February 25, 2019
|
February 27, 2019
|
August 28, 2020
|
September 2, 2019
|
December 2021 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
|
- Core competencies and preventable adverse events - specialists [ Time Frame: 16 Months ]
The core competencies of all specialists will improve measurably. Furthermore, the number of preventable adverse events (pAEs) and their associated costs should be significantly changed over time.
- Core competencies surrounding communication - patients and relatives [ Time Frame: 16 Months ]
It is expected that patients/accompanying persons in the intervention group will (1) measurably improve their communication competencies with skilled employees after the intervention compared to those giving birth/accompanying persons in the control group, and (2) a higher expectation of self-efficacy in communication with skilled employees will arise. In addition, it is expected that (3) the number and severity of preventable adverse events (pAEs) in the intervention group will be measurably reduced compared to the number and severity of preventable adverse events in the control group.
- Usability and effectiveness of the digital communication app [ Time Frame: 16 Months ]
The use of a digital communication app will lead to a significantly changed number, severity and cost of preventable adverse events (pAEs) in the intervention group compared to the intervention group without an app.
|
- SACCIA core competencies and preventable adverse events - specialists [ Time Frame: 16 Months ]
The SACCIA core competencies of all specialists will improve measurably. Furthermore, the number of severities of avoidable adverse events and their associated costs should be significantly reduced longnitudinally.
- SACCIA core competencies and communication - patients and relatives [ Time Frame: 16 Months ]
It is expected that patients/accompanying persons in the intervention group will develop significantly higher SACCIA competencies in communication with skilled workers after the intervention compared to those giving birth/accompanying persons in the control group (1), and (2) a higher expectation of self-efficacy in communication with skilled workers will arise. In addition, it is expected that (3) the number and severity of avoidable adverse events in the intervention group will be significantly reduced compared to the number and severity of avoidable adverse events in the control group.
- Use of the digital SACCIA app [ Time Frame: 16 Months ]
The use of a digital SACCIA app will lead to a significantly higher reduction in the number, severity and cost of avoidable adverse events in the intervention group compared to the intervention group without an app.
|
|
- Proximal outcomes to the online training [ Time Frame: 16 months ]
outcome expectancy, intentions, action and coping plans, behavior, self-efficacy, patient satisfaction, employee satisfaction
- Covariables of the training and preventable adverse events (pAEs) [ Time Frame: 16 months ]
barriers and resources
|
Not Provided
|
Not Provided
|
Not Provided
|
|
Communication and Patient Safety in Gynecology and Obstetrics - Study Protocol of an Intervention Study
|
"Sufficiency, Accuracy, Clarity, Contextualization, and Interpersonal Adaptation - Safe, Digitally Supported Communication in Gynecology and Obstetrics: TeamBaby"
|
The purpose of this project with pregnant women and their relatives is to improve communication between all parties involved in order to increase sustainable patient's safety. To this end, clinical staff, expectant mothers and their partners as well as relatives will be trained in personal sessions. The aim is to improve their ability to communicate more confidently with each other. In addition, an app will be developed to support all participants in their communication with each other and in overcoming difficulties in everyday hospital life. The project contributes to reduce the frequency of preventable adverse events (pAEs) in gynecology and obstetrics and to increase patients' satisfaction with their treatment. Data will be collected in three study phases: 1. implementation phase - online training (observations, interviews, focus groups) incl. retrospective cohort study and pre-experimental study pre/post-test (interviews, analysis of hospital data); 2. effectiveness study with randomized controlled study design (interviews); 3. implementation of the app (observations, interviews, focus groups) as well as case-control study (interviews, analysis of hospital data).
