A compendium of strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 updates.

Since the publication of "A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals" in 2008, prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) has become a national priority. Despite improvements, preventable HAIs continue to occur. The 2014 updates to the Compendium were created to provide acute care hospitals with up-to-date, practical, expert guidance to assist in prioritizing and implementing their HAI prevention efforts. They are the product of a highly collaborative effort led by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), the Society for Hospital Medicine (SHM), and the Surgical Infection Society (SIS).

In the aftermath of medical error : Caring for patients, family, and the healthcare workers involved

Medical errors, in particular those resulting in harm, pose a serious situation for patients ("first victims") and the healthcare workers involved ("second victims") and can have long-lasting and distressing consequences. To prevent a second traumatization, appropriate and empathic interaction with all persons involved is essential besides error analysis. Patients share a nearly universal, broad preference for a complete disclosure of incidents, regardless of age, gender, or education. This includes the personal, timely and unambiguous disclosure of the adverse event, information relating to the event, its causes and consequences, and an apology and sincere expression of regret. While the majority of healthcare professionals generally support and honest and open disclosure of adverse events, they also face various barriers which impede the disclosure (e.g., fear of legal consequences). Despite its essential importance, disclosure of adverse events in practice occurs in ways that are rarely acceptable to patients and their families. The staff involved often experiences acute distress and an intense emotional response to the event, which may become chronic and increase the risk of depression, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorders. Communication with peers is vital for people to be able to cope constructively and protectively with harmful errors. Survey studies among healthcare workers show, however, that they often do not receive sufficient individual and institutional support. Healthcare organizations should prepare for medical errors and harmful events and implement a communication plan and a support system that covers the requirements and different needs of patients and the staff involved.

Predictors of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards family involvement in safety-relevant behaviours: a cross-sectional factorial survey study.

OBJECTIVES To investigate predictors of healthcare professionals' (HCPs) attitudes towards family involvement in safety-relevant behaviours. DESIGN A cross-sectional fractional factorial survey that assessed HCPs' attitudes towards family involvement in two error scenarios relating to hand hygiene and medication safety. Each survey comprised two randomised vignettes that described the potential error, how the family member communicated with the HCP about the error and how the HCP responded to the family member's question. SETTING 5 teaching hospitals in London, the Midlands and York. HCPs were approached on a range of medical and surgical wards. PARTICIPANTS 160 HCPs (73 doctors; 87 nurses) aged between 21 and 65 years (mean 37) 102 were female. OUTCOME MEASURES HCP approval of family member's behaviour; HCP reaction to the family member; anticipated effects on the family member-HCP relationship; HCP support for being questioned about hand hygiene/medication; affective rating responses. RESULTS HCPs supported family member's intervening (88%) but only 41% agreed this would have positive effects on the family member/HCP relationship. Across vignettes and error scenarios the strongest predictors of attitudes were how the HCP (in the scenario) responded to the family member and whether an error actually occurred. Doctors (vs nurses) provided systematically more positive affective ratings to the vignettes. CONCLUSIONS Important predictors of HCPs' attitudes towards family members' involvement in patient safety have been highlighted. In particular, a discouraging response from HCP's decreased support for family members being involved and had strong perceived negative effects on the family member/HCP relationship.

Taking up national safety alerts to improve patient safety in hospitals: The perspective of healthcare quality and risk managers.

BACKGROUND National safety alert systems publish relevant information to improve patient safety in hospitals. However, the information has to be transformed into local action to have an effect on patient safety. We studied three research questions: How do Swiss healthcare quality and risk managers (qm/rm(1)) see their own role in learning from safety alerts issued by the Swiss national voluntary reporting and analysis system? What are their attitudes towards and evaluations of the alerts, and which types of improvement actions were fostered by the safety alerts? METHODS A survey was developed and applied to Swiss healthcare risk and quality managers, with a response rate of 39 % (n=116). Descriptive statistics are presented. RESULTS The qm/rm disseminate and communicate with a broad variety of professional groups about the alerts. While most respondents felt that they should know the alerts and their contents, only a part of them felt responsible for driving organizational change based on the recommendations. However, most respondents used safety alerts to back up their own patient safety goals. The alerts were evaluated positively on various dimensions such as usefulness and were considered as standards of good practice by the majority of the respondents. A range of organizational responses was applied, with disseminating information being the most common. An active role is related to using safety alerts for backing up own patient safety goals. CONCLUSIONS To support an active role of qm/rm in their hospital's learning from safety alerts, appropriate organizational structures should be developed. Furthermore, they could be given special information or training to act as an information hub on the issues discussed in the alerts.