Comparing the application of two theoretical frameworks to describe determinants of adverse medical device event reporting: secondary analysis of qualitative interview data

Attitudes and barriers toward video visits in surgical care: Insights from a nationwide survey among surgeons

BACKGROUND

Surgeons rapidly adopted video visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, video visit use among surgeons has significantly declined, pointing to the need to better understand current attitudes and barriers to their use in surgical care.

METHODS

From August 2022 to March 2023, a nationwide survey was conducted among practicing surgeons in 6 specialties. The survey included multiple-choice and free-response questions based on an implementation determinants framework, covering demographics, provider, patient, and organizational factors.

RESULTS

A total of 170 surgeons responded (24% response rate). Overall, 67% of surgeons said their practice lacked motivation for video visit implementation. Additionally, 69% disagreed with using video visits as the sole means for preoperative surgical consultation, even with relevant medical history, labs, and imaging. Nearly 43% cited the need for a physical examination, whereas 58% of surgeons said video visits carried a greater malpractice risk than in-person visits. Other barriers included technological limitations, billing, and care quality concerns. Nevertheless, 41% agreed that video visits could improve outcomes for some patients, and 60% expressed openness to using video visits exclusively for postoperative consultations in uncomplicated surgeries.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons recognize the potential benefits of video visits for certain patients. However, perceived barriers include the need for a physical examination, technological limitations, care quality concerns, and malpractice risks.

Establishment of a medical device adverse event management system for hospitals

Background

The management of medical device adverse event (MDAE) is one of the most important aspects of improving medical quality and safety management. Nonetheless, hospitals still lack standardized and unified initiatives to improve MDAE management.

Methods

This study, thus, established a MDAE monitoring system on May 1 in 2011 for suspected adverse events and designed a hospital-based dynamic warning system, aiming to standardize the process of MDAE handling and provide real-time monitoring for MDAEs in a hospital. This system was used in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine. Numbers and the compound growth rate of MDAE reports from 2010 to 2020 were compared to test the effectiveness of the MDAE monitoring system. Numbers of MDAE reported to the National Adverse Event Monitoring System were also compared over 2013 to 2020, due to the loss of data before 2013 after shutdown of the old system. Efficacy and usability of the hospital-based dynamic warning system was then verified by analyzing risk and warning levels of MDAEs in 2020. Descriptive statistics was used for data analysis in this study.

Results

Results showed that the compound annual growth rates of MDAE reports and those submitted to the National Adverse Event Monitoring System from 2013 to 2020 were 35.0% and 31.5%, respectively. A standardized management of MDAE with full participant, timely response and effective feedback was formed in the hospital by establishment of the MDAE system.

Conclusions

This system effectively improved the monitoring level of MDAEs, helping to improve early detection, early warning, and early intervention of risk of medical device. This study may provide suggestions for medical institutions to establish a MDAE monitoring system, and may promote development of medical quality and safety management for hospitals to some extent.

Hospital Adverse Event Reporting Systems: A Systematic Scoping Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Reducing the incidence of reportable events with undesirable effects (REUE) is a priority in the hospital environment, which is why reporting systems have been implemented to identify and manage them. Information is required regarding the performance of reporting systems, barriers, or facilitators for reporting and strategies that improve passive reporting.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic scoping review of the literature that included studies performed in the population exposed to the occurrence of REUE in the health system (teams, patients, and family). A search was performed in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE Daily Update, EMBASE, LILACS, and databases of the World Health Organization and Pan-American Health Organization.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were found, 1 systematic review, 2 clinical trials, 8 observational studies, 3 qualitative studies, and 1 mixed study. In 4 of them, the effectiveness of active versus passive reporting systems was compared. The measures to improve the passive systems were education about REUE, simplification of the reporting format, activities focused on increasing the motivation for self-report, adoption of self-report as an obligatory institutional policy, and using specific report formats for each service.

CONCLUSIONS

There is information that allows to find differences between the performance of the active and passive reporting systems. The reviewed research articles found that passive techniques significantly underreported adverse events. It is recommended that institutions adopt both active and passive techniques in adverse event surveillance. New studies should be directed to answer the comparative efficiency of the reporting systems.

Understanding constraints on integrated care for people with HIV and multimorbid cardiovascular conditions: an application of the Theoretical Domains Framework

BACKGROUND

People with HIV (PWH) experience increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Many PWH in the USA receive their primary medical care from infectious disease specialists in HIV clinics. HIV care teams may not be fully prepared to provide evidence-based CVD care. We sought to describe local context for HIV clinics participating in an NIH-funded implementation trial and to identify facilitators and barriers to integrated CVD preventive care for PWH.

METHODS

Data were collected in semi-structured interviews and focus groups with PWH and multidisciplinary healthcare providers at three academic medical centers. We used template analysis to identify barriers and facilitators of CVD preventive care in three HIV specialty clinics using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

RESULTS

Six focus groups were conducted with 37 PWH. Individual interviews were conducted with 34 healthcare providers and 14 PWH. Major themes were captured in seven TDF domains. Within those themes, we identified nine facilitators and 11 barriers to CVD preventive care. Knowledge gaps contributed to inaccurate CVD risk perceptions and ineffective self-management practices in PWH. Exclusive prioritization of HIV over CVD-related conditions was common in PWH and their providers. HIV care providers assumed inconsistent roles in CVD prevention, including for PWH with primary care providers. HIV providers were knowledgeable of HIV-related CVD risks and co-located health resources were consistently available to support PWH with limited resources in health behavior change. However, infrequent medical visits, perceptions of CVD prevention as a primary care service, and multiple co-location of support programs introduced local challenges to engaging in CVD preventive care.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to screening and treatment of cardiovascular conditions are common in HIV care settings and highlight a need for greater primary care integration. Improving long-term cardiovascular outcomes of PWH will likely require multi-level interventions supporting HIV providers to expand their scope of practice, addressing patient preferences for co-located CVD preventive care, changing clinic cultures that focus only on HIV to the exclusion of non-AIDS multimorbidity, and managing constraints associated with multiple services co-location.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03643705.

Assessing the Implementation of Pharmacogenomic Panel-Testing in Primary Care in the Netherlands Utilizing a Theoretical Framework

Despite overcoming many implementation barriers, pharmacogenomic (PGx) panel-testing is not routine practice in the Netherlands. Therefore, we aim to study pharmacists' perceived enablers and barriers for PGx panel-testing among pharmacists participating in a PGx implementation study. Here, pharmacists identify primary care patients, initiating one of 39 drugs with a Dutch Pharmacogenetic Working Group (DPWG) recommendation and subsequently utilizing the results of a 12 gene PGx panel test to guide dose and drug selection. Pharmacists were invited for a general survey and a semi-structured interview based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework, aiming to identify implementation enablers and barriers, if they had managed at least two patients with actionable PGx results. In total, 15 semi-structured interviews were performed before saturation point was reached. Of these, five barrier themes emerged: (1) unclear procedures, (2) undetermined reimbursement for PGx test and consult, (3) insufficient evidence of clinical utility for PGx panel-testing, (4) infrastructure inefficiencies, and (5) HCP PGx knowledge and awareness; and two enabler themes: (1) pharmacist perceived role in delivering PGx, and (2) believed clinical utility of PGx. Despite a strong belief in the beneficial effects of PGx, pharmacists' barriers remain, an these hinder implementation in primary care.