|
Phase 1: Needs assessment, retrospective cohort study and pre-experimental study
The concept of needs assessment is based on a previous approach, which aims to implement the safety of patient transfers in intensive care units. This should lead to a comprehensive understanding of the beneficial and inhibitory conditions as well as potentials for the implementation of the intervention in the field (e.g., how different communication models competencies can be integrated beyond training into clinical practice; possible options): diaries, regular e-mails with tips on practical application, etc.). Observations for the ethnographic analyses are recorded in a standardized observation protocol, focus groups and interviews are conducted with partially standardized guidelines with at least one person from each occupational group in order to gain as comprehensive an impression as possible of possible resources and barriers for the implementation of the intervention. The data will then be analyzed in terms of content using an inductive approach and used to develop the training. Migration background will be considered exploratively in the data collection and testing as well as participatory in the app development (i.e. it will be ensured that patients and accompanying persons with migration background will also be included in the development). Different communication models competencies and tailoring based on the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) will also be integrated into the training. A short manual for practical support and written documentation of the training process will be prepared, also to avoid failure of implementation. The online training will be offered in the pre-experimental study to all professionals at both intervention sites. The aim is to investigate the connection between training participation and preventable Adverse Events (pAEs), to observe mechanisms of action and to create a basis for the implementation of phase 2. The study has a one-group, pre-/post-design. The study includes all specialists (e.g. doctors, nurses, midwives, obstetricians) at both locations (full utilization) with a total of N = 140 participants. Specialists are trained in interdisciplinary groups of 10 to 12 participants. All target criteria are shown in Table 4.
Implementation phase: Research questions, methods, study population and target criteria Stage Research question Method Target group/Data source Outcome A What is the prevalence of pAEs? Monitoring protocols and routine data Anonymous routine data of the hospital from 2018, Mixed Methods study Quality indicators: Reporting according to safe communication, pAEs, retrospective cost analyses of pAEs B What are effective interventions to optimize communication in everyday hospital life? Updating the status of applications Pubmed, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database Overview of effective interventions and effect strengths C What is the adherence for equivalent patient safety measures (e.g. hand hygiene)? Questionnaire All employees at both intervention sites Adherence to patient safety measures; relationships between adherence and quality indicators D What are possible resources and barriers for the implementation of an intervention in order to optimize communication in everyday hospital life? Ethnographic observation; guideline-based individual and focus group interviews Physicians, nursing staff, training assistants, psychologists, midwives Classify resources and barriers E What is an appropriate strategy to implement effective interventions to optimize communication? Triangulation of results from previous phases Matching of data from interviews, focus groups and questionnaires with evidence from the literature Implementation strategy, regarding resources and barriers in implementing the intervention to patient safety Note: pAEs = preventable adverse events
Since the aim is to achieve full utilization, no inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined. Differences between the measurement times are checked using linear and general mixed models, initial values of the first measurement time are taken into account as covariates. Clinics are modeled as a fixed effect. For the entire analysis, corresponding confidence intervals of 95 % are determined. To calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) between the two measurement points, the non-standardized regression coefficients are standardized to the pooled standard deviation of the observed measured values. According to Cohen's recommendations, SMDs are interpreted as follows: small effect by SMD = 0.2; medium effect by SMD = 0.5; large effect by SMD = 0.8. The odds ratio of binary outcomes is subjected to a logit transformation to calculate effect strengths. To check whether the intervention effect on the primary target criterion is moderated by external variables, reciprocal interaction terms are considered in the model estimation. Continuous moderators are standardized by z-transformation. The estimated parameter of the interaction between the z-transformed continuous variable and the effect estimator of the group difference thus represents the additional intervention effect if the potential moderator increases by a standard deviation. Participants are only included in the analysis if they participate in the corresponding follow-up online survey and are analyzed according to intention to treat. Differences are interpreted as significant when the p-value of a two-sided test is <0.05.
Phase 2: Quasi-experimental efficacy study
In Phase 2, the effectiveness of the communication intervention for the target group of women giving birth/family members is assessed using the gold standard, i.e. randomized control trial (RCT). In each institution, four employees are enabled to train patients and their relatives on the short manual developed to teach different communication models competencies. When a woman gives birth and her relatives are admitted, they are randomly assigned to a training group (IG) or a control group (CG). The pAEs are collected on a person-specific basis (anonymized) and coded in parallel. With an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%, a sample of N = 352 is necessary (to be analyzed IG: N = 176; CG: N = 176) in order to be able to prove an effect of d = 0.3. With an assumed drop-out of 20%, N = 424 participants (to be recruited IG: N = 212; CG: N = 212) would have to be recruited (recruitment sample). The target criteria are evaluated statistically and clinically as in phase 1. Group differences are checked by means of linear and general mixed models, initial values of the first measurement point are considered as covariates. Clinics are modelled as fixed effects. For the entire analysis, corresponding confidence intervals of 95 % are determined. To calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) between the two measurement points, the non-standardized regression coefficients are standardized to the pooled standard deviation of the observed measured values. According to Cohen's recommendations, SMDs are interpreted as follows: small effect by SMD = 0.2; medium effect by SMD = 0.5; large effect by SMD = 0.8. The odds ratio of binary outcomes is subjected to a logit transformation to calculate effect strengths. To check whether the primary target criterion is moderated by external variables, reciprocal interaction terms are considered in the model estimation. Continuous moderators are standardized by z-transformation. The estimated parameter of the interaction between the z-transformed continuous variable and the effect estimator of the group difference thus represents the additional intervention effect if the potential moderator increases by one standard deviation. Participants are only included in the analysis if they participate in the corresponding follow-up online survey and are analyzed according to intention to treat. Differences are interpreted as significant when the p-value of a two-sided test is <0.05.
