Instructions: the following is a case study perfomed to examine the quality of healthcare in Australia country
The main aim of this research is to determine the rate and population of injury for patients which results from the management of patients in the healthcare hospitals in Australia. It has been reported that 20% of these injuries have been fatal due to thou the reporting have not been made systematically. Shihemi a project expert scrutinized and came to conclusion about this research. The expert used sample selection method where he battered a high population approximation of around 14000 patients admitted to both private and public hospitals. An overall of 28 hospitals were appraised and a minimum of 520 entitled admissions from each hospital was selected. It took a maximum of four weeks for registered nurses and medical officers to manage the review process.
During the study period, the team came up with terms to help them during in their study which included an adverse event which meant unintentional injury whose outcomes are incapacity, death or elongated stay in hospital and triggered by health care management and not the patients disease. There was presence of causation if the adverse event was instigated by health care management rather than the disease process. Preventability of an adverse event was evaluated as an error in management due to letdown to monitor recognized exercise at an individual or system level(1).
Registered nurses screened medical records to determine whether there is evidence showing that adverse event occurred, and then two medical officers would further examine and analyze the screened data. Medical officers came up with different types of adverse events which they classified them into different categories whereby some events needed had no causation; others had no disability, no preventability and also high preventability(1).
After the two medical officers reviewed the screened data they are the one who determined whether there was presence of an adverse event or not and if present provide its preventability. The presence of adverse event was ascertained by these two medical officers whereby 20% of the data scrutinized showed presence of adverse event. The remaining samples required third review where there was a disagreement about the presence of adverse event. The presence of disagreements was due to some missing records in the documentation omitted by the medical officers or was fretful with a changed injury or incorrectly applied a study protocol(1).
The study gives a major surveying clinical analysis of the targeted population in terms of age, sex and casemix. The consideration of screening process was great and the specificity lesser. There was virtuous arrangement between registered nurses and between registered nurses and medical officers in the screening of records for detailed review. The medical records were satisfactory for approximating adverse events and their magnitudes(1). There were some ironies due to some omitted components in the medical records, sensitivity of screening process and also lack of adverse events.
References
1.Ross, Wilson, Runciman William, Gibb Robert , Harrison Bernadette, Newby Liza, and Hamilton John . “Australian Health Care Study.” THE MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA Vol 163 (1995): 459-471.