Leider unterstützen wir Ihren Browser nicht vollständig. Wenn Sie die Möglichkeit dazu haben, nehmen Sie bitte ein Upgrade auf eine neuere Version vor oder verwenden Sie Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome oder Safari 14 bzw. eine neuere Version. Wenn Sie nicht dazu in der Lage sind und Unterstützung benötigen, senden Sie uns bitte Ihr Feedback.
Wir würden uns über Ihr Feedback zu diesen neuen Seiten freuen.Sagen Sie uns, was Sie denken Wird in neuem Tab/Fenster geöffnet
Nudging towards safety
The global health crisis, triggered by COVID-19, accelerated healthcare disruption. It emphasised the role of evidence-based clinical knowledge and digital technology as enablers of continuous quality improvement and patient safety.
As the pandemic progresses, healthcare professionals (HCPs) worldwide have been presented with similar challenges. Overburdened and fatigued HCPs struggled to remain aligned to the latest clinical information, due to the rapid publication and dissemination of scientific research, further exposing the gap between knowledge and practice.
It is important to acknowledge the burden of unsafe care that we are facing in the world. Unsafe medical care, can have wide-ranging consequences leading to direct harm and waste, and can have knock on effects on patient confidence in the healthcare system.
One in 10 patients is subject to an adverse event while receiving hospital care in high-income countries.1
One in 4 patients is harmed, with 134 million adverse events occurring annually due to unsafe care in hospitals, contributing to around 2.6 million deaths.2
In high-income countries, up to 15% of hospital expenditure is due to safety failures. NHS - £1.63 billion 3
The social cost of patient harm can be valued at US$ 1-2 trillion a year. Eliminating harm could boost global economic growth by over 0.7% annually. 4
Read the article on how we can adapt and improve our current healthcare systems to deliver sustainable high-quality care and patient safety
Download the report Wird in neuem Tab/Fenster geöffnetThe use of nudges to encourage healthier decisions has been continuously explored5. Safe nudges for HCPs can range from reminders of standard operating procedures to active support for clinical decision-making. Nudges should ultimately be designed to increase navigability and support for clinicians and patients to make decisions that improve their well-being and the well-being of others. Nudges play a role in improving navigability, as highlighted in the recently updated Quality & Patient Safety (QPS) Journey, adopted and developed in partnership with the National Society of Quality of Care and Patient Safety in Brazil.
The recently updated Quality & Patient Safety (QPS) Journey, describes the six key pillars of a system that promote patient safety: Community Engagement and Health Literacy; Information Management; Staff Education and Skills; Care of patients; Patient Participation; and Research and Continuous Improvement.
So, how can we sustain the delivery of quality of care throughout healthcare crises and how can knowledge-driven digital technology help healthcare leaders to design sustainable choice architectures that nudge healthcare stakeholders into safer decisions?
Read the whitepaper - Journey towards zero harm Wird in neuem Tab/Fenster geöffnet – Sustaining the delivery of quality of care through system nudges by Laís Junqueira, Quality, Patient Safety and Innovation Manager, a member of CBPC.
This year, the theme defined by the WHO for the World Day of Patient Safety is Safe maternal and newborn care. Between 2000 and 2017, maternal mortality (MMR) has decreased by 38%, a significant reduction however maternal and perinatal health indicators remain alarming.
Out of the 16 million people living in Cambodia approx. 85% reside in rural areas. Maternal and child mortality is disproportionately high in rural areas with 160 women’s deaths and 23 infant deaths per 1,000 live births compared to 0.174 and 5.7 respectively in the United States. The majority of these deaths are preventable if the mothers have access to high quality healthcare information and can make better decisions for themselves and their families.
Research shows that women’s education can play a huge role in reducing maternal and child mortality. Through a partnership with Angkor University in Cambodia, Elsevier are helping to drive the ‘Towards a healthier future’ project forward, which aims to empower rural Cambodian women with knowledge that will help them make better healthcare decisions for themselves and their children. The project supports nursing students to visit rural areas throughout the country to share healthcare knowledge, empowering women to enhance their chances to a healthier and safer future. Over the past 9 months Angkor University students have been trained on maternal and child health challenges using evidence-based healthcare content from ClinicalKey for Nursing.
Whitepaper “Empowering Healthcare Professionals in Fostering Safe Systems Wird in neuem Tab/Fenster geöffnet” by Laís Junqueira, Quality, Patient Safety and Innovation Manager, a member of CBPC
If you are interested in finding out more, please contact your Elsevier Account Manager, Account Development Manager or Customer Success Manager, or contact us at [email protected] Wird in neuem Tab/Fenster geöffnet and we will discuss options for a program suited to your needs
1 Slawomirski L, Auraaen A, Klazinga N. The economics of patient safety: Strengthening a value-based approach to reducing patient harm at national level. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2017
2 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Crossing the global quality chasm: Improving health care worldwide. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press;
3 NHS Resolution. Annual report and accounts 2017/18. London: Crown; 2018
4 Slawomirski L, Klazinga N. Economics of patient safety: from analysis to action. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2020
5 Quigley M. Nudging for health: on public policy and designing choice architecture. Medical Law Review. 2013;21(4):588-621