Phase 3: Implementation of the app and case-control study
From all findings in phases 1 and 2, the digital app will be developed in a participatory and theory-driven way. The aim is to determine the extent to which the app supports secure communication processes among specialists and patients/relatives in their daily work and thus leads to a reduction in pAEs. The app helps users (skilled workers, mothers and relatives) to prepare for the interview and to cope with possible problems during the interview. Subsequently, a monitoring takes place in which communication with focus on (1) the own role, (2) the role of the communication partner as well as (3) the resonance (feeling of the uniform understanding) is evaluated. In this way, dyadic self-reported and externally reported data are collected and learning from the communication of all participants is ensured. Controls form the data of the participants of both intervention arms of the preceding RCT study from phase 2 (historical control groups; No-Treatment CG analysis: N = 176; No-Treatment CG recruited: N = 212; Treatment CG analysis: N = 176; Treatment CG recruited: N = 212). This allows a first limited statement about the possible effect of a process supporting digital app. With an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%, a sample of N = 352 (analysis sample) is required to be able to prove an effect of d = 0.3. Due to the historical control group, only N = 176 participants need to be analyzed for the intervention group (IG analysis). Assuming a drop-out of 20%, N = 424 participants would have to be recruited (recruitment sample). Due to the historical control group only N = 212 participants have to be recruited for the intervention group (IGrecruited). The target criteria (primary: pAEs; Secondary: pAE costs, different communication models competencies, training-proximal outcomes such as outcome expectations, behavioral intention, action and coping planning, behavior, self-efficacy expectation, adherence safety culture, perceived safety culture, treatment satisfaction; covariates: sociodemographic characteristics incl. migration status) are evaluated statistically and clinically as in Phase 1 and 2. Group differences are checked by means of linear and general mixed models, initial values of the first measurement point are considered as covariates. Clinics are modeled as fixed effects. For the entire analysis, corresponding confidence intervals of 95 % are determined. To calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) between the two measurement points, the non-standardized regression coefficients are standardized to the pooled standard deviation of the observed measured values. According to Cohen's recommendations, SMDs are interpreted as follows: small effect by SMD = 0.2; medium effect by SMD = 0.5; large effect by SMD = 0.8. The odds ratio of binary outcomes is subjected to a logit transformation to calculate effect strengths. To check whether the primary target criterion is moderated by external variables, reciprocal interaction terms are considered in the model estimation. Continuous moderators are standardized by z-transformation. The estimated parameter of the interaction between the z-transformed continuous variable and the effect estimator of the group difference thus represents the additional intervention effect if the potential moderator increases by one standard deviation. Participants are only included in the analysis if they participate in the corresponding follow-up survey and are analyzed according to intention to treat. Differences are interpreted as significant when the p-value of a two-sided test is <0.05.
|
Interventional
|
Not Applicable
|
Allocation: Randomized Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor) Primary Purpose: Prevention
|
Pregnancy Related
|
Behavioral: Intervention Group (IG)
The developed short manual for the teaching of different communication models competences will enable those who have been arbitrarily assigned to the intervention group and their relatives to develop secure communication competences. The intervention group will also have access to the digital app.
|
- Experimental: Intervention Group (IG)
Those who give birth and relatives who have been arbitrarily assigned to the control group receive online training on different communication models competencies and will gain access to the digital app.
