Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

  1    I,     2. 10.  3    |         support a common approach to patient identifiers and electronic
  2    I,     2. 10.  4    |             to match product data to patient data, verification of patient
  3    I,     2. 10.  4    |        patient data, verification of patient identity via a wristband,
  4    I,     2. 10.  4    |            implant serial numbers in patient records and central registries,
  5    I,     2. 10.  4    |       admissions are likely to incur patient safety incidents, which
  6    I,     2. 10.  4    |    pharmacists before they reach the patient, only 2% of administration
  7    I,     2. 10.  4    |             point of delivery to the patient, is an extremely effective
  8    I,     2. 10.  4(12)|          Simple technology for safer patient carUK Departament of
  9    I,     2. 10.  4(19)|          Simple technology for safer patient careUK Depertament of
 10    I,     2. 10.  4    |          from product manufacture to patient treatment, is imperative
 11    I,     2. 10.  4    |         healthcare settings, such as patient identification codes on
 12    I,     2. 10.  4(22)|          Simple technology for safer patient careUK Department of Health –
 13   II,     5.  1.  2    |                               5.1.2. Patient centeredness~ ~More than
 14   II,     5.  1.  2    |        directly dependent on how the patient and his/her family have
 15   II,     5.  1.  2    |             bearer of a disease, the patient, is a unique person totally
 16   II,     5.  1.  2    |       totally different from another patient who may suffer from the
 17   II,     5.  1.  2    |             dimensions for helping a patient, patient-centeredness can
 18   II,     5.  1.  2    |         simultaneously into account. Patient care oscillates between
 19   II,     5.  1.  2    |            dimensions that deal with patient rehabilitation, home visiting
 20   II,     5.  1.  2    |         visiting nurses, therapeutic patient education and patient associations
 21   II,     5.  1.  2    |    therapeutic patient education and patient associations who all participate
 22   II,     5.  1.  2    |            even no dialogue with his patient.~ ~Chronic diseases and
 23   II,     5.  1.  2    |          spiritual dimensions of the patient. Of course, coping and psychological
 24   II,     5.  1.  2    |           may vary depending on each patient, but are also the result
 25   II,     5.  1.  3    |                   5.1.3. Therapeutic patient education~ ~The WHO produced
 26   II,     5.  1.  3    |      document in 1998 on therapeutic patient education (Report of a WHO
 27   II,     5.  1.  3    |         Working Group on Therapeutic Patient Education. Continuing education
 28   II,     5.  1.  3    |              partnership between the patient and his health care professional
 29   II,     5.  1.  3    |          skills which could help the patient to have a major role in
 30   II,     5.  1.  3    |             adherence.~ ~Therapeutic patient education should enable
 31   II,     5.  1.  3    |             and illness. Therapeutic patient education has been designed
 32   II,     5.  1.  3    |            that practice therapeutic patient education, hoping therefore
 33   II,     5.  1.  3    |             global need. Therapeutic patient education is a systemic,
 34   II,     5.  1.  3    |            takes into account:~· the patient’s adaptation processes (
 35   II,     5.  1.  3    |      treatment and care.~Therapeutic patient education is about the patient’
 36   II,     5.  1.  3    |       patient education is about the patient’s daily life and psychosocial
 37   II,     5.  1.  3    |   environment, and also involves the patient’s family and his/her closest
 38   II,     5.  1.  3    |        course of the disease, to the patient and to his/her daily life.
 39   II,     5.  1.  3    |            the long-term care of the patient and has to be structured,
 40   II,     5.  1.  3    |      systematically provided to each patient using different means. We
 41   II,     5.  1.  3    |         their condition. Therapeutic patient education is designed, therefore,
 42   II,     5.  1.  3    |             our society. Therapeutic patient education is essential for
 43   II,     5.  1.  3    |            its benefits. Therapeutic patient education is education managed
 44   II,     5.  1.  3    |             and designed to enable a patient (or a group of patients
 45   II,     5.  1.  4    |                In healthcare, as the patient needs information about
