Mapping Exercise

More information

This workpackage of the SIMPATIE project covers EU countries and regards a knowledge resource on patient safety activities and practices and a compendium involving 'best practice' examples of these. Both items are web-enabled.

The projectteam for this workpackage prepared 2 reports which can be consulted independent of each other.

• Please find:
  
  
  - the Full Text (pdf-file) and Table of Content of the Final report of the Mapping Exercise, and
  - the Full Text (pdf-file) and Table of Content of the Final report of the Best Practice Compendium.

Besides clicking on these links, one can use the menu (see: related) on the right for information, about:

• the SIMPATIE project in general, and


• the different work packages

Organisation of this overview

In order to be both practical and optimal in terms of web-enabled functions, overviews of the reports of the Work Packages of the SIMPATIE project were organised in two ways:

• ONE - following the basic reporting structure developed for all reports:
  
  
  • Introductory remarks
  
  
  • Table of Content
  
  
  • Objectives
  
  
  • Methodology
  
  
  • Description of work
  
  
  • Results achieved
  
  
  • Role of the patient in the activities and
  
  
  • Main conclusions and recommendation

• TWO - following the table of content and the main paragraphs of a specific report

All headings are interconnected and clickable. Just follow the route prepared for a web-enabled overview. You can also use the full text or access the 'search a framework' function of course.

Summary

This Work Package is linked to the first of seven specific objectives for the project laid out in the contract between DGSANCO and the Simpatie consortium 25th July 2005. The main objective of the WP was to develop a systematic overview of activities related to patient safety in EU countries. This information would be made accessible through web based communication. The WP concerns activities related to the creation of a systematic, easily accessible, knowledge repository related to legislation, regulation and actions in EU states directed towards improvement of patient safety.

The results to be achieved by the work package were:

• Develop a web based knowledge resource on patient safety activities and practices;


• Publish an overview report of activities and practices in EU countries; and


• Construct a 'best practice' compendium (web-based).

The data is available in summarized form in the attached final report, with recommendations, and all data is loaded onto the website www.simpatie.org where it can be searched by attributes or by using a search engine. In general terms, it is felt that the brief has been met and to some degree, exceeded. Responses from 20 of the then 25 EU member states were specified as a criterion in the original agreement. Data was in fact obtained from 23 member states (England and Wales in the United Kingdom only – see note p.5, main report). In relation to the three areas specified within the description of the knowledge repository, above, the mapping concentrated least on legislation and most on actions, based on the premise that data on legislation is already in the public domain, data on regulation less so and data on actions least so. Hence the focus was on collecting data which hitherto was least available to interested parties such as policy makers, civil servants, professionals and the public.

The work package delivers:

- A web based resource ('mapping Europe');
- An overview report;
- A web based best practice compendium (‘best practices’) involving examples from 18 out of 25 countries; and
- A hard copy version 'Good Practice Compendium' containing 61 examples listed by country.

The ESQH-office for Patient Safety in London, United Kingdom, was the lead partner of this work package. In terms of organisation it was the place of work for most of the time as well. Expert and reference groups were recruited for the achievement of the aims of WP2.

The methodology described in the contract document was modified to a small degree in practice in that literature review played little role in the construction of the survey instrument which was designed via the use of an expert panel and on the basis of expert consensus, with feedback from participants as to clarity, usability, completeness and fitness for purpose. In other respects, the role of partners, the value of incorporation of the work from the Council of Europe exercise etc. were as envisaged.

In terms of work-description a panel of country contacts, set up at the beginning of the project, was modified and expanded during the course of the project. Project partners, particularly HOPE and CPME, were very helpful in making links with individuals who were sources of information. Additional information was obtained for half the respondent countries as a means of validating the original data and for a further quarter, countries adopted a consensus approach to provide internal validation. Good practice examples were obtained by asking a network of experts (between one and six for each respondent country) to nominate examples. The network was obtained by expanding the original panel of country experts by inclusion of experts identified through responses to Q.5 of the questionnaire, so that a total of 100 or so experts were approached, resulting in the collection of 61 examples during a period of one month.

Apart from patient-focused questions such as Q.17 it is fair to say that patient organizations only contribute perhaps 5% of the total data. Nevertheless, through nomination by the patient organization LMCA, Peter Walsh, CEO of AvMA (Action against medical accidents) was advisor on patient related issues throughout the project.

Conclusions and recommendations of WP2.

1. While patient safety is recognised as a health quality priority across Europe, inevitably there is wide variation in the level of implementation of appropriate mechanisms for improvement.

2. There was a positive response to the mapping exercise from the majority of those approached and overall there is evidence of substantial expertise and good practice, scattered across Europe.

3. Unless some funding is found to allow sustainability of the databases they will rapidly become obsolete. Equally, the network of contacts having now been set up (with potential for further expansion), the cost of refining survey tools and managing the databases in the medium term is relatively small compared to the initial outlay. This then offers excellent value for money as an investment and would actively support the policy direction associated with a European network for patient safety.

For example, the network of contacts set in place includes competent authorities for some countries, but also provides a means to establish competent authorities for some countries that have not yet identified them.

4. The completion of the mapping exercise and good practice compendium provides a foundation for more focused investigation of specific elements within the general overview.

As examples, two particular issues involving measurement are highlighted which could provide the basis for further study; whether there is transfer of expertise across country boundaries as a result of collaborative projects and whether direct benefit to citizens, as customers of healthcare services, can be identified as an outcome of such collaborative efforts.