Intervention: Behavioral: Intervention Group (IG)
- No Intervention: No Intervention
Those who give birth and relatives who have been arbitrarily assigned to the control group do not receive any training on different communication models competencies and will not gain access to the digital app. The control group will receive a paper-pencil version.
|
- Pronovost PJ, Holzmueller CG, Ennen CS, Fox HE. Overview of progress in patient safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;204(1):5-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.001. Review.
- Bartlett G, Blais R, Tamblyn R, Clermont RJ, MacGibbon B. Impact of patient communication problems on the risk of preventable adverse events in acute care settings. CMAJ. 2008 Jun 3;178(12):1555-62. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.070690.
- Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Oct;13 Suppl 1:i85-90.
- Hickson GB, Clayton EW, Githens PB, Sloan FA. Factors that prompted families to file medical malpractice claims following perinatal injuries. JAMA. 1992 Mar 11;267(10):1359-63.
- Olde Bekkink M, Farrell SE, Takayesu JK. Interprofessional communication in the emergency department: residents' perceptions and implications for medical education. Int J Med Educ. 2018 Oct 25;9:262-270. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5bb5.c111.
- Lyndon A, Zlatnik MG, Wachter RM. Effective physician-nurse communication: a patient safety essential for labor and delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Aug;205(2):91-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.04.021. Epub 2011 Apr 16. Review.
- Antony J, Zarin W, Pham B, Nincic V, Cardoso R, Ivory JD, Ghassemi M, Barber SL, Straus SE, Tricco AC. Patient safety initiatives in obstetrics: a rapid review. BMJ Open. 2018 Jul 6;8(7):e020170. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020170. Review.
- Chang YS, Coxon K, Portela AG, Furuta M, Bick D. Interventions to support effective communication between maternity care staff and women in labour: A mixed-methods systematic review. Midwifery. 2018 Apr;59:4-16. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.12.014. Epub 2017 Dec 27. Review.
- Hannawa AF. Disclosing medical errors to patients: effects of nonverbal involvement. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Mar;94(3):310-3. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.11.007. Epub 2013 Nov 28.
- Zech A, Gross B, Jasper-Birzele C, Jeschke K, Kieber T, Lauterberg J, Lazarovici M, Prückner S, Rall M, Reddersen S, Sandmeyer B, Scholz C, Stricker E, Urban B, Zobel A, Singer I. Evaluation of simparteam - a needs-orientated team training format for obstetrics and neonatology. J Perinat Med. 2017 Apr 1;45(3):333-341. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2016-0091.
- Berg CJ, Harper MA, Atkinson SM, Bell EA, Brown HL, Hage ML, Mitra AG, Moise KJ Jr, Callaghan WM. Preventability of pregnancy-related deaths: results of a state-wide review. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Dec;106(6):1228-34. Review.
- Tanaka K, Eriksson L, Asher R, Obermair A. Incidence of adverse events, preventability and mortality in gynaecological hospital admissions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Apr;59(2):195-200. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12937. Epub 2019 Jan 20.
- Panagioti M, Geraghty K, Johnson J, Zhou A, Panagopoulou E, Chew-Graham C, Peters D, Hodkinson A, Riley R, Esmail A. Association Between Physician Burnout and Patient Safety, Professionalism, and Patient Satisfaction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 1;178(10):1317-1331. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3713. Erratum in: JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Apr 1;179(4):596. Retraction in: JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 1;180(7):931.
- Welp A, Meier LL, Manser T. Emotional exhaustion and workload predict clinician-rated and objective patient safety. Front Psychol. 2015 Jan 22;5:1573. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01573. eCollection 2014.
- Welp A, Meier LL, Manser T. The interplay between teamwork, clinicians' emotional exhaustion, and clinician-rated patient safety: a longitudinal study. Crit Care. 2016 Apr 19;20(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1282-9.
- Morony S, Weir K, Duncan G, Biggs J, Nutbeam D, Mccaffery KJ. Enhancing communication skills for telehealth: development and implementation of a Teach-Back intervention for a national maternal and child health helpline in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Mar 7;18(1):162. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2956-6.
- Avula R, Menon P, Saha KK, Bhuiyan MI, Chowdhury AS, Siraj S, Haque R, Jalal CS, Afsana K, Frongillo EA. A program impact pathway analysis identifies critical steps in the implementation and utilization of a behavior change communication intervention promoting infant and child feeding practices in Bangladesh. J Nutr. 2013 Dec;143(12):2029-37. doi: 10.3945/jn.113.179085. Epub 2013 Sep 25.