 46   II,     5.  1.  4    |              manage the disease. The patient also needs information about
 47   II,     5.  1.  4    |           concerns his/hercare. As a patient, the affected person should
 48   II,     5.  2.  3    |         their initial admission. The patient is usually stabilized and
 49   II,     5.  2.  3    |             possible to identify the patient when he/she is re-admitted
 50   II,     5.  2.  3    |              possible to know if the patient may have experienced an
 51   II,     5.  2.  3    |         which allows to identify the patient when he/she is re-admitted
 52   II,     5.  2.  5    |      interventions fail to bring the patient’s blood lipids or blood
 53   II,     5.  2.  6    |           the overall CV risk of the patient considered is high, a pharmacological
 54   II,     5.  2.  6    |          which may be present in the patient. The association of two
 55   II,     5.  3.  2    |              population level cancer patient data are becoming more and
 56   II,     5.  3.  2    |             were intended to improve patient confidentiality, but in
 57   II,     5.  3.  2    |              programme planning, and patient care improvement;~· cancer
 58   II,     5.  3.  2    |          global comparison regarding patient access to cancer drugs by
 59   II,     5.  3.  7    |          global comparison regarding patient access to cancer drugs” (
 60   II,     5.  3.  7    |           facilitate, and not delay, patient access.~· Ensure that appropriate
 61   II,     5.  3.  7    |              scientific research and patient community (Haward and Borras,
 62   II,     5.  3.  7    |              best decisions for each patient’s diagnosis, treatment and
 63   II,     5.  3.  8    |             consideration the cancer patient needs: achieve full knowledge
 64   II,     5.  3.  8    |             function of cancer type, patient age and rehabilitation requirements
 65   II,     5.  4.  1    |             average annual costs per patient with type 2 diabetes were
 66   II,     5.  4.  2    |           identifier assigned to the patient. This way, denominators
 67   II,     5.  4.  6    |     particularly well to diabetes is patient empowerment. This process
 68   II,     5.  4.  6    |              stakeholders, including patient and civil society organisations,
 69   II,     5.  4.  7    |          setting, where the diabetic patient is met and where there is
 70   II,     5.  4.  8    |           population-based equitable patient care: the Tayside Regional
 71   II,     5.  4.  8    |               A networked electronic patient record system for diabetes,
 72   II,     5.  5.  1    |         medicin3es on DDD levels per patient.~ ~
 73   II,     5.  5.  3    |            place of residence of the patient. Two age categories are
 74   II,     5.  5.  3    |            these recommendations and patient’s compliance.~For a multitude
 75   II,     5.  5.  3    |           settings and routine care (patient population, artificial circumstances,
 76   II,     5.  5.  3    |    tendencies of efficacy in certain patient groups but give little to
 77   II,     5.  5.  3    |          strategy for the individual patient.~Lack and misallocation
 78   II,     5.  5.  3    |       results from the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (
 79   II,     5.  5.  3    |      schizophrenia: Lessons from the Patient Outcomes Research Team (
 80   II,     5.  5.  3    |             the attentiveness of the patient and his/her family, on the
 81   II,     5.  5.  3    |              in a previously healthy patient with epilepsy in whom no
 82   II,     5.  5.  3    |             Nashef et al, 1995). The patient at risk for SUDEP is a young
 83   II,     5.  5.  3    |              varies depending on the patient’s or the health authority’
 84   II,     5.  5.  3    |            and Sander, 2005). From a patient’s perspective, the risk
 85   II,     5.  5.  3    |        imaging data of each enrolled patient. Such networks can be easily
 86   II,     5.  5.  3    |             2000): Epilepsy from the patient’s perspective: review of
 87   II,     5.  5.  3    |               including the National Patient Registry (Koch-Henriksen
 88   II,     5.  5.  3    |             as total annual cost per patient in 2005, total direct costs (
 89   II,     5.  5.  3    |            in the study estimates.~A patient with mild disability at
 90   II,     5.  5.  3    |       unpredictable also in the same patient. The following categorisation
