Patient safety, ethics and whistleblowing : a nursing response to the events at the Campbelltown and Camden Hospitals

In November 2002, in what stands as one of the most significant whistleblowing cases in the history of the Australian health care system, four nurses went public with concerns they had about the management of clinical incidents and patient safety at two hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales. The handling of this case and its aftermath raises important moral questions concerning the nature of whistleblowing in health care domains and the possible implications for the patient safety and quality of care movement in Australia. This paper presents an overview of the case, the moral risks associated with whistleblowing, and some lessons learned.

Clinical risk management and the ethics of open disclosure : part 1 : benefits and risks to patient safety

Patient safety experts and other authorities have strongly postulated the open disclosure of errors and adverse events to patients as an essential component of effective clinical risk management in health care. Commentators also contend that ‘when things go wrong’, openly disclosing such events to the patient and his or her nominated support person is simply ‘the right thing to do’. Despite the obvious importance of the issue of open disclosure and its possible implications for the nursing profession, it has not been comprehensively addressed in the nursing literature. A key aim of this article (the first of a two-part discussion) is to contribute to the positive project of redressing this oversight by providing a brief overview of what open disclosure is and what its intended purpose, aims, and rationale are. Consideration is also given to the risks and benefits of open disclosure as a public policy and whether it will succeed in achieving the anticipated outcomes envisaged. In a second article (to be presented as Part II), the ethics of open disclosure and its possible implications for the nursing profession are explored.

Using supervised and unsupervised techniques to determine groups of patients with different doctor-patient stability

Decision trees and self organising feature maps (SOFM) are frequently used to identify groups. This research aims to compare the similarities between any groupings found between supervised (Classification and Regression Trees - CART) and unsupervised classification (SOFM), and to identify insights into factors associated with doctor-patient stability. Although CART and SOFM uses different learning paradigms to produce groupings, both methods came up with many similar groupings. Both techniques showed that self perceived health and age are important indicators of stability. In addition, this study has indicated profiles of patients that are at risk which might be interesting to general practitioners.

Therapist-assisted, internet-based treatment for panic disorder: can general practitioners achieve comparable patient outcomes to psychologists

Background: Mental illness is an escalating concern worldwide. The management of disorders such as anxiety and depression largely falls to family doctors or general practitioners (GPs). However, GPs are often too time constrained and may lack the necessary training to adequately manage the needs of such patients. Evidence-based Internet interventions represent a potentially valuable resource to reduce the burden of care and the cost of managing mental health disorders within primary care settings and, at the same time, improve patient outcomes.
Objective: The present study sought to extend the efficacy of a therapist-assisted Internet treatment program for panic disorder, Panic Online, by determining whether comparable outcomes could be achieved and maintained when Panic Online was supported by either GPs or psychologists.
Methods: Via a natural groups design, 96 people with a primary diagnosis of panic disorder (with or without agoraphobia) completed the Panic Online program over 12 weeks with the therapeutic assistance of their GP (n = 53), who had received specialist training in cognitive behavioral therapy, or a clinical psychologist (n = 43). Participants completed a clinical diagnostic telephone interview, conducted by a psychologist, and a set of online questionnaires to assess panic-related symptoms at three time periods (pretreatment, posttreatment, and 6 month follow-up).
Results: Both treatments led to clinically significant improvements on measures of panic and panic-related symptomatology from pretreatment to posttreatment. Both groups were shown to significantly improve over time. Improvements for both groups were maintained at follow-up; however, the groups did differ significantly on two quality of life domains: physical (F₁,₈₂ = 9.13, P = .00) and environmental (F₁,₈₂ = 4.41, P = .04). The attrition rate was significantly higher among those being treated by their GP (χ²₁ = 4.40, P = .02, N = 96).
Conclusions: This study provides evidence that Internet-based interventions are an effective adjunct to existing mental health care systems. Consequently, this may facilitate and enhance the delivery of evidence-based mental health treatments to increasingly large segments of the population via primary care systems and through suitably trained health professionals.

