Yıl 2020, Cilt 5 , Sayı 2, Sayfalar 111 - 122 2020-08-29

THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY

Cagla YIGITBAS [1] , Fadime ÜSTÜNER TOP [2] , Aliye BULUT [3]


The objective is to research the face-to-face method of education and the educational methods through information technology in the tendency and approach to medical errors and whether some characteristics create a difference on both these situations. It is a randomized controlled intervention research with a pretest-posttest design. A power analysis was carried out and 60 individuals were included in the sampling. Pretesting was conducted through data collection tools before hospital implementations were commenced. The required interventions were conducted after hospital implementations were commenced. No interventions were made on the control group. The individual identificatory characteristics of the participants comprised the independent variables; the Medical Error Tendency Scale for Nurses (METSN) and Medical Error Attitude Scale (MEAS) comprised the dependent variables. The analyses were implemented via SPSS-22 program, and p<0.05 was regarded as the significance level. The mean age of the participants was 22.02 ± 3.33 (20-41). The pretest score from METSN was 217.51 ± 15.14, the posttest score from METSN was 220.18 ± 15.39, the pretest score from MEAS was 62.71 ± 5.24, and the posttest score from MEAS was 64.21 ± 5.18 in terms of Mean ± SD scores. No difference was found in the pretest and posttest scores from METSN and from MEAS of the variables of age group, gender, income, the place lived in over a long period of time, whether the job was selected in accordance with one's own preference, satisfaction with job selection. A moderately positive correlation was found between the pretest and posttest scores from METSN and MEAS. Type of education received and some of the socio-demographic characteristics researched do not constitute any difference in terms of the tendency and attitude to medical error and malpractice; nevertheless, the posttest scores of the intervention groups were high. Evaluation of whether clinical skills make a difference may be recommended
Medical error, malpractice, tendency and attitude, face-to-face education, via information technology education
  • 1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malpractice. 2. JCAHO, 2006. Sentinel Event Statistics, Retrieved from www.jointcommission.org/Library/TM hysicians/mp _11_06.htm 3. Avsar, G., Atabek Armutcu, E., Karaman Ozlu, Z., “Determining the level of tendency in malpractice of nurses: A hospital sample”. HSP , 3(2), 115-122 2016. doi 10.17681/hsp.86420 4. Akgun Sahin, Z., Kardas Ozdemir, F., “Examination of the tendency for nursing malpractice and affecting factors”. HEAD. 12(3), 210-214, 2015. doi 10.5222/HEAD.2015.210 5. Ozata, M., Altunkan, H., Frequency of medical errors in hospitals, determination of medical error types and medical errors: Konya sample. Journal of Medical Research, 8(2), 100-111, 2010. https://www.medikalakademi.com.tr/?get_group_doc=20/1460364096-hastane-tibbi-hata.pdf 6. Menachemi, N., Shewchuk, R.M., O’Connor, S.J., Berner, E.S., Allison, J.J., “Perceptions of medical errors by internal medicine residents: Development and validation of a new scale”. Quality Management in Health Care, 14(3), 144- 154, 2005. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16027592 7. World Health Organization 2019. World Alliance for Patient Safety Forward Programme 2005. Retrieved from http://www. who.int/patientsafety/en/brochure_final. pdf 8. Akalın, H.E., “Patient safety in intensive care units”. Journal of Intensive Care, 5(3), 141-146, 2005. http://www.yogunbakimdergisi.org/managete/fu_folder/2005-03/2005-5-3-141-146.pdf 9. Ozer, O., Tastan Set, T., Cayır, Y., Sener, M.T., “Malpractise”. Dicle Medical Journal, 42(3), 394-397, 2015. doi 10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2015.03.0597 10. Moo, 2019. Sharing and Communication Infographic. Retrieved from https://www.moo.com/us/partner/sharing-and-communication/ 11. Ugwu, L.O., Oyebisi, T.O., Ilori, M.O., Adagunodo, E.R., “Organizational impact of information technology on the banking and insurance sector in Nigeria”. Technovation, 20(12), 711-721, 2000. doi 10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00013-4 12. Plano Clark, V.L., Creswell, J.W., Understanding Research: A consumer’s guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 2015. 13. Buyukozturk, S., Kılıc Cakmak, E., Akgun, O.E., Karadeniz, S,. Demirel, F., Scientific Research Methods. Ankara: Pegem.2011 14. Ozen, N., Onay, T., Terzioglu, F., “Determination of nurses' tendency to make medical errors and affecting factors”. Journal of Health Sciences and Professions. 283-292, 2019. doi 10.17681/hsp.451510 15. Arıkan, R., Research Methods and Techniques. Ankara: Nobel. 2013. 16. Sezer, B., Karaoglan Yılmaz, F.G., Yılmaz, R., “Comparison of online and traditional face-to-face in-service training practices: An experimental study”. Journal of Cukurova University Faculty of Education. 46(1), 264-288, 2017. doi 10.14812/cuefd.311737 17. Bir, AA., Doctors' Information Source Is Also Popular Media!. Health Communication Association. 2019. Retrieved from http://saglikiletisimi.org/doktorlarin-bilgi-kaynagi-da-populermedya 18. Guven, S.D., Sahan, S., Unsal, A., “Nurses' attitudes for medical errors”. İzlek Academic Journal. 2(2), 75-85, 2019. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/799882 19. Yigitbas, C., Oguzhan, H., Tercan, B., Bulut, A., Bulut, A., “Nurses’ Perception, Attitudes and Behaviors Concerning Malpractice”. Anadolu Clinigi 21(3), 207-214, 2016. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/310310 20. Albion, P.R., “Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two Imperatives for Action, Computers in the Schools”. Journal Computers in the Schools. 25(3-4), 181-198, 2008. doi.org/10.1080/07380560802368173 21. Ferdig, R.E., “Editorial: Examining social software in teacher education”. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 15(1), 5-10, 2007. http://www.editlib.org/p/23518 22. McLoughlin, C., Lee, J.W. Social Software and Participatory Learning: Pedagogical Choices with Technology Affordances in the Web 2.0 Era. 2008. Singapore. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/52ac/3f2b3d75e6de176dce701afc0b469d7f949a.pdf
Birincil Dil en
Konular Sağlık Bilimleri ve Hizmetleri, Tıbbi Araştırmalar Deneysel
Bölüm Article
Yazarlar