 91   II,     5.  5.  3    |              by both the medical and patient community;~· It commits
 92   II,     5.  5.  3    |           professionalisation of the patient’s status (i.e. the strengthening
 93   II,     5.  5.  3    |             considerably affects the patient’s quality of life and leads
 94   II,     5.  5.  3    |             with an average cost per patient of €7,600.~ ~Figure 5.5.
 95   II,     5.  5.  3    |          average cost are €3,400 per patient, whereas the cost for severely
 96   II,     5.  5.  3    |            patients reach9,200 per patient (HY IV).~ ~ ~Figure 5.5.
 97   II,     5.  5.  3    |             the future.~The cost per patient was found to be about five
 98   II,     5.  5.  3    |   health-related quality of life and patient utilities of Parkinson’s
 99   II,     5.  6.  3    |              risk for the individual patient over a time period that
100   II,     5.  6.  6    |            Rheumatoid Arthritis: the Patient Perspective. Ann Rheum Dis
101   II,     5.  6.  6    |      Anderson S, Anderson RJ (2000): Patient desire and reasons for specialist
102   II,     5.  6.  6    |            and Akesson K (2006): The Patient with Osteoporosis. In: Osteoporosis
103   II,     5.  7.  2    |              and reliable individual patient data on the incidence and
104   II,     5.  7.  2    |           able to provide individual patient data covering their whole
105   II,     5.  7.  2    |           will only include complete patient data in another few years.
106   II,     5.  7.  2    |           availability of individual patient data within one European
107   II,     5.  7.  2    |    Mediterranean Sea. The individual patient data are used for epidemiological
108   II,     5.  7.  2    |            incidence, prevalence and patient survival. These are published
109   II,     5.  7.  2    |      registries including individual patient data collect at least the
110   II,     5.  7.  2    |             birth and gender of each patient starting RRT in their coverage
111   II,     5.  7.  2    |          provide complete individual patient data for the whole country
112   II,     5.  7.  3    |          considerable differences in patient survival (van Dijk et al,
113   II,     5.  7.  5    |            measures will be based on patient outcomes, referral patterns
114   II,     5.  7.  5    |           when deemed necessary. The patient association - which is supported
115   II,     5.  7.  6    |             far below the demand. As patient survival and quality of
116   II,     5.  8.  3    |             patients and in the same patient over time. Co-morbidities
117   II,     5.  8.  3    | understanding of their impact on the patient and disease management:~•
118   II,     5.  8.  3    |              direct annual costs per patient were about 1 200, 1 600
119   II,     5.  8.  3    |           medical cost of every COPD patient was estimated at 4,366 euro
120   II,     5.  8.  3    |             average direct costs per patient were estimated to be 909€
121   II,     5.  8.  3    |            An analysis of the Danish Patient Registry for patients admitted
122   II,     5.  8.  3    |            the cost of treatment per patient was 1.017 Euro. It was found
123   II,     5.  9. FB    |          exaggerated reaction by the patient’s immune system to an allergen
124   II,     5.  9.  3    |            the cost of treatment per patient was 750.18 Euro (Vrbica,
125   II,     5.  9.  4    |          with ARIA guidelines, every patient with allergic rhinitis should
126   II,     5.  9.  5    |              on preventive measures, patient education and self-management
127   II,     5.  9.  6    |        subjective perceptions of the patient. The assessment of HRQoL
128   II,     5.  9.  6    |         symptoms available for every patient in the world.~ ~
129   II,     5.  9.  7    |          structured review of recent patient surveys, BMC Pulmonary Medicine
130   II,     5. 11.  3    |             for the most part of the patient’s suffering and incapacitation:
131   II,     5. 11.  3    |          manifestations long after a patient stops wearing the nickel-releasing
132   II,     5. 11.  3    |              is highly variable from patient to patient, and up to 10-
133   II,     5. 11.  3    |             variable from patient to patient, and up to 10-20% of patients
134   II,     5. 14.  3    |              the face of disease and patient management. In France, 40%
135   II,     5. 14.  7    |          multidimensional aspects of patient perceived needs, desires
