The Impact of the Coronial Communique on Changing Patient Safety: A Subscriber Survey

To determine whether the Coronial Communique prompted subscribers to initiate changes to clinical practice for patient safety an anonymous, online cross-sectional population survey questionnaire was provided to all registered subscribers to the Communique. The main outcome measure was self-reported...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australian health review 2009-11, Vol.33 (4), p.583-591
Main Authors: Ibrahim, Joseph E, Ehsani, Jonathon P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Australia
Case reports
Cause of Death
Clinical medicine
Communication
Coroners
Cross-Sectional Studies
Ethics
Female
Forensic medicine
Health administration
Health care
Health Care Surveys
Health facilities
Hospital Mortality
Hospitals
Humans
Information Dissemination
Likert scale
Male
Medical errors
Medical ethics
Medical personnel
Medical practices
Middle Aged
Patient admissions
Patient safety
Patients
Prevention
Professionals
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Quality of care
Questionnaires
Reading
Safety Management
Safety measures
Studies
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To determine whether the Coronial Communique prompted subscribers to initiate changes to clinical practice for patient safety an anonymous, online cross-sectional population survey questionnaire was provided to all registered subscribers to the Communique. The main outcome measure was self-reported review and change to practice. From 1325 subscribers invited to participate, 697 complete and valid responses were received (52.6%). Most of the respondents (588; 84.4%) reported the Communique provided ideas for improving patient safety, 429 (61.5%) reviewed their practice, and 290 (41.6%) changed their practice. The characteristic most associated with a change in practice was if the subscriber was in clinical practice. This association was evident for ideas (odds ratio [OR], 3.42; 95% CI, 2.24-5.23), review (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.91-3.61) and change to improve practice (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.73-3.32).
ISSN:0156-5788
1449-8944
DOI:10.1071/AH090583