Orcid: 0000-0002-3789-1156
Yazar: Cagla YIGITBAS (Sorumlu Yazar)
Kurum: GİRESUN RESEARCH CENTER
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0002-7341-5704
Yazar: Fadime ÜSTÜNER TOP
Kurum: GİRESUN RESEARCH CENTER
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0002-4326-0000
Yazar: Aliye BULUT
Kurum: BİNGÖL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ
Ülke: Turkey


Destekleyen Kurum None
Proje Numarası None
Teşekkür We thank all of participants
Tarihler

Başvuru Tarihi : 18 Mayıs 2020
Kabul Tarihi : 30 Haziran 2020
Yayımlanma Tarihi : 29 Ağustos 2020

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { ijhsrp739533, journal = {International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy}, issn = {}, eissn = {2602-3482}, address = {Dicle Üniversitesi Teknokenti Silvan Bulvarı 222/3 21280 SUR/DİYARBAKIR}, publisher = {Rojan GÜMÜŞ}, year = {2020}, volume = {5}, pages = {111 - 122}, doi = {10.33457/ijhsrp.739533}, title = {THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY}, key = {cite}, author = {Yıgıtbas, Cagla and Üstüner Top, Fadime and Bulut, Aliye} }
APA Yıgıtbas, C , Üstüner Top, F , Bulut, A . (2020). THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY . International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy , 5 (2) , 111-122 . DOI: 10.33457/ijhsrp.739533
MLA Yıgıtbas, C , Üstüner Top, F , Bulut, A . "THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY" . International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 5 (2020 ): 111-122 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijhsrp/issue/56530/739533>
Chicago Yıgıtbas, C , Üstüner Top, F , Bulut, A . "THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY". International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 5 (2020 ): 111-122
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY AU - Cagla Yıgıtbas , Fadime Üstüner Top , Aliye Bulut Y1 - 2020 PY - 2020 N1 - doi: 10.33457/ijhsrp.739533 DO - 10.33457/ijhsrp.739533 T2 - International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 111 EP - 122 VL - 5 IS - 2 SN - -2602-3482 M3 - doi: 10.33457/ijhsrp.739533 UR - https://doi.org/10.33457/ijhsrp.739533 Y2 - 2020 ER -
EndNote %0 International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY %A Cagla Yıgıtbas , Fadime Üstüner Top , Aliye Bulut %T THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY %D 2020 %J International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy %P -2602-3482 %V 5 %N 2 %R doi: 10.33457/ijhsrp.739533 %U 10.33457/ijhsrp.739533
ISNAD Yıgıtbas, Cagla , Üstüner Top, Fadime , Bulut, Aliye . "THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY". International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 5 / 2 (Ağustos 2020): 111-122 . https://doi.org/10.33457/ijhsrp.739533
AMA Yıgıtbas C , Üstüner Top F , Bulut A . THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY. IJHSRP. 2020; 5(2): 111-122.
Vancouver Yıgıtbas C , Üstüner Top F , Bulut A . THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT METHODS IN TERMS OF MALPRACTICE: A RANDOMİZED CONTROLLED STUDY. International Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2020; 5(2): 111-122.