Kathrin Heinitz

Background: Intravenous anti-infectives are an important part of postoperative care, but discrepancies between prescribed and documented administrations remain widespread and require systematic evaluation. Methods: In an exploratory study, prescribed and documented intravenous anti-infective administrations were retrospectively analyzed using patient charts, digital nursing reports and, in cases of deviations, consultations with the responsible staff. The discrepancies were classified into three categories: (I) documentation, (II) administration, and (III) a combination of both. The relationship between discrepancies and dosing interval, time of administration (weekday and shift assignment), and intravenous administration route was statistically analyzed (Χ² test, residual analysis). Results: Of 5016 anti-infective administrations in 219 patients, 1135 (22.6%) had at least one discrepancy, of which 68.2% (774 of 1135) belonged to category I. Significant differences in the frequency of discrepancies between surgical wards and the dosing intervals were observed. On weekdays, 23.6% of drug administrations (832 of 3519) showed discrepancies compared to 20.2% on weekends (303 of 1497, OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.05–1.42, p = 0.008). Although the early shift had the lowest administration rate, it showed significantly more discrepancies than expected (313.6 expected vs. 553 observed; adjusted standardized residual +18.1; p < 0.001). Drug administration via the peripheral venous route was more susceptible to discrepancies than the central venous administration route (23.2% [963 of 4149] vs. 19.8% [172 of 867]), OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.01–1.38; p = 0.031). Conclusions: Approximately a quarter of anti-infective administrations were affected by discrepancies, predominantly in category I, with the highest incidences occurring during the early shift and on weekdays. This requires a multi-step improvement program.

The Common Good Balance Sheet (CGB) is an instrument to measure a company’s contribution to the common good. In our study, we investigate whether employees from companies with higher CBG scores perceive more corporate social responsibility than employees from companies with lower CBG scores and whether relationships can be found between the achieved CGB scores and employees’ job-related attitudes and behaviors. We conducted an online survey of 332 employees from eight German companies with published CGBs. According to results from multiple linear regression analyses, employees from companies with higher CGB scores perceive more CSR and are more satisfied with their jobs and payments. In addition, they report less job demands, more organizational support, more work meaningfulness and more organizational citizenship behaviors towards their company. Employees identify more with their company if high transparency and co-determination is practiced. However, the value and social impact of the companies’ products is not related to employees’ organizational identification. Moreover, employees from companies with high CGB scores do not report more organizational citizenship behaviors towards their colleagues. Our results indicate that the CGB is a tool that measures aspects concerning job-related attitudes and behaviors and allows comparability between companies. However, aspects relevant to job satisfaction may still be missing in the CGB scoring.

Increasing individual subjective well-being has various positive outcomes, knowledge about its antecedents and the mediators of this relationship can therefore help to increase subjective well-being and the accompanying positive effects. The more future oriented facets of psychological capital, i.e. optimism, hope and self-efficacy have been shown in several studies to be positively related to subjective well-being and negatively to ill-being. Furthermore, recent studies suggest coping strategies as mediators for these relationships. In our study, we examined the longitudinal relation of optimism, hope and self-efficacy with subjective well-being and ill-being in a German panel dataset and tested the mediating effect of flexible goal adjustment in a path model. Our results show a statistically significant positive effect of self-efficacy and optimism on subjective well-being as well as a statistically significant negative effect of optimism on depression over three years. All three predictors show a statistically significant relation with flexible goal adjustment, but flexible goal adjustment did not mediate the effect on subjective well-being or depression.