporting Method: The COSMIN guidelines were used for the validation of the instrument; the STROBE reporting guidelines were used for the cross‐sectional study. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution.

Background: Italy, particularly the northern region of Lombardy, has experienced very high rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Several indicators, i.e., the number of new positive cases, deaths and hospitalizations, have been used to monitor virus spread, but all suffer from biases. The aim of this study was to evaluate an alternative data source from Emergency Medical Service (EMS) activities for COVID-19 monitoring. Methods: Calls to the emergency number (112) in Lombardy (years 2015–2022) were studied and their overlap with the COVID-19 pandemic, influenza and official mortality peaks were evaluated. Modeling it as a counting process, a specific cause contribution (i.e., COVID-19 symptoms, the “signal”) was identified and enucleated from all other contributions (the “background”), and the latter was subtracted from the total observed number of calls using statistical methods for excess event estimation. Results: A total of 6,094,502 records were analyzed and filtered for respiratory and cardiological symptoms to identify potential COVID-19 patients, yielding 742,852 relevant records. Results show that EMS data mirrored the time series of cases or deaths in Lombardy, with good agreement also being found with seasonal flu outbreaks. Conclusions: This novel approach, combined with a machine learning predictive approach, could be a powerful public health tool to signal the start of disease outbreaks and monitor the spread of infectious diseases.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global health issue, and the WHO has made significant efforts in the development of tools for its monitoring. However, such tools are underutilized, due to limited knowledge, technical capacity, and scarcity of economic resources. AMR surveillance can be conducted using WHOnet and R, two free-of-charge software tools widely adopted in both clinical practice and scientific research. WHOnet is designed for managing laboratory data and antimicrobial susceptibility test results, while R is a programming language dedicated to statistical computing and data visualization. The combined use of these tools enables a reproducible workflow for retrospective AMR trend analysis. This paper provides step-by-step instructions on how to perform such analysis and also provides the respective R code. The described code and software results are shown using real-world data from an Italian hospital as an example. The standardization of the analysis process and the rapid availability of data on antimicrobial resistance are critical for both clinicians and public health professionals. They would allow for empirical decisions on antimicrobial treatment based on the specific epidemiological characteristics of the hospital or community setting.

Aim: To estimate national incidence, temporal trends, and regional variability of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers in Italy from 2018 to 2024 using age-adjusted models and regional estimates. Design: Retrospective nationwide observational study using hospital administrative data. Methods: All Italian Hospital Discharge Records (SDOs) for adults aged ≥ 18 years with hospital stays ≥ 5 days between 2018 and 2024 were analysed. Records with pre-existing or principal diagnoses of pressure ulcer and excluded MDC/DRG categories were omitted according to adapted AHRQ PSI 03 specifications. The final dataset represented eligible hospitalizations considered at risk for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. Crude and age-adjusted rates per 10,000 eligible discharges were estimated using logistic regression models. Results: Eligible discharges declined from approximately 1.7 million in 2018 to 1.4 million in 2020, increasing to 1.5 million in 2024. Within this population, coded hospital-acquired pressure ulcer events decreased from 3657 to 1888, then increased to 2728. Age-adjusted national rates ranged from 13.5 to 21.3 per 10,000 eligible discharges, showing temporal fluctuations during the study period, including a reduction during 2020–2021 followed by a gradual return toward pre-pandemic levels. Substantial regional variability was observed, with lower median annual adjusted rates in regions such as Friuli Venezia Giulia and Toscana and higher values in Lazio and Abruzzo. Conclusions: This nationwide analysis provides an initial descriptive overview of temporal and regional variability in coded hospital-acquired pressure ulcer events identified through an adapted PSI 03-based administrative indicator in Italy. The findings may contribute to future methodological discussion and exploratory development of nursing-sensitive indicators using national administrative healthcare databases. Implications for the profession and/or patient care: The integration of nursing-sensitive administrative indicators into national quality monitoring systems may represent an initial methodological area for future benchmarking activities, indicator validation processes, and descriptive evaluation of preventive care practices using national healthcare administrative databases. Impact (addressing): Problem: limited national evidence on hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and interregional variability in Italy. Main findings: temporal fluctuations in age-adjusted rates and persistent regional heterogeneity in coded pressure ulcer events. Impact: administrative data may represent a preliminary and exploratory source for the study of nursing-sensitive outcomes and patient safety indicators at national level.