136   II,     5. 14.  7    |           approach to help determine patient’s needs in order to assure
137   II,     5. 15.  5    |          rare diseases diagnosis and patient care in the EU are expected
138   II,     5. 15.  5    |   recognition and for improved care. Patient organizations now play an
139   II,     9.  1.  2    |     information systems using unique patient identifiers. EUROCAT is
140   II,     9.  1.  2    |         European directive regarding patient consent. Although a reasonable
141   II,     9.  3.  1    |             important determinant in patient selection for treatment
142   II,     9.  3.  1    |              Adams A, et al, (2006): Patient characteristics and inequalities
143   II,     9.  4.  5    |             financial resources of a patient and his or her family. A
144  III,    10.  2.  1    |            care and ensure effective patient referral~ ~Focusing on health
145  III,    10.  2.  3    |              overall CVD risk of the patient is high, a pharmacological
146   IV,    11.  1.  3    |              standards. The focus on patient rights and patient safety
147   IV,    11.  1.  3    |          focus on patient rights and patient safety has been integral
148   IV,    11.  1.  3    |            role of the individual or patient is another factor requiring
149   IV,    11.  1.  3    |         technical efficiency and the patient’s experience.~ ~
150   IV,    11.  1.  5    |   availability, respect, timeliness, patient/care experience, choice/
151   IV,    11.  1.  5    |       integral in quality of care is patient safety, which is discussed
152   IV,    11.  1.  5    |               yet lacks of impact on patient empowerment (Mainz and Bartels,
153   IV,    11.  1.  5    |             diabetes, mental health, patient safety and primary care/
154   IV,    11.  1.  5    |      corresponds to the needs of the patient. Strategies to ensure appropriateness
155   IV,    11.  1.  5    |             and information systems, patient surveys, clinical governance
156   IV,    11.  1.  5    |      products to meet the individual patient’s need, thus require an
157   IV,    11.  1.  5    |             related to information), patient experiences and additional
158   IV,    11.  1.  5    |             the GP contract includes patient documentation requirements.
159   IV,    11.  1.  5    |              process seek to monitor patient outcomes through specific
160   IV,    11.  1.  5    |        target include the setting of patient blood pressure and cholesterol
161   IV,    11.  1.  5    |         aspects of care provision.~ ~Patient and public experiences~ ~
162   IV,    11.  1.  5    |             experiences~ ~Public and patient surveys shed light on the
163   IV,    11.  1.  5    |         quality of public services~ ~Patient safety~ ~Patient safety
164   IV,    11.  1.  5    |          services~ ~Patient safety~ ~Patient safety is increasingly recognized
165   IV,    11.  1.  5    |              In the UK, the National Patient Safety Agency was established
166   IV,    11.  1.  5    |       established in 2001 to improve patient safety by reducing the risk
167   IV,    11.  1.  5    |              help raise awareness on patient safety issues. Denmark is
168   IV,    11.  1.  5    |           formal system for ensuring patient safety.~ ~Patient safety
169   IV,    11.  1.  5    |           ensuring patient safety.~ ~Patient safety can be improved through
170   IV,    11.  1.  5    |     professional training courses in patient safety should demonstrate
171   IV,    11.  1.  5    |             all personnel to protect patient safety, regardless of the
172   IV,    11.  1.  5    |               the World Alliance for Patient Safety was formed in 2002
173   IV,    11.  1.  5    |            of promoting a culture of patient safety (McCarthy and Blumenthal,
174   IV,    11.  1.  5    |         follow eight steps to reduce patient safety concerns. This resulted
175   IV,    11.  1.  5    |          one-day decrease in average patient length-of-stay and 43 less
176   IV,    11.  1.  5    |             early signs of declining patient health to avoid acute crises.
177   IV,    11.  1.  5    |         represent a concern for both patient safety and the finances
178   IV,    11.  1.  5    |         avoiding medical errors, the patient is also seen as having a
179   IV,    11.  1.  5    |             with the health system~ ~Patient and public satisfaction
180   IV,    11.  1.  5    |       measured through population or patient surveys and opinion polls.
181   IV,    11.  1.  5    |          based on public rather than patient experiences. The European