- Tan DJA, Sultana R, Han NLR, Sia ATH, Sng BL. Investigating determinants for patient satisfaction in women receiving epidural analgesia for labour pain: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018 May 9;18(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s12871-018-0514-8.
- Weis J, Zoffmann V, Egerod I. Improved nurse-parent communication in neonatal intensive care unit: evaluation and adjustment of an implementation strategy. J Clin Nurs. 2014 Dec;23(23-24):3478-89. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12599. Epub 2014 Apr 3.
- Bolognesi M, Nigg CR, Massarini M, Lippke S. Reducing obesity indicators through brief physical activity counseling (PACE) in Italian primary care settings. Ann Behav Med. 2006 Apr;31(2):179-85.
- Omura M, Maguire J, Levett-Jones T, Stone TE. The effectiveness of assertiveness communication training programs for healthcare professionals and students: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Nov;76:120-128. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.09.001. Epub 2017 Sep 5. Review.
- Haug S, Meyer C, Dymalski A, Lippke S, John U. Efficacy of a text messaging (SMS) based smoking cessation intervention for adolescents and young adults: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2012 Jan 19;12:51. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-51.
- Lippke S, Fleig L, Wiedemann AU, Schwarzer R. A Computerized Lifestyle Application to Promote Multiple Health Behaviors at the Workplace: Testing Its Behavioral and Psychological Effects. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 1;17(10):e225. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4486.
- Duan YP, Liang W, Guo L, Wienert J, Si GY, Lippke S. Evaluation of a Web-Based Intervention for Multiple Health Behavior Changes in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease in Home-Based Rehabilitation: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Nov 19;20(11):e12052. doi: 10.2196/12052.
- Storm V, Dörenkämper J, Reinwand DA, Wienert J, De Vries H, Lippke S. Effectiveness of a Web-Based Computer-Tailored Multiple-Lifestyle Intervention for People Interested in Reducing their Cardiovascular Risk: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Apr 11;18(4):e78. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5147.
- Lippke S, Schwarzer R, Ziegelmann JP, Scholz U, Schüz B. Testing stage-specific effects of a stage-matched intervention: a randomized controlled trial targeting physical exercise and its predictors. Health Educ Behav. 2010 Aug;37(4):533-46. doi: 10.1177/1090198109359386. Epub 2010 Jun 14.
- Lippke S, Plotnikoff RC. Testing two principles of the Health Action Process Approach in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Health Psychol. 2014 Jan;33(1):77-84. doi: 10.1037/a0030182. Epub 2012 Oct 22.
- Lippke S, Corbet JM, Lange D, Parschau L, Schwarzer R. Intervention Engagement Moderates the Dose-Response Relationships in a Dietary Intervention. Dose Response. 2016 Mar 16;14(1):1559325816637515. doi: 10.1177/1559325816637515. eCollection 2016 Jan-Mar.
- Sprangers S, Dijkstra K, Romijn-Luijten A. Communication skills training in a nursing home: effects of a brief intervention on residents and nursing aides. Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Jan 20;10:311-9. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S73053. eCollection 2015.
- Zhang CQ, Zhang R, Schwarzer R, Hagger MS. A meta-analysis of the health action process approach. Health Psychol. 2019 Jul;38(7):623-637. doi: 10.1037/hea0000728. Epub 2019 Apr 11.
- Reyes Fernández B, Lippke S, Knoll N, Blanca Moya E, Schwarzer R. Promoting action control and coping planning to improve hand hygiene. BMC Public Health. 2015 Sep 25;15:964. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2295-z.
- Lhakhang P, Lippke S, Knoll N, Schwarzer R. Evaluating brief motivational and self-regulatory hand hygiene interventions: a cross-over longitudinal design. BMC Public Health. 2015 Feb 4;15:79. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1453-7.
- Ernsting A, Gellert P, Schneider M, Lippke S. A mediator model to predict workplace influenza vaccination behaviour--an application of the health action process approach. Psychol Health. 2013;28(5):579-92. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2012.753072. Epub 2012 Dec 24.
- Alders I, Smits C, Brand P, van Dulmen S. Does patient coaching make a difference in patient-physician communication during specialist consultations? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 May;100(5):882-896. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.12.029. Epub 2016 Dec 29. Review.
