The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^

Managing the risks of medical technology: Do hazard surveillance systems provide an early warning of medical device problems?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for risk assessment and risk management in the post-market surveillance of the U.S. medical device industry. One of the FDA regulatory mechanisms, the Medical Device Reporting System (MDR) is an adverse event reporting system intended to provide the FDA with advance warning of device problems. It includes voluntary reporting for individuals, and mandatory reporting for device manufacturers. ^ In a study of alleged breast implant safety problems, this research examines the organizational processes by which the FDA gathers data on adverse events and uses adverse event reporting systems to assess and manage risk. The research reviews the literature on problem recognition, risk perception, and organizational learning to understand the influence highly publicized events may have on adverse event reporting. Understanding the influence of an environmental factor, such as publicity, on adverse event reporting can provide insight into the question of whether the FDA's adverse event reporting system operates as an early warning system for medical device problems. ^ The research focuses on two main questions. The first question addresses the relationship between publicity and the voluntary and mandatory reporting of adverse events. The second question examines whether government agencies make use of these adverse event reports. ^ Using quantitative and qualitative methods, a longitudinal study was conducted of the number and content of adverse event reports regarding breast implants filed with the FDA's medical device reporting system during 1985–1991. To assess variation in publicity over time, the print media were analyzed to identify articles related to breast implant failures. ^ The exploratory findings suggest that an increase in media activity is related to an increase in voluntary reporting, especially following periods of intense media coverage of the FDA. However, a similar relationship was not found between media activity and manufacturers' mandatory adverse event reporting. A review of government committee and agency reports on the FDA published during 1976–1996 produced little evidence to suggest that publicity or MDR information contributed to problem recognition, agenda setting, or the formulation of policy recommendations. ^ The research findings suggest that the reporting of breast implant problems to FDA may reflect the perceptions and concerns of the reporting groups, a barometer of the volume and content of media attention. ^

The care to share HIV disclosure study - the attitudes toward and beliefs about HIV disclosure among perinatally-infected HIV-positive youth and their caregivers

HIV incidence has not changed since the introduction of the pandemic. Daily 14,000 persons are infected with HIV and 25 to 50% of the HIV-infected population and subgroups respectively are estimated to be unaware of their HIV diagnosis. Perinatally-infected HIV-positive youth, aged 13-24 years, have survived unexpectedly into adulthood, have had unique HIV disclosure experiences and now face HIV disclosure issues of adulthood and perhaps parenthood. Despite new effective HIV therapies, no HIV prevention plan exists that has diminished the rate of new HIV infections. HIV stigma and lack of universal HIV reporting laws dissuade timely HIV disclosure. Missed HIV disclosure perpetuates HIV transmission and infection. Understanding the attitudes and beliefs of HIV disclosure among perinatally-infected HIV-positive youth and their caregivers may uncover reasons to HIV disclosure delays, avoidance and intentions. The Care to Share HIV Disclosure study was designed to identify the attitudes and beliefs of HIV disclosure among HIV-positve youth (aged 13-24 years), who were infected from birth and who knew their HIV diagnosis, along with their caregivers. Twenty-six participants (15 youth and 11 caregivers) completed the theory-based questionnaires of a 21-item multiple choice survey on HIV disclosure framed in the Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior and included an additional open-ended survey that applied the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping to address youth's and caregivers' HIV disclosure experiences. Youth were found to have a selective unfavorable HIV disclosure outcome when among referents of close friends. However youth did believe in HIV partner notification. For caregivers, it mattered who disclosed the HIV illness to the youth. HIV stigma was of concern based on the youths' tendency to believe in keeping HIV a secret and their caregivers' ambivalence to HIV secrecy. However, favorable HIV disclosure outcomes were identified for both youth and caregivers the potential for HIV disclosure: when seeking HIV knowledge, when around caregivers and close family and in situations of perceived controllability as when helping others learn about HIV. These findings unveil HIV disclosure attitudes and beliefs within this population and may reveal the attributes that may inhibit or promote HIV disclosure behaviors. HIV disclosure studies that address attitudes and beliefs among larger populations of youth and HIV-infected persons are necessary to identify effective individual, group and society approaches that would promote timely, responsible and meaningful HIV disclosure methods that promote a healthy identity and interrupt HIV transmission.^

Second, do less harm: The state of states' medical error reporting programs

Statement of the problem and public health significance. Hospitals were designed to be a safe haven and respite from disease and illness. However, a large body of evidence points to preventable errors in hospitals as the eighth leading cause of death among Americans. Twelve percent of Americans, or over 33.8 million people, are hospitalized each year. This population represents a significant portion of at risk citizens exposed to hospital medical errors. Since the number of annual deaths due to hospital medical errors is estimated to exceed 44,000, the magnitude of this tragedy makes it a significant public health problem. ^ Specific aims. The specific aims of this study were threefold. First, this study aimed to analyze the state of the states' mandatory hospital medical error reporting six years after the release of the influential IOM report, "To Err is Human." The second aim was to identify barriers to reporting of medical errors by hospital personnel. The third aim was to identify hospital safety measures implemented to reduce medical errors and enhance patient safety. ^ Methods. A descriptive, longitudinal, retrospective design was used to address the first stated objective. The study data came from the twenty-one states with mandatory hospital reporting programs which report aggregate hospital error data that is accessible to the public by way of states' websites. The data analysis included calculations of expected number of medical errors for each state according to IOM rates. Where possible, a comparison was made between state reported data and the calculated IOM expected number of errors. A literature review was performed to achieve the second study aim, identifying barriers to reporting medical errors. The final aim was accomplished by telephone interviews of principal patient safety/quality officers from five Texas hospitals with more than 700 beds. ^ Results. The state medical error data suggests vast underreporting of hospital medical errors to the states. The telephone interviews suggest that hospitals are working at reducing medical errors and creating safer environments for patients. The literature review suggests the underreporting of medical errors at the state level stems from underreporting of errors at the delivery level. ^