182   IV,    11.  1.  6    |       survival rates, waiting times, patient experiences and longer-term
183   IV,    11.  1.  6    |    Fee-for-service if higher income, patient capitation if lower patient
184   IV,    11.  1.  6    |          patient capitation if lower patient income.~ ~Salary. Fee-for-service
185   IV,    11.  1.  6    |            Fee-for-service if higher patient income,~capitation if lower
186   IV,    11.  1.  6    |          income,~capitation if lower patient income.~ ~ ~Blended payment (
187   IV,    11.  1.  6    |        clinical outcomes and enhance patient safety and satisfaction
188   IV,    11.  1.  6    |             inclusive flat sum for a patient’s treatment according to
189   IV,    11.  1.  6    |            costs of treating a given patient and to reimburse providers
190   IV,    11.  1.  6    |            with different systems of patient classification, there is
191   IV,    11.  2.  1    |         prevention and management of patient risk factors in addition
192   IV,    11.  3.  2    |           the payer beyond which the patient must bare the additional
193   IV,    11.  4        |             health policies that are patient focused and seek to achieve
194   IV,    11.  4        |      incorporation of population and patient preferences in health economic
195   IV,    11.  6.  4    |             not fully reimbursed the patient must pay the remainder out
196   IV,    11.  6.  4    |            on measures of changes in patient outcomes, that is, patient
197   IV,    11.  6.  4    |           patient outcomes, that is, patient health status and satisfaction,
198   IV,    11.  6.  5    |                Provider payments and patient charges as policy tools
199   IV,    11.  6.  5    |              al. (2006): Pathways to patient safety: the use of rules
200   IV,    11.  6.  5    |           guidelines in health care. Patient Safety: Research into Practice.
201   IV,    11.  6.  5    |               HOPE.~ ~Howe A (2006): Patient safety: education, training
202   IV,    11.  6.  5    |            professional development. Patient Safety: Research into Practice.
203   IV,    11.  6.  5    |             The appropriate role for patient cost sharing. Critical challenges
204   IV,    11.  6.  5    |            Santé.~ ~Tomes N (2007): “Patient empowerment and the dilemmas
205   IV,    12.  2        |      interventions fail to bring the patient’s blood lipids or blood
206   IV,    12.  2        |          cancer research, quality of patient care, the attractiveness
207   IV,    12.  2        |             were intended to improve patient confidentiality, but in
208   IV,    12.  2        |     involving stakeholders including patient and civil society organisations
209   IV,    12.  3        |    cooperation of health systems and patient rights in cross-border health
210   IV,    12.  3        |           care. A draft directive on patient’s rights in cross-border
211   IV,    12.  4        |          nosocomial diseases); and~· patient safety.~ ~ ~Independent
212   IV,    12.  5        |          Promote measures to improve patient safety through high-quality
213   IV,    12.  5        |             of cross-border care and patient and health professional
214   IV,    12. 10        |              measures with regard to patient safety (examples):~Federal
215   IV,    12. 10        |       driving).~German Coalition for Patient Safety (Aktionsbündnis Patientensicherheit)–
216   IV,    12. 10        |   manufactures, insurance funds, and patient organizations to improve
217   IV,    12. 10        |             organizations to improve patient safety, see www. e~„Forum
218   IV,    12. 10        |            safety, see www. e~„Forum Patient safety“ – provided by German
219   IV,    12. 10        |             published.~Commission on Patient Safety and Quality~established
220   IV,    12. 10        |              The Commisison~includes patient representatives and~has
221   IV,    12. 10        | investigations on issues relating to patient safety. HIQA incorporates
222   IV,    13.  5        |          level reflection process on patient mobility and healthcare
223   IV,    13.  5        |          nosocomial diseases); and~· patient safety.~ ~An improved co-operation
224   IV,    13.  7.  5    |    cross-border health services, and patient safety. In order to satisfy
225   IV,    13.  7.  5    |            only refers to individual patient care. Thus, only paragraph
226  Key,   Ap5.  0.  0    |      particles~particulate~pathogens~patient~patient-centeredness~patients~