- Belkora J, Volz S, Loth M, Teng A, Zarin-Pass M, Moore D, Esserman L. Coaching patients in the use of decision and communication aids: RE-AIM evaluation of a patient support program. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 May 28;15:209. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0872-6.
- Dykes PC, Rozenblum R, Dalal A, Massaro A, Chang F, Clements M, Collins S, Donze J, Fagan M, Gazarian P, Hanna J, Lehmann L, Leone K, Lipsitz S, McNally K, Morrison C, Samal L, Mlaver E, Schnock K, Stade D, Williams D, Yoon C, Bates DW. Prospective Evaluation of a Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Outcomes in Intensive Care: The Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety Through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology Study. Crit Care Med. 2017 Aug;45(8):e806-e813. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002449.
- Ammentorp J, Graugaard LT, Lau ME, Andersen TP, Waidtløw K, Kofoed PE. Mandatory communication training of all employees with patient contact. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Jun;95(3):429-32. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.03.005. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
- Emani SS, Allan CK, Forster T, Fisk AC, Lagrasta C, Zheleva B, Weinstock P, Thiagarajan RR. Simulation training improves team dynamics and performance in a low-resource cardiac intensive care unit. Ann Pediatr Cardiol. 2018 May-Aug;11(2):130-136. doi: 10.4103/apc.APC_117_17.
- Forster AJ, Fung I, Caughey S, Oppenheimer L, Beach C, Shojania KG, van Walraven C. Adverse events detected by clinical surveillance on an obstetric service. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Nov;108(5):1073-83.
- Pettker CM. Systematic approaches to adverse events in obstetrics, Part I: Event identification and classification. Semin Perinatol. 2017 Apr;41(3):151-155. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2017.03.003. Epub 2017 May 23. Review.
- Ellenbecker CH, Byleckie JJ. Home Healthcare Nurses' Job Satisfaction Scale: refinement and psychometric testing. J Adv Nurs. 2005 Oct;52(1):70-8.
- Büssing A, Perrar KM. [Burnout measurement. Study of a German version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-D)]. Pflege Z. 1994 Mar;47(3):suppl 20-30. German.
- Stevenson RJ, Case TI, Hodgson D, Porzig-Drummond R, Barouei J, Oaten MJ. A scale for measuring hygiene behavior: development, reliability and validity. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Sep;37(7):557-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2009.01.003. Epub 2009 Apr 10.
- Hellings J, Schrooten W, Klazinga N, Vleugels A. Challenging patient safety culture: survey results. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2007;20(7):620-32.
- Nabhan A, Ahmed-Tawfik MS. Understanding and attitudes towards patient safety concepts in obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Sep;98(3):212-6. Epub 2007 Jul 5.
- Whittal A, Lippke S. Investigating patients with an immigration background in Canada: relationships between individual immigrant attitudes, the doctor-patient relationship, and health outcomes. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jan 12;16:23. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2695-8.
- Whittal A, Hanke K, Lippke S. Investigating acculturation orientations of patients with an immigration background and doctors in Canada: implications for medical advice adherence. Qual Life Res. 2017 May;26(5):1223-1232. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1438-8. Epub 2016 Oct 19.
- Hannawa AF, Roter DL. TRACEing the roots: a diagnostic "Tool for Retrospective Analysis of Critical Events". Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Nov;93(2):230-8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.019. Epub 2013 Jul 23. Review.
- Teunissen E, Gravenhorst K, Dowrick C, Van Weel-Baumgarten E, Van den Driessen Mareeuw F, de Brún T, Burns N, Lionis C, Mair FS, O'Donnell C, O'Reilly-de Brún M, Papadakaki M, Saridaki A, Spiegel W, Van Weel C, Van den Muijsenbergh M, MacFarlane A. Implementing guidelines and training initiatives to improve cross-cultural communication in primary care consultations: a qualitative participatory European study. Int J Equity Health. 2017 Feb 10;16(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0525-y.
- Meeks DW, Smith MW, Taylor L, Sittig DF, Scott JM, Singh H. An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Nov-Dec;21(6):1053-9. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002578. Epub 2014 Jun 20.
