Browsing by Author "Seyfulayeva, Ayshe"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Moving towards a core measures set for patient safety in perioperative care: An e-Delphi consensus studyPublication . Dinis-Teixeira, J.P.; Nunes, Ana Beatriz; Leite, Andreia; Schäfer, Willemijn L.A.; Valli, Claudia; Martínez-Nicolas, Ismael; Seyfulayeva, Ayshe; Carvalho, Pedro Casaca; Rodríguez, Anna; Arnal-Velasco, Daniel; Leon, Irene; Orrego, Carola; Sousa, Paulo; on behalf of the SAFEST Consortium and the SAFEST Scientific Advisory GroupA Core Measures Set (CMS) is an agreed standardized group of measures that should be assessed and reported in research for a specific condition or clinical area. This study undertook the development of a CMS for Patient Safety through a two-round, web-based Delphi consensus approach, in the context of the "Improving quality and patient SAFEty in surgical care through STandardisation and harmonization of perioperative care in Europe" (SAFEST) project-a collaborative, patient-centered and evidence-based European Union-funded project that aims to generate action-oriented evidence in perioperative care. We developed an Initial List of Measures via an umbrella review following the deployment of an e-Delphi method with an inclusive panel of experts to prioritize measures towards a consensualized Final List of Measures. All measures were rigorously assessed for both importance and feasibility. After the two rounds of the e-Delphi consensus method we observed 13 preoperative measures (40.6% of the initial number), 24 intraoperative measures (66.7%), 25 postoperative measures (20.3%) and 23 mixed period measures (41.1%) met consensus criteria for both importance and feasibility. Higher scores were detected in importance ratings compared to feasibility across all groups of measures. Importantly, numeric averages regarding pain-related measures differed in the assessment of patients when compared to that of Healthcare Professionals (HCPs). This work not only informs future SAFEST iterations but also sets a precedent for research into valid, patient-centered, and action-oriented perioperative safety measures.
- Patient and family engagement interventions for enhancing patient safety in the perioperative journey: a scoping reviewPublication . Seyfulayeva, Ayshe; Fonte, Bianca Ferreira; Alho, Ana Margarida; Shaikh, Anum; Nunes, Ana Beatriz; Casaca, Pedro Gonçalves Carvalho; Leite, Andreia; Taha, Ayda; Dhingra-Kumar, Neelam; Sousa, PauloBackground: Surgical procedures present intricate challenges within healthcare delivery, often associated with higher risks of adverse events compared with non-surgical contexts. Patient and family engagement (PFE) throughout the perioperative journey is a possibility to enhance care quality, safety and patient-centredness. However, literature addressing PFE across the entirety of the perioperative journey remains sparse. Objective: The current scoping review aims to comprehensively map the existing interventions with PFE approach focused on improving patient safety across various types of surgical procedures throughout the perioperative journey. In addition, the review aims to understand the level and type of PFE approach adopted in this context. Eligibility criteria: Articles published in indexed peer-reviewed journals from 2003 to 2023, written in English, Portuguese or Spanish, that report on interventions with PFE approach targeting adult surgical patients, their families, caregivers, patient advocates and patient champions. The review includes articles reporting on both inpatient and ambulatory surgical patients. Methods: Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews framework, this review systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for relevant articles. Eligible interventions were categorised using PFE framework regarding the level of engagement and mapped according to the WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021-2030. Results: Out of 765 records initially identified, 32 met the eligibility criteria for data extraction and analysis, of which 40% originated from the USA, followed by the UK (18%) and Canada (12%). 47% of the interventions targeted 'multiple/all types' of procedures, 19% focused on cardiothoracic surgeries and 9% on gynaecological procedures or organ transplant. The majority of the interventions (88%) focused on PFE at the direct care level, predominantly adopting a consultation-based approach. Furthermore, 81% of eligible interventions emphasised patient information and education, 16% addressed codevelopment of policy and 3% of interventions focused on patient advocacy. Conclusion: The findings show a predominant focus on PFE interventions targeting patient safety at the direct care level, particularly in the provision of patient information and education. However, interventions at organisational and policy-making levels are notably scarce. Further investment is required to promote interventions engaging patients and families at broader organisational and policy-making levels.