Diabetes-related knowledge among medical and nursing house staff

To assess the diabetes-related knowledge of medical and nursing house staff with particular focus on inpatient diabetes management and insulin therapy.

Assessment of exposure to Leptospira serovars in veterinary staff and dog owners in contact with infected dogs

OBJECTIVE: To assess patterns of seroreactivity to Leptospira serovars in veterinary professional staff and dog owners exposed to dogs with acute leptospirosis and to contrast these patterns in people with those observed in dogs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Human subjects consisted of 91 people (50 veterinarians, 19 technical staff, 9 administrative personnel, and 13 dog owners) exposed to dogs with leptospirosis. Canine subjects consisted of 52 dogs with naturally occurring leptospirosis admitted to the University of Bern Vetsuisse Faculty Small Animal Clinic in 2007 and 2008. PROCEDURES: People were tested for seroreactivity to regionally prevalent Leptospira serovars by use of a complement fixation test. A questionnaire designed to identify risk factors associated with seropositivity was used to collect demographic information from each study participant. Dogs were tested for seroreactivity to Leptospira serovars by use of a microscopic agglutination test. RESULTS: On the basis of microscopic agglutination test results, infected dogs were seropositive for antibodies against Leptospira serovars as follows (in descending order): Bratislava (43/52 [83%]), Australis (43/52 [83%]), Grippotyphosa (18/52 [35%]), Pomona (12/52 [23%]), Autumnalis (6/52 [12%]), Icterohemorrhagiae (4/52 [8%]), Tarassovi (2/52 [4%]), and Canicola (1/52 [2%]). All 91 people were seronegative for antibodies against Leptospira serovars. Therefore, statistical evaluation of risk factors and comparison of patterns of seroreactivity to Leptospira serovars between human and canine subjects were limited to theoretical risks. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Seroreactivity to Leptospira serovars among veterinary staff adhering to standard hygiene protocols and pet owners exposed to dogs with acute leptospirosis was uncommon.

Staff and patient perspectives on unmet need and therapeutic alliance in community mental health services

Therapeutic alliance between clinicians and their patients is important in community mental healthcare. It is unclear whether providing effective interventions influences therapeutic alliance.

'Saying it without words': a qualitative study of oncology staff's experiences with speaking up about safety concerns.

OBJECTIVES To explore the experiences of oncology staff with communicating safety concerns and to examine situational factors and motivations surrounding the decision whether and how to speak up using semistructured interviews. SETTING 7 oncology departments of six hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Diverse sample of 32 experienced oncology healthcare professionals. RESULTS Nurses and doctors commonly experience situations which raise their concerns and require questioning, clarifying and correcting. Participants often used non-verbal communication to signal safety concerns. Speaking-up behaviour was strongly related to a clinical safety issue. Most episodes of 'silence' were connected to hygiene, isolation and invasive procedures. In contrast, there seemed to exist a strong culture to communicate questions, doubts and concerns relating to medication. Nearly all interviewees were concerned with 'how' to say it and in particular those of lower hierarchical status reflected on deliberate 'voicing tactics'. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate a widely accepted culture to discuss any concerns relating to medication safety while other issues are more difficult to voice. Clinicians devote considerable efforts to evaluate the situation and sensitively decide whether and how to speak up. Our results can serve as a starting point to develop a shared understanding of risks and appropriate communication of safety concerns among staff in oncology.

Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff's decisions to speak up about safety concerns

BACKGROUND Research suggests that "silence", i.e., not voicing safety concerns, is common among health care professionals (HCPs). Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and thus to prevent harm and also to improve a culture of teamwork and safety. The aim of our study was to explore factors that affect oncology staff's decision to voice safety concerns or to remain silent and to describe the trade-offs they make. METHODS In a qualitative interview study with 32 doctors and nurses from 7 oncology units we investigated motivations and barriers to speaking up towards co-workers and supervisors. An inductive thematic content analysis framework was applied to the transcripts. Based on the individual experiences of participants, we conceptualize the choice to voice concerns and the trade-offs involved. RESULTS Preventing patients from serious harm constitutes a strong motivation to speaking up but competes with anticipated negative outcomes. Decisions whether and how to voice concerns involved complex considerations and trade-offs. Many respondents reflected on whether the level of risk for a patient "justifies" the costs of speaking up. Various barriers for voicing concerns were reported, e.g., damaging relationships. Contextual factors, such as the presence of patients and co-workers in the alarming situation, affect the likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes. Speaking up to well-known co-workers was described as considerably easier whereas "not knowing the actor well" increases risks and potential costs of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS While doctors and nurses felt strong obligation to prevent errors reaching individual patients, they were not engaged in voicing concerns beyond this immediacy. Our results offer in-depth insight into fears and conditions conducive of silence and voicing and can be used for educational interventions and leader reinforcement.

Frequency of and predictors for withholding patient safety concerns among oncology staff: a survey study.

Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and to improve a culture of safety. This study investigated the prevalence of non-speaking up despite concerns for safety and aimed to identify predictors for withholding voice among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in oncology. A self-administered questionnaire assessed safety concerns, speaking up beliefs and behaviours among nurses and doctors from nine oncology departments. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictors for withholding safety concerns. A total of 1013 HCPs returned the completed survey (response rate 65%). Safety concerns were common among responders. Fifty-four per cent reported to recognise their colleagues making potentially harmful errors at least sometimes. A majority of responders reported at least some episodes of withholding concerns about patient safety. Thirty-seven per cent said they remained silent at least once when they had information that might have helped prevent an incident. Respondents believed that a high level of interpersonal, communication and coping skills are necessary to speak up about patient safety issues at their workplace. Higher levels of perceived advocacy for patient safety and psychological safety significantly decreased the frequency of withholding voice. Remaining silent about safety concerns is a common phenomenon in oncology. Improved strategies are needed to support staff in effective communication and make cancer care safer.

An MILP-based heuristic for staff scheduling problems with acceptance levels

We present a real-world staff-assignment problem that was reported to us by a provider of an online workforce scheduling software. The problem consists of assigning employees to work shifts subject to a large variety of requirements related to work laws, work shift compatibility, workload balancing, and personal preferences of employees. A target value is given for each requirement, and all possible deviations from these values are associated with acceptance levels. The objective is to minimize the total number of deviations in ascending order of the acceptance levels. We present an exact lexicographic goal programming MILP formulation and an MILP-based heuristic. The heuristic consists of two phases: in the first phase a feasible schedule is built and in the second phase parts of the schedule are iteratively re-optimized by applying an exact MILP model. A major advantage of such MILP-based approaches is the flexibility to account for additional constraints or modified planning objectives, which is important as the requirements may vary depending on the company or planning period. The applicability of the heuristic is demonstrated for a test set derived from real-world data. Our computational results indicate that the heuristic is able to devise optimal solutions to non-trivial problem instances, and outperforms the exact lexicographic goal programming formulation on medium- and large-sized problem instances.