Are clinical leaders and staff prepared for accreditation? Survey on knowledge, expectations and areas for improvement in the County of Copenhagen Gut R. 2 , Lehmann Knudsen J. 1 , Jensen A. J. 2 , Freil M. 2
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Are clinical leaders and staff prepared for accreditation?
Survey on knowledge, expectations and areas for improvement in the County of Copenhagen
Gut R.2,Lehmann Knudsen J.1, Jensen A. J.2, Freil M.2
1: Central department for research and development in the County of Copenhagen, 2: Unit of Patient Evaluation in the County of Copenhagen
Figure 1: Quality improvement (staff and leaders)
Doctor-patient continuity at the hospital?
Safety culture (focus on the system not the individual)?
Prevention toward the individual patient (adverse risks)?
That department document/follow up/analyze adverse events?
Focus on procedures connected with high risk for the patients?
Involve patients in decision on examination and treatment?
Relevant information to primary sector at patients discharge?
Exchanging data/information on the patient at shifts?
A survey on patients experiences is carried out every second year in the County of Copenhagen, the latest in 2004 (www.efb.kbhamt.dk). Though the results are not directly comparable to the results above it points out areas where patients have the same or different acknowledgement of quality problems than staff and leaders. The leaders’ and the staff's judgements about the need for improvement in specific areas are remarkably different from the patients’ evaluation. Ex. the patients experience that major improvement is needed in the hospitals co-operation with primary sector. This is not an area where the staff and especially the leaders find a major need for improvement.
Conclusion and perspective
Patient safety was the area where the greatest improvement was experienced and acknowledged by as well the staff as the leaders
The results of the surveys have influenced the planning process. It has created a greater awareness about accreditation and preparation process. The surveys are baseline evaluations and will be repeated throughout the accreditation process.
Due to remarkable discrepancy between the evaluation of quality by patients and by the leaders and staff in specific areas further investigations will be carried out.
Chief of development in Copenhagen Country
Janne Lehmann Knudsen: email@example.com