Development of a framework to describe patient and family harm from disrespect and promote improvements in quality and safety: a scoping review.

Purpose: Patients and families may experience 'non-physical' harm from interactions with the healthcare system, including emotional, psychological, socio-behavioral or financial harm, some of which may be related to experiences of disrespect. We sought to use the current literature to develop a practical, improvement-oriented framework to recognize, describe and help prevent such events.

Data Sources: Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Health Business Elite and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Global: Health & Medicine, from their inception through July 2017.

A Road Map for Advancing the Practice of Respect in Health Care: The Results of an Interdisciplinary Modified Delphi Consensus Study.

Background: Most health care organizations' efforts to reduce harm focus on physical harm, but other forms of harm are both prevalent and important. These "nonphysical" harms can be framed using the concepts of respect and dignity: Disrespect is an affront to dignity and can cause harm. Organizations should strive to eliminate disrespect to patients, to families, and among health care professionals.

Hospitalized patients' participation and its impact on quality of care and patient safety.

Objective: To understand the extent to which hospitalized patients participate in their care, and the association of patient participation with quality of care and patient safety.

Design: Random sample telephone survey and medical record review.

Setting: US acute care hospitals in 2003.

Expert panel on weight loss surgery: executive report update.

Rapid shifts in the demographics and techniques of weight loss surgery (WLS) have led to new issues, new data, new concerns, and new challenges. In 2004, this journal published comprehensive evidence-based guidelines on WLS. In this issue, we've updated those guidelines to assure patient safety in this fast-changing field.

Adverse events during hospitalization: results of a patient survey.

Background: A two-stage probability sample of patients recently discharged from 16 general acute care hospitals in Massachusetts were interviewed to determine the rates at which patients experience what they considered to be adverse events, to describe the kinds of events they reported, and to identify the correlates of those reports.

Methods: Eligible respondents were adults, 18 years of age or older, who were medical or surgical patients overnight or longer between April 1 and October 1, 2003, and who were discharged to their homes in Massachusetts. Questions covered perceptions of adverse events during hospitalizations and possible correlates of those events.

Comparing patient-reported hospital adverse events with medical record review: do patients know something that hospitals do not?

Background: Hospitals routinely survey patients about the quality of care they receive, but little is known about whether patient interviews can detect adverse events that medical record reviews do not.

Objective: To compare adverse events reported in postdischarge patient interviews with adverse events detected by medical record review.

Design: Random sample survey.

Reconciling medications at admission: safe practice recommendations and implementation strategies.

Background: Fifty hospitals collaborated in a patient safety initiative developed and implemented by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Prevention of Medical Errors and the Massachusetts Hospital Association.

Methods: A consensus group identified safe practices and suggested implementation strategies. Four collaborative learning sessions were offered, and teams monitored their progress and shared successful strategies and lessons learned.

Error reporting and disclosure systems: views from hospital leaders.

Context: The Institute of Medicine has recommended establishing mandatory error reporting systems for hospitals and other health settings.

Objective: To examine the opinions and experiences of hospital leaders with state reporting systems.

Design And Setting: Survey of chief executive and chief operating officers (CEOs/COOs) from randomly selected hospitals in 2 states with mandatory reporting and public disclosure, 2 states with mandatory reporting without public disclosure, and 2 states without mandatory systems in 2002-2003.