The aim of the sustainability of healthcare innovations (SUSHI) study is to analyse sustainability and its determinants using two implementation cases.\n\nMethods: This observational study uses a mixed methods approach. The study will be performed in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands, from November 2010. For both implementation cases, the programme aspects and the effects will be evaluated by means of a follow-up measurement in 160 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery and 300 patients who underwent colonic

surgery. A policy cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will be performed prospectively for the Short Stay Programme for breast cancer surgery in 160 patients. To study determinants of sustainability key professionals in the

multidisciplinary care processes and implementation change agents www.selleckchem.com/screening/kinase-inhibitor-library.html PP2 cell line will be interviewed using semi-structured interviews.\n\nDiscussion: The concept of sustainability is not commonly studied in implementation science. The SUSHI study will provide insight in to what extent the short-term implementation benefits have been maintained and in the determinants of long-term continuation of programme activities.”
“This systematic review identifies the factors that both support and deter patients from being willing and able to participate actively in reducing clinical errors. Specifically, we add to our understanding of the safety culture in healthcare by engaging with the call for more focus on the relational and subjective factors which enable patients’ participation (Iedema, Jorm, & Lum, 2009; Ovretveit, 2009). A systematic search of six databases, ten journals and seven healthcare organisations’ web sites resulted in the identification of 2714 studies of which 68 were included in the review. These studies investigated initiatives involving patients in safety GSK3326595 order or studies of patients’ perspectives of being actively involved in the safety of their care. The factors explored varied considerably depending on the scope, setting and context of the study. Using

thematic analysis we synthesized the data to build an explanation of why, when and how patients are likely to engage actively in helping to reduce clinical errors. The findings show that the main factors for engaging patients in their own safety can be summarised in four categories: illness; individual cognitive characteristics; the clinician patient relationship; and organisational factors. We conclude that illness and patients’ perceptions of their role and status as subordinate to that of clinicians are the most important barriers to their involvement in error reduction. In sum, patients’ fear of being labelled “difficult” and a consequent desire for clinicians’ approbation may cause them to assume a passive role as a means of actively protecting their personal safety. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.”
“Background: Glenoid bone deficiencies may be addressed by specialized components.