Notice of Retraction: Panagioti et al. Association Between Physician Burnout and Patient Safety, Professionalism, and Patient Satisfaction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(10):1317-1331.

2020 ◽  
Vol 180 (7) ◽  
pp. 931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Bauchner ◽  
Rita F. Redberg
2018 ◽  
Vol 178 (10) ◽  
pp. 1317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Panagioti ◽  
Keith Geraghty ◽  
Judith Johnson ◽  
Anli Zhou ◽  
Efharis Panagopoulou ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 193-207
Author(s):  
Omid Khosravizadeh ◽  
Mohammad Mohseni ◽  
Najmeh Baghian ◽  
Aisa Maleki ◽  
Ailar Hashtroodi ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: The prerequisite for promoting safety culture is to assess the existing safety culture level of institutes, because safety precautions without appropriate evaluation increase costs and unforeseen risks. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the status of patient safety culture from the perspective of clinical personnel at Iranian hospitals through a meta-analysis of studies using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC) questionnaire. METHODS: The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in 2018. Data were gathered by searching Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases up to November 2018. Search keywords were “patient”, “safety”, “culture”, “healthcare”, “hospital”, “medical center”, “HSOPSC tool”, and “Iran”. The search protocol was limited to 10 years. To estimate the PSC score, computer software CMA:2 (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis) was used. The presence of heterogeneity across the studies was assessed with the I2 statistic. A forest plot was used to report the results. Publication bias was assessed through a funnel plot. RESULTS: The meta-analysis of studies showed that the PSC score based on the random effect model was 52.7% (95% CI: 50.2%–55.2%), (Q = 522.3, df = 54, P < 0.05, I2 = 89.6). A mean of 12 dimensions of HSOPSC showed that the “Teamwork within units” dimension had the highest PSC score (67.2%) and “Non-punitive response to error” had the lowest score (40.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Managers and policymakers should be directed towards non-punitive responses to errors and persuade staff to report errors and execute the approach to learn from mistakes. Also, a periodic government evaluation of the patient safety culture will help further its sustainable development.


2020 ◽  
pp. 103985622096533
Author(s):  
Karen Oldfield ◽  
John Ryan ◽  
Marjan Doppen ◽  
Stacey Kung ◽  
Irene Braithwaite ◽  
...  

Objectives: To review the literature regarding label accuracy and contamination of medical cannabinoid-based products. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131565). Results: Five studies reported label accuracy data ranging between 17% and 86%. Four studies reported contaminants, including pesticides, solvents and AB-FUBINACA. Meta-analysis was limited to the proportion of pesticide-contaminated samples found in two studies (0.25 (95% CI [0.10, 0.40])) and displayed significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: Label inaccuracies and contaminants are found across a spectrum of cannabinoid-based products. The review highlights the paucity and heterogeneity of research relating to cannabinoid-based products in light of changing global legislation. Further robust research is required to support ongoing pharmacovigilance and patient safety.


BMC Nursing ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Henok Mulugeta ◽  
Fasil Wagnew ◽  
Getenet Dessie ◽  
Henok Biresaw ◽  
Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18088-e18088
Author(s):  
Pascal Jean-Pierre

e18088 Background: Patient navigation (PN) is a model of health care coordination designed to ameliorate health disparities by reducing barriers to achieving optimal health outcomes. Systematic reviews that evaluate whether PN is associated with higher patient satisfaction with cancer care are lacking. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence of comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of PN programs to improve satisfaction with cancer-related care. We included studies reported in English that: 1) evaluated a PN intervention designed to increase satisfaction with cancer care; and 2) involved a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational design. We abstracted data from studies using standardized forms, and evaluated these studies for methodological quality. Data were summarized qualitatively and synthesized under a random effects model. Results: The initial search yielded 831 citations, of which 3 RCTs and 6 observational studies met inclusion criteria. These nine studies involving 4,200 surveyed patients revealed either a neutral or positive effect in patient satisfaction in the majority of studies of PN and cancer-related care. However, only 5 studies (1 RCT and 4 observational) had adequate datato include in the meta-analysis. Methodological quality of eight of the included studies ranged from weak to moderate to strong, with half rated as weak. Findings of the RCT showed a statistically significant increase in satisfaction with cancer care involving PN [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.30; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.79, 2.80, p < .001]. Pooled results from non-RCTs showed no significant association between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI: -0.02, 0.80, p = .06). Conclusions: More systematic reviews are needed to characterize the relationship between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care across the cancer care continuum and across different types of cancer.


2016 ◽  
Vol 137 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enkhjargal Batbaatar ◽  
Javkhlanbayar Dorjdagva ◽  
Ariunbat Luvsannyam ◽  
Matteo Mario Savino ◽  
Pietro Amenta

Aim: A large number of studies have addressed the detection of patient satisfaction determinants, and the results are still inconclusive. Furthermore, it is known that contradicting evidence exists across patient satisfaction studies. This article is the second part of a two-part series of research with a goal to review a current conceptual framework of patient satisfaction for further operationalisation procedures. The aim of this work was to systematically identify and review evidence regarding determinants of patient satisfaction between 1980 and 2014, and to seek the reasons for contradicting results in relationships between determinants and patient satisfaction in the literature to design a further robust measurement system for patient satisfaction. Method: This systematic review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus in October 2014. Studies published in full in peer reviewed journals between January 1980 and August 2014 and in the English language were included. We included 109 articles for the synthesis. Results: We found several number of determinants of patient satisfaction investigated in a wide diversity of studies. However, study results were varied due to no globally accepted formulation of patient satisfaction and measurement system. Conclusions: Health care service quality indicators were the most influential determinants of patient satisfaction across the studies. Among them, health providers’ interpersonal care quality was the essential determinant of patient satisfaction. Sociodemographic characteristics were the most varied in the review. The strength and directions of associations with patient satisfaction were found inconsistent. Therefore, person-related characteristics should be considered to be the potential determinants and confounders simultaneously. The selected studies were not able to show all potential characteristics which may have had effects on satisfaction. There is a need for more studies on how cultural, behavioural, and socio-demographic differences affect patient satisfaction, using a standardised questionnaire.


BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. e013402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhodri Saunders ◽  
Michel M R F Struys ◽  
Richard F Pollock ◽  
Michael Mestek ◽  
Jenifer R Lightdale

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document