Pharmaceutical ecomonics and politics vs. patient safety : Lumiracoxib in Australia

Lumiracoxib (Prexige©) 200 mg was listed in Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) schedules on 01 August 2006. The listing was intended as a cost-minimisation strategy, as lumiracoxib 200 mg was deemed equivalent in therapeutic effect to celecoxib (Celebrex©) 200 mg, and was available at a lower cost. By the time of listing on the PBS, a safety re-evaluation of the recommended daily dose of lumiracoxib was being considered in other national regulatory jurisdictions. Within 3 months of listing, the manufacturer revised the recommended dosage to half that of the PBS-listed dosage. However, the PBS listing was neither revoked nor modified. At the time of listing on the PBS, lumiracoxib was known to be 17 times as biochemically selective in inhibiting the COX-2 isoform as celecoxib, and twice as selective as rofecoxib, already withdrawn for safety reasons. Safety concerns had already been raised about adverse hepatic outcomes on daily doses of lumiracoxib 200 mg. Communication of information about the risk potential of lumiracoxib was inadequate. Economic and political considerations were prioritised over patient safety, and lumiracoxib 200 mg remained available via the PBS until 10 August 2007, when it was withdrawn for safety reasons following cases of hepatic morbidity and mortality.

Determining clinical pharmacy workload by patient disease classification in medical and surgical patients

Aim: To determine the time needed to provide clinical pharmacy services to individual patient episodes for medical and surgical patients and the effect of patient presentation and complexity on the clinical pharmacy workload. Method: During a 5-month period in 2006 at two general hospitals, pharmacists recorded a defined range of activities that they provided for patients, including the actual times required for these tasks. A customised database linked to the two hospitals' patient administration systems stored the data according to the specific patient episode number. The influence of patient presentation and complexity on the clinical pharmacy activities provided was also examined. Results: The average time required by pharmacists to undertake a medication history interview and medication reconciliation was 9.6 (SD 4.9) minutes. Interventions required 5.7 (SD 4.6) minutes, clinical review of the medical record 5.5 (SD 4.0) minutes and medication order review 3.5 (SD 2.0) minutes. For all of these activities, the time required for medical patients was greater than for surgical patients and greater for 'complicated' patients. The average time required to perform all clinical pharmacy activities for 1071 completed patient episodes was 14.4 (SD 10.9) minutes and was greater for medical and 'complicated' patients. Conclusion: The time needed to provide clinical pharmacy services was affected by whether the patients were medical or surgical. The existence of comorbidities or complications affected these times. The times required to perform clinical pharmacy activities may not be consistent with recently proposed staff ratios for the provision of a basic clinical pharmacy service.

Identifying the "right patient" : nurse and patient perspectives on how to verify patient identity during medication administration

In this paper, we report on a research project funded by the Australian College of Mental Health Nurses’ and Bristol Myers Squibb Research Grant in 2007. We examined ways in which Mental Health Nurses could correctly identify patients during medication administration that promote medication safety and that are acceptable to both consumers and nurses. Central to the safe practice of medication administration are the “five rights” – giving the right drug, in the right dose, to the right patient, via the right route, at the right time. In non-psychiatric settings, such as medical and surgical inpatient units, the use of identification aids, such as wristbands, are common. In most Victorian psychiatric inpatient units, however, standardised identification aids are not used. Anecdotally, consumers dislike some methods of patient identification, such as wearing wrist bands, and some nurses perceive consumers’ rights are infringed through wearing personal identifiers. In focus groups, mental health consumers and Mental Health Nurses were invited to discuss their experiences of patient identification during routine psychiatric inpatient medication administration. They were also asked their opinions of, and preferences for, different ways of verifying “right patient” during routine medication administration. In our paper, we will present the findings of a qualitative research project in which we explored the experiences, opinions, and preferences of mental health consumers and Mental Health Nurses towards methods of correctly identifying patients during medication administration.