- van Dinter-Douma EE, de Vries NE, Aarts-Greven M, Stramrood CAI, van Pampus MG. Screening for trauma and anxiety recognition: knowledge, management and attitudes amongst gynecologists regarding women with fear of childbirth and postpartum posttraumatic stress disorder. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Aug;33(16):2759-2767. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1560409. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
- Taylor LJ, Adkins S, Hoel AW, Hauser J, Suwanabol P, Wood G, Anderson W, Branson C, Skube S, Johnson SK, Zelenski A, Tucholka JL, Campbell TC, Schwarze ML. Using Implementation Science to Adapt a Training Program to Assist Surgeons with High-Stakes Communication. J Surg Educ. 2019 Jan - Feb;76(1):165-173. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.05.015. Epub 2018 Jul 4.
- Karger A, Geiser F, Vitinius F, Sonntag B, Schultheis U, Hey B, Radbruch L, Ernstmann N, Petermann-Meyer A. Communication Skills Trainings: Subjective Appraisal of Physicians from Five Cancer Centres in North Rhine, Germany. Oncol Res Treat. 2017;40(9):496-501. doi: 10.1159/000479113. Epub 2017 Jul 28.
- Yu L, Kronen RJ, Simon LE, Stoll CRT, Colditz GA, Tuuli MG. Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean is associated with reduced risk of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2):200-210.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.09.017. Epub 2017 Sep 23. Review.
- Nigam A, Huising R, Golden BR. Improving hospital efficiency: a process model of organizational change commitments. Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Feb;71(1):21-42. doi: 10.1177/1077558713504464. Epub 2013 Oct 16.
- Bashour HN, Kanaan M, Kharouf MH, Abdulsalam AA, Tabbaa MA, Cheikha SA. The effect of training doctors in communication skills on women's satisfaction with doctor-woman relationship during labour and delivery: a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial in Damascus. BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 14;3(8). pii: e002674. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002674.
- Crofts JF, Bartlett C, Ellis D, Winter C, Donald F, Hunt LP, Draycott TJ. Patient-actor perception of care: a comparison of obstetric emergency training using manikins and patient-actors. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Feb;17(1):20-4. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2006.021873.
- Schrappe M. APS-Weißbuch Patientensicherheit. Sicherheit in der Gesundheitsversorgung: neu denken, gezielt verbessern [APS Report on Patient safety]. 1st ed. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2018.
- Lippke S, Wienert J, Keller FM, Derksen C, Welp A, Kötting L, Hofreuter-Gätgens K, Müller H, Louwen F, Weigand M, Ernst K, Kraft K, Reister F, Polasik A, Huener Nee Seemann B, Jennewein L, Scholz C, Hannawa A. Communication and patient safety in gynecology and obstetrics - study protocol of an intervention study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Nov 28;19(1):908. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4579-y.
|
|
Recruiting
|
140
|
952
|
March 31, 2022
|
December 2021 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
|
Inclusion Criteria:
- Expectant mother or patient in gynecology and obstetrics or social support providers (spouse/partner, relative, close friend) to be recipient of the training
- Professional in a gynecology and obstetrics hospital to be trainer of the patients and the social support providers
- Aged 18 years and above
- Healthy volunteers
- Declaration of consent for participation in the study
Exclusion Criteria:
- Not proficient in the German language and/ or does not have the capability of writing
- Severe cognitive deficits (unable to read/write/answer questions) and impairments due to diagnosed brain injuries, neurological disorders, etc.
- Insufficient corrected eyesight (patients must be able to read on the cell phone)
- Participation in another research study or intervention trial conducted in the clinic
- Younger than 18 years
- High risk, emergency case
- Withdraw of consent for participation in the study at any point in time
|
Sexes Eligible for Study: |
All |
|
18 Years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
|
Yes
|
|
Germany
|
|
|
NCT03855735
|
01VSF18023 ( Other Grant/Funding Number: The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) )
|
No
|
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: |
No |
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: |
No |
|
|
Prof. Dr. Sonia Lippke, Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
|
Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
|
- Aktionsbündnis Patientensicherheit
- Techniker Krankenkasse
- University Hospital Ulm
- The Innovation Fund
- University Hospital, Frankfurt
|
Principal Investigator: |
Sonia Lippke, Prof. Dr. |
Jacobs University Bremen, Germany |
|
Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
|
August 2020
|