A research agenda for patient safety.

Patient safety is a global problem that calls for global solutions.In this issue, Didier Pittet and Sir Liam Donaldson presentthe strategy of the World Alliance on Patient Safety, led bythe World Health Organization [1]. Six action areas are presented,one of which is research on patient safety. The necessity ofpatient safety research is echoed by another wide-reaching organization,the Council of Europe, in a recommendation on the managementof quality and safety in health care issued to its member states(see www.coe.int). Everyone seems to agree on the principle,but what type of research should we be doing? Let us considersome of the     

Improving communication between physicians and patients who speak a foreign language.

BACKGROUND: Communication between physicians and patients is particularly challenging when patients do not speak the local language (in Switzerland, they are known as allophones). AIM: To assess the effectiveness of an intervention to improve communication skills of physicians who deal with allophone patients. DESIGN OF STUDY: 'Before-and-after' intervention study, in which both patients (allophone and francophone) and physicians completed visit-specific questionnaires assessing the quality of communication. SETTING: Two consecutive samples of patients attending the medical outpatient clinic of a teaching hospital in French-speaking Switzerland. METHOD: The intervention consisted of training physicians in communicating with allophone patients and working with interpreters. French-speaking patients served as the control group. The outcomes measured were: patient satisfaction with care received and with communication during consultation; and provider (primary care physician) satisfaction with care provided and communication during consultation. RESULTS: At baseline, mean scores of patients' assessments of communication were lower for allophone than for francophone patients. At follow-up, five out of six of the scores of allophone patients showed small increases (P < 0.05) when compared with French-speaking patients: explanations given by physician; respectfulness of physician; communication; overall process of the consultation; and information about future care. In contrast, physicians' assessments did not change significantly. Finally, after the intervention, the proportion of consultations with allophone patients in which professional interpreters were present increased significantly from 46% to 67%. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of communication as perceived by allophone patients can be improved with specific training aimed at primary care physicians.     

Percutaneous versus surgical tracheostomy: a double-blind randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical (SgT) and percutaneous (PcT) tracheostomies. BACKGROUND: Percutaneous tracheostomy has been said to provide numerous advantages over classical SgT. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial with a double-blind evaluation was used to compare SgT and PcT. SgT and PcT were performed according to established techniques (n = 70). The procedure was performed at the bedside in the intensive care unit in 21 cases (30%). The outcome measures were divided into procedure-related variables, perioperative complications, and postoperative complications. The procedure-related variables (location, duration, and difficulty) were evaluated by the surgeon. The perioperative and postoperative complications were divided into serious, intermediate, and minor. Perioperative and early postoperative (14 days) complications were evaluated daily by an intensive care unit nurse blinded to the technique used. Long-term postoperative complications were evaluated 3 months after decannulation by a surgeon blinded to the surgical technique. RESULTS: There were no major complications in either group. Most variables studied were not statistically different between the PcT and SgT groups. The only variables to reach statistical significance were the size of the incision (smaller with PcT, p < 0.0001), minor perioperative complications (greater with PcT, p = 0.02), and difficult cannula changes (greater with PcT; p < 0.05). Among nonsignificant differences, difficult procedures and false passages were more frequent with PcT, whereas long-term unesthetic scars were more frequent with SgT. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques are associated with a low rate of serious or intermediate complications when performed by experienced surgeons. There were more minor perioperative complications with PcT and more minor long term complications with SgT.     

Adjustment for patient characteristics in satisfaction surveys.

The ideal quality indicator measures a specific aspect of thequality of health care and nothing else. Unfortunately, thisis often not the case, particularly for outcome indicators,which often reflect a variety of patient characteristics thatare not under the provider’s control. Take patient satisfactionsurveys: we all know of grumpy patients who complain even whenthey receive the best care, and of patients who are thankfuland uncomplaining even in the worst conditions. Comparisonsof mean satisfaction scores between health care providers whodo not serve the same profile of patient population may be biased.Unadjusted results of satisfaction surveys are often mistrustedby providers, particularly those who fare poorly in comparisonwith others, and are therefore not used to improve care. Current practice A     

Proviral HIV-DNA predicts viral rebound and viral setpoint after structured treatment interruptions

In HIV-1-infected patients with long-term undetectable viraemia on highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART), we found that pre-HAART plasma viraemia and the baseline proviral DNA level were significantly associated with the viraemia setpoint during scheduled treatment interruptions. In long-term treated patients, pre-HAART viraemia may not be available, and in these circumstances proviral DNA, measured at the time of scheduled treatment interruption, can help to identify patients likely to reach a low viraemia setpoint after treatment interruption.     

A model for dropout assessment of candidates with or without hepatocellular carcinoma on a common liver transplant waiting list

In many countries, the allocation of liver grafts is based on the Model of End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and the use of exception points for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). With this strategy, HCC patients have easier access to transplantation than non-HCC ones. In addition, this system does not allow for a dynamic assessment, which would be required to picture the current use of local tumor treatment. This study was based on the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and included 5,498 adult candidates of a liver transplantation for HCC and 43,528 for non-HCC diagnoses. A proportional hazard competitive risk model was used. The risk of dropout of HCC patients was independently predicted by MELD score, HCC size, HCC number, and alpha-fetoprotein. When combined in a model with age and diagnosis, these factors allowed for the extrapolation of the risk of dropout. Because this model and MELD did not share compatible scales, a correlation between both models was computed according to the predicted risk of dropout, and drop-out equivalent MELD (deMELD) points were calculated. CONCLUSION: The proposed model, with the allocation of deMELD, has the potential to allow for a dynamic and combined comparison of opportunities to receive a graft for HCC and non-HCC patients on a common waiting list.