ORCID Profile
0000-0001-5551-9975
Current Organisation
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 06-07-2020
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 18-12-2015
Abstract: Healthcare professionals work in emotionally charged settings yet, little is known about the role of emotion in ensuring safe patient care. This article presents current knowledge in this field, drawing upon psychological approaches and evidence from clinical settings. We explore the emotions that health professionals experience in relation to making a medical error and describe the impact on healthcare professionals and on their professional and patient relationships. We also explore how positive and negative emotions can contribute to clinical decision making and affect responses to clinical situations. Evidence to date suggests that emotion plays an integral role in patient safety. Implications for training, practice and research are discussed in addition to strategies to facilitate health services to understand and respond to the influence of emotion in clinical practice.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 03-07-2015
DOI: 10.1136/BMJQS-2015-004268
Abstract: Patients are a valuable source of information about ways to prevent harm in primary care and are in a unique position to provide feedback about the factors that contribute to safety incidents. Unlike in the hospital setting, there are currently no tools that allow the systematic capture of this information from patients. The aim of this study was to develop a quantitative primary care patient measure of safety (PC PMOS). A two-stage approach was undertaken to develop questionnaire domains and items. Stage 1 involved a modified Delphi process. An expert panel reached consensus on domains and items based on three sources of information (validated hospital PMOS, previous research conducted by our study team and literature on threats to patient safety). Stage 2 involved testing the face validity of the questionnaire developed during stage 1 with patients and primary care staff using the 'think aloud' method. Following this process, the questionnaire was revised accordingly. The PC PMOS was received positively by both patients and staff during face validity testing. Barriers to completion included the length, relevance and clarity of questions. The final PC PMOS consisted of 50 items across 15 domains. The contributory factors to safety incidents centred on communication, access to care, patient-related factors, organisation and care planning, task performance and information flow. This is the first tool specifically designed for primary care settings, which allows patients to provide feedback about factors contributing to potential safety incidents. The PC PMOS provides a way for primary care organisations to learn about safety from the patient perspective and make service improvements with the aim of reducing harm in this setting. Future research will explore the reliability and construct validity of the PC PMOS.
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Date: 2015
DOI: 10.1037/HEA0000143
Abstract: Two measures of affect-affective attitude (AA) and anticipated affective reaction (AAR)-have frequently been used in idually, but rarely simultaneously, in correlational studies predicting health behaviors. This research assessed their in idual and combined impact in predicting intention and action for a range of health behaviors, controlling for theory of planned behavior (TPB) variables. Self-reported intentions and performance of health behaviors were the main outcome measures. Study 1 is a meta-analysis of published studies (k = 16) measuring the relevant variables. In Study 2, adults (N = 426) completed questionnaires assessing TPB variables, past behavior, AA, AAR, and subsequent behavior for a range of health behaviors. Across both studies, AA and AAR were only moderately intercorrelated, although both had significant correlations with both intentions and behavior. AA was a significant predictor of intentions and behavior after controlling for TPB variables (Studies 1 and 2) plus past behavior (Study 2). In Study 1, AAR was a significant predictor of behavior, but not intentions, when controlling for TPB variables. In Study 2, AAR was a significant predictor of intentions when controlling for both TPB variables plus past behavior (Study 2), but was not a significant predictor of behavior when controlling for either of these variables. Several relationships were moderated by health-behavior category. Both AA and AAR are important predictors of health behaviors and can have independent effects on intentions and action. Studies manipulating both variables to test their independent and combined effects on behavior change are required.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Jane O'Hara.