Quality of care and patient safety at healthcare institutions in Oman: quantitative study of the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals

Sustainability in the Public Healthcare Sector: Insights From an Analytical Hierarchy Process Analysis

Background This study aimed to identify sustainability priorities within Oman's healthcare sector using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) methodology. Mainly, it focused on assessing the relative importance of economic, environmental, and social factors and their sub-elements in sustaining Oman's healthcare system. Methodology A semi-quantitative, cross-sectional design was employed to collect data from 23 Omani healthcare experts with at least 10 years of experience in five different public hospitals in Oman. The AHP methodology was used to analyze pairwise comparisons of sustainability factors and derive their priorities. The consistency ratio was calculated to ensure the reliability of the analysis, and the transitivity rule was applied to address inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons. Results The findings revealed a strong emphasis on environmental and social sustainability, with economic considerations ranking comparatively lower. Circular practices emerged as a key priority within the environmental domain, while patient satisfaction stood out within the social domain. The analysis showed the integration between healthcare, environmental health, and societal well-being, emphasizing the need for holistic approaches to sustainability. Conclusions This study contributes to the understanding of healthcare sustainability by providing empirical evidence of stakeholder preferences within Oman's healthcare system. By quantitatively assessing the relative importance of economic, environmental, and social factors, it informs decision-making and resource allocation toward sustainable healthcare development. The findings also support the argument for integrated approaches to healthcare sustainability that balance economic efficiency with environmental protection and social inclusion.

The Impact of Rationing Nursing Care on Patient Safety: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND Rationing of nursing care (RONC) has been associated with poor patient outcomes and is a growing concern in healthcare. The aim of this systematic study was to investigate the connection between patient safety and the RONC. MATERIAL AND METHODS A thorough search of electronic databases was done to find research that examined the relationship between restricting nurse services and patient safety. The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two reviewers (M.L. and A.P.) independently screened the titles and abstracts, and full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Data were extracted, and a quality assessment was performed using appropriate techniques. RESULTS A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included in the review demonstrated a correlation between rationing of nursing care and patient safety. The results of these studies revealed that there is an inverse relationship between rationing of nursing care and patient safety. The review found that when nursing care is rationed, there is a higher incidence of falls, medication errors, pressure ulcers, infections, and readmissions. In addition, the review identified that the work characteristics of nurses, such as workload, staffing levels, and experience, were associated with RONC. CONCLUSIONS RONC has a negative impact on patient safety outcomes. It is essential for healthcare organizations to implement effective strategies to prevent the RONC. Improving staffing levels, workload management, and communication amo0ng healthcare providers are some of the strategies that can support this.

Medical malpractice in Oman: A 12-year retrospective record review

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of studies documenting medical malpractice litigation in countries of the Arabian Gulf, such as Oman.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the characteristics of malpractice claims, the outcomes decided by the medical liability committee, and predictors of medical errors.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study that reviewed medical malpractice cases registered in Oman over a 12-year period (2010-2021) with the medical liability committee, known as the Higher Medical Committee (HMC). Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques, including multiple logistic regression techniques, were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2021, the HMC registered 1284 medical malpractice cases, out of which 1048 were fully investigated. The number of registered cases increased during this period. These cases included those raised by Omani nationals and expatriates, with a majority (86%) raised by Omani complainants. Two-thirds (67%) of the cases involved adult complainants aged 18-60 years. About 43% of the cases were from the urban Muscat region, and 68% were related to public hospitals. The most common specialties involved were obstetrics and gynecology (20.1%), internal medicine (19.7%), surgery (17.6%) and orthopedics (13.8%). Half (51%) of the appeals or grievances were dismissed because they were not preceded by medical negligence or malpractice. The average waiting time to initiate the investigation was 10 months. Errors were more common among non-Omani complainants and cases related to private hospitals. Significant predictors of errors included nationality (i.e. Omani vs. non-Omani), the referring institution, the medical specialty and the type of health institution involved, and the waiting time to initiate the investigation.

CONCLUSION

To date, the number of cases of medical malpractice in Oman is lower compared to international trends, although there has been an upsurge in recent years. More research using a more robust methodology is warranted to contextualise the factors that contribute to this upward trend, as well as the preponderance in urban settings and among certain demographic populations.

