Mémoire, y compris stage professionnalisant[BR]- Séminaires méthodologiques intégratifs[BR]- Mémoire : Face à Face: Déclarations d'évènements indésirables vs Débriefings cliniques fin de pause, quel cadre de classification pour partager les meilleures informations?

Abstract

Introduction : The interest of clinical debriefings at the end of the break no longer needs to be demonstrated. It allows to act positively on teamwork and communication. It improves the performance and knowledge of practitioners. Associated with the DEI and integrated into daily management, it could be a considerable asset in a global quality approach. In this context, the aim of our study was to compare the content of debriefings and declarations of adverse events during the year 2021. Methods : This study adopts a qualitative approach and a design similar to a case study. First, we have set up post-shift debriefings during 2021. At the same time, we have aimed to record the various reports of adverse events during 2021. The contents have been categorized. The second step was to analyze the quality of the data and to reflect on the relevance of the frameworks used for the analysis. To do this, the analysis of the different contents, two scientifically validated grids were used and then compared: 1) The WHO adverse event classification grid; 2) The Debriefing and Organizational Lessons Learned (DOLL) grid. Results : Our results show that there is a significant association between the type of debriefing content (plus/delta) and the dimension of the DOLL framework and the OMS framework to which it belongs. Note that some categories of the DOLL and OMS frameworks are not used for DEIs and debriefings. Some dimensions of the WHO classification are broadly associated with the dimensions of the DOLL classification for levels one and two. These same associations are found for IEDs. Finally, no significant difference is detected between the two sites with regard to the types of content and the DOLL and OMS classifications for the debriefings. Conversely for IEDs, there is a significant difference between these elements.

Conclusion : Routine clinical debriefings should be part of an overall process. If we take into account the lessons learned from debriefings and DEIs, an improvement in the safety of care can be expected. The analysis of debriefings coupled with incident management via a common framework makes it possible to take full advantage of the potential of debriefings. The objective is therefore to maintain an approach to improving the quality of patient care and to provide clinicians with the support of their colleagues and management. The framework therefore makes it possible to make more links between the different debriefings and traceability in the results.