Evaluation of a Patient Safety Advisory Among Inpatients-A Mixed Methods Study.
Margareta Bånnsgård, My Engström, Caterina Finizia and 2 others
PMID 40448254WHAT IT FOUND
Adverse events did not differ between inpatients who read the safety advisory and those who did not.
Most liked it, 63% said it added no new information, 25% said they changed behaviour, and older people living alone were less likely to read it.
Key findings
01There was no statistically significant difference in self-reported adverse events between patients who read the safety advisory and patients who did not read it.
02Most participants had a positive impression of the safety advisory, but 63% said it did not contain any new information for them.
0325% of participants said they changed their behaviour after reading the safety advisory, most often being careful when standing up and using non-slip socks.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The patients reported adverse events by telephone after discharge, so memory of falls, infections and pressure ulcers may be inaccurate. The advisory was given by different staff on many wards over several years, so patients may not have received the same explanation. The study compared patients who said they had read the advisory with patients who said they had not. It did not assign who read it, so differences between groups may reflect age, living situation, ward or health rather than the advisory. The paper recruited 456 patients and interviewed 219; it does not say whether the patients who were not interviewed differed from those who were. The reported adverse events were few: 7 falls, 22 infections and 1 pressure ulcer. Patients with cognitive impairment were excluded and needed Swedish language knowledge, so the findings do not apply to those groups. Interview scripts were made from notes taken during the interview, so exact patient words may not be captured.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that the safety advisory prevents falls, infections or pressure ulcers. Patients also received oral information from staff, and the study compared readers with non-readers rather than randomly assigning the advisory. It found no statistically significant difference in self-reported adverse events, so the contribution of the leaflet alone cannot be separated.