Identifying the "right patient" : nurse and patient perspectives on how to verify patient identity during medication administration

In this paper, we report on a research project funded by the Australian College Mental Health Nurses’ and Bristol Myers Squibb Research Grant in 2007. We examined ways in which mental health nurses could correctly identify patients during medication administration that promote medication safety and that are acceptable to both consumers and nurses.

Central to the safe practice of medication administration are the “five rights”- giving the right drug, in the right dose, to the right patient, via the right route, at the right time. In non-psychiatric settings, such as medical and surgical inpatient units, the use of identification aids, such as wristbands, are common. In most Victorian psychiatric inpatient units, however, standardised identification aids are not used. Anecdotally, consumers dislike some methods of patient identification, such as wearing wrist bands, and some nurses perceive consumers' rights are infringed through wearing personal identifiers.

In focus groups, mental health consumers and mental health nurses were invited to discuss their experiences of patient identification during routine psychiatric inpatient medication administration. They were also asked their opinions of, and preferences for, different ways of verifying “right patient” during routine medication administration. In our paper, we will present the findings of a qualitative research project in which we explored the experiences, opinions, and preferences of mental health consumers and mental health nurses towards methods of correctly identifying patients during medication administration.

Patient education to prevent falls in subacute care

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a patient education programme for preventing falls in the subacute hospital setting.

Design: Randomized controlled trial, subgroup analysis.

Participants: Patients of a metropolitan subacute/aged rehabilitation hospital who were recommended for a patient education intervention for the prevention of falls when enrolled in a larger randomized controlled trial of a falls prevention programme.

Methods: Participants in both the control and intervention groups who were recommended for the education programme intervention were followed for the duration of their hospital stay to determine if falls occurred. Only participants in the intervention group who were recommended for this intervention actually received it. In addition, these participants completed an evaluation survey at the completion of their education programme.

Results: Intervention group participants in this subgroup analysis had a significantly lower incidence of falls than their control group counterparts (control: 16.0 falls/1000 participant-days, intervention: 8.2 falls/1000 participant-days, log-rank test: P = 0.007). However the difference in the proportion of fallers was not significant (relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 2.14).

Conclusion: Patient education is an important part of a multiple intervention falls prevention approach for the subacute hospital setting.

Does an evidence-based sedation protocol improve practice and patient outcomes in critical care?

Learning Objective 1: compare protocol-directed sedation management with traditional non-protocol-directed practice in mechanically ventilated patients in an Australian critical care.

Learning Objective 2: explain the contrasting international research findings on sedation protocol implementation.
Minimization of sedation in critical care patients has recently received widespread support. Professional organizations internationally have published sedation management guidelines for critically ill patients to improve the use of research in practice, decrease practice variability and shorten mechanical ventilation duration. Innovations in practice have included the introduction of decision making protocols, daily sedation interruptions and new drugs and monitoring technologies. The aim of this study was to compare protocol-directed sedation management with traditional non-protocol-directed practice in mechanically ventilated patients in an Australian critical care setting.

A randomized, controlled trial design was used to study 312 mechanically ventilated adult patients in a general critical care unit at an Australian metropolitan teaching hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to receive protocol directed sedation management developed from evidence based guidelines (n=153) or usual clinical practice (n=159).

The median (95% CI) duration of ventilation was 58 hrs (44–78 hrs) for patients in the non-protocol group and 79 hrs (56–93) for those patients in the protocol group (p=0.20). Results were not significant for length of stay in critical care or hospital, the frequency of tracheostomies, and unplanned extubations. A Cox proportional hazards model estimated that protocol directed sedation management was associated with a 22% decrease (95% CI: 40% decrease to 2% increase, p=0.07) in the occurrence of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Few randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation outside of North America. This study highlights the lack of transferability between different settings and different models of care. Qualified, high intensity nursing in the Australian critical care setting facilitates rapid, responsive decisions for sedation management and an increased success rate for weaning from mechanical ventilation.