The Implementation and Impact of a Rapid-cycle Quality Indicator Feedback Mechanism on Patients and Professionals: a Case Study of Sint-Trudo Hospital
Trial Snapshot
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Status
- Enrolling By Invitation
- Sponsor
- KU Leuven
- Enrollment
- 400
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Hospital mortality
Study Overview
Brief Summary
The investigators need stronger feedback loops and a quality monitoring and management system to improve the quality of care in sustainable way. The Chair Sint-Trudo "To a sustainable quality policy" was established to scientifically develop prerequisites for a sustainable quality of care. In this study protocol, a monocentric mixed-method quasi-experimental study will be used to assess the impact of a rapid-cycle quality indicator feedback mechanism on both patients and professionals.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Allocation
- Na
- Intervention Model
- Single Group
- Primary Purpose
- Health Services Research
- Masking
- None
Eligibility Criteria
- Ages
- 18 Years to — (Adult, Older Adult)
- Sex
- All
- Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- No
Inclusion Criteria
- •Patients admitted in the hospital for more than one night
Exclusion Criteria
- •Patients admitted in the hospital for less than one night
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Hospital mortality
Time Frame: During admission
In-hospital mortality rate
Failure to rescue rate
Time Frame: During admission
The failure to rescue rate for each patient admitted in the hospital will be evaluated
Readmission rate
Time Frame: 30 days after discharge
Readmission within 30 days of each patient admitted in the hospital
Patient experiences
Time Frame: During admission
Experiences of patients will be measures by a validated questionnaire (Flemisch Patient Experience Questionnaire). Q: Will you recommend our hospital? (scale min 0 until 10 with 0: not and 10: for sure). For follow questions the scores are 'disagree', 'somewhat agree', 'largely agree', 'totally agree. The higher the score the better the outcome Q: This information was provided by my GP or by healthcare providers in the hospital. Q: I understand the information I received about the cost of my stay. Q: I received sufficient information about the causes of my condition or about the possible treatment methods for my condition or about the consequences of my disease. Q: Nurses or doctors explained things in a way I could understand or treated me with courtesy and respect. Q: My privacy was respected during conversations with caregivers or during examinations, treatment and care. Q: Before any treatment my identity was checked. Q: Hospital staff always introduced themselves
In-hospital length of stay
Time Frame: During admission
Length of stay of each patient in the hospital
Adverse events and adverse outcomes
Time Frame: During admission
Each adverse event and following adverse outcomes will be measured: urinary tract infections, pressure ulcers, hospital-acquired pneumonia, shock/cardiac arrest, upper-gastrointestinal bleeding, hospital-acquired sepsis, deep venous thrombosis, central nervous system complications, surgical wound infection, pulmonary failure, metabolic derangement, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin resistant Enterococcus, central line associated bloodstream infections, carbapenemase producing Enterobacteriaceae
Secondary Outcomes
No secondary outcomes reported
Investigators
Kris Vanhaecht
Professor
KU Leuven