Patient satisfaction - results of cluster analysis of finnish patients

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers must understand patients' expectations and perceptions of the care they receive to provide high-quality care. The purpose of this study is to identify and analyse different clusters of patient satisfaction with the quality of care at Finnish acute care hospitals.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was applied. The data were collected in 2017 from three Finnish acute care hospitals with the Revised Humane Caring Scale (RHCS) as a paper questionnaire, including six background questions and six subscales. The k-means clustering method was used to define and analyse clusters in the data. The unit of analysis was a health system encompassing inpatients and outpatients. Clusters revealed the common characteristics shared by the different groups of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 1810 patients participated in the study. Patient satisfaction was categorised into four groups: dissatisfied (n = 58), moderately dissatisfied (n = 249), moderately satisfied (n = 608), and satisfied (n = 895). The scores for each subscale were significantly above average in the satisfied patient group. The dissatisfied and moderately dissatisfied patient groups reported scores for all six subscales that were clearly below the average value. The groups significantly differed in terms of hospital admission (p = .013) and living situation (p = .009). Patients representing the dissatisfied and moderately dissatisfied groups were acutely admitted more frequently than patients in other groups and were more likely to live alone than satisfied and moderately satisfied patients.

CONCLUSION

The results mostly demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction; however, the perceptions of minority populations of dissatisfied patients should be assessed to identify shortcomings in the care provided. More attention should be paid to acutely admitted patients who are living alone and the pain and apprehension management of all patients.

Satisfaction of patients with health care services in tertiary care facilities of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional approach

As part of Saudi Vision 2030, the country's healthcare system is undergoing a significant makeover, with accessibility and effectiveness serving as the benchmarks for measuring patient care quality. This study's goal was to ascertain the degree of patient satisfaction with the medical care and services received in Riyadh's tertiary care facilities. The PSQ-18 (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18), a standardized validated questionnaire including areas of "overall satisfaction," "technical quality," "interpersonal aspect," "communication," "financial aspect," "time spent with the doctor," and "accessibility and convenience," was used in this cross-sectional study on 384 patients of two tertiary care facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, over a 6-month period. The degree to which sociodemographic characteristics and components of patient satisfaction are correlated was assessed using binary and multiple regression analysis. When the P-value was < 0.05, the results were considered significant and were presented as adjusted odds ratios (AOR). To ascertain how each PSQ-18 subscale affected other subscales, a Pearson Correlation analysis was conducted. The overall degree of satisfaction with all 18 items was 73.77%. The financial component received a rating of 81% compared to 77% for general satisfaction. Technical quality (75%) was followed by accessibility and convenience (73.5%), communication (73%), and interpersonal elements (72%). At 68%, the time spent in the doctor's domain received the lowest rating. The odds of satisfaction were increased by 3.87 times, 3.45 times, and 3.36 times among those who are employed, qualified by university education, and married compared to unemployed (P-value = 0.018), less qualified (P-value = 0.015) and singles (P-value = 0.026), respectively. The younger age group also made 1.78 times more of a difference in higher satisfaction ratings. The general satisfaction domain showed a positive association with other areas. Participants who were satisfied with the communication and accessibility and convenience domains of healthcare providers were the only ones who were typically satisfied with the domain of doctor time spent. The study's findings could act as a benchmark for Saudi Arabia's healthcare services as well as a starting point for quality assurance procedures.

Development of the Self-Perceived Safety of Orthopedic Post-Surgery Inpatients (SPSOPSI) Scale

In recent decades, patient safety in orthopedics has gained increasing importance and has been regarded as a core concept of medical care quality. However, according to currently published studies, measurement instruments used to evaluate post-surgery orthopedic patient's perceptions are still very rare. This study aimed to develop a new measurement instrument, the self-perceived safety of orthopedic post-surgery inpatients (SPSOPSI) scale, which can provide healthcare workers with a better understanding of orthopedic patients' self-perceived safety and give more precise clinical suggestions. Item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used, and the results showed that the six-factor model is good-fit: root mean square residual (RMR) 0.00, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.06, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) 0.90, comparative fit index (CFI) 0.98, incremental fit index (IFI) 0.98. The results showed the SPSOPSI scale is a valid and reliable tool for health care providers can use to evaluate orthopedic post-surgery patients' perceived safety.