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. ^

Identification of maltreatment type in children with disabilities using the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)

This study was a retrospective design and used secondary data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), provided by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Family Life Development Center administered by Cornell University. The dataset contained information for the year 2005 on children from birth to 18 years of age. Child abuse and neglect for disabled children, was evaluated in-depth in the present study. Descriptive and statistical analysis was performed using the children with and without disabilities. It was found that children with disabilities have a lower rate of substantiation that likely indicates the interference of reporting due to their handicap. The results of this research demonstrate the important need to teach professionals and laypersons alike on how to recognize and substantiate abuse among disabled children.^

Automated soldier medical readiness: Prevalence of " medically not ready" using data from the electronic soldier readiness processing system (ESRP)

Identifying accurate numbers of soldiers determined to be medically not ready after completing soldier readiness processing may help inform Army leadership about ongoing pressures on the military involved in long conflict with regular deployment. In Army soldiers screened using the SRP checklist for deployment, what is the prevalence of soldiers determined to be medically not ready? Study group. 15,289 soldiers screened at all 25 Army deployment platform sites with the eSRP checklist over a 4-month period (June 20, 2009 to October 20, 2009). The data included for analysis included age, rank, component, gender and final deployment medical readiness status from MEDPROS database. Methods.^ This information was compiled and univariate analysis using chi-square was conducted for each of the key variables by medical readiness status. Results. Descriptive epidemiology Of the total sample 1548 (9.7%) were female and 14319 (90.2%) were male. Enlisted soldiers made up 13,543 (88.6%) of the sample and officers 1,746 (11.4%). In the sample, 1533 (10.0%) were soldiers over the age of 40 and 13756 (90.0%) were age 18-40. Reserve, National Guard and Active Duty made up 1,931 (12.6%), 2,942 (19.2%) and 10,416 (68.1%) respectively. Univariate analysis. Overall 1226 (8.0%) of the soldiers screened were determined to be medically not ready for deployment. Biggest predictive factor was female gender OR (2.8; 2.57-3.28) p<0.001. Followed by enlisted rank OR (2.01; 1.60-2.53) p<0.001. Reserve component OR (1.33; 1.16-1.53) p<0.001 and Guard OR (0.37; 0.30-0.46) p<0.001. For age > 40 demonstrated OR (1.2; 1.09-1.50) p<0.003. Overall the results underscore there may be key demographic groups relating to medical readiness that can be targeted with programs and funding to improve overall military medical readiness.^

COMPREHENSIVE CALCULATION-BASED IMRT QA USING R&V DATA, TREATMENT RECORDS, AND A SECOND TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEM

Purpose: Traditional patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are labor intensive and consume machine time. Calculation-based IMRT QA methods typically are not comprehensive. We have developed a comprehensive calculation-based IMRT QA method to detect uncertainties introduced by the initial dose calculation, the data transfer through the Record-and-Verify (R&V) system, and various aspects of the physical delivery. Methods: We recomputed the treatment plans in the patient geometry for 48 cases using data from the R&V, and from the delivery unit to calculate the “as-transferred” and “as-delivered” doses respectively. These data were sent to the original TPS to verify transfer and delivery or to a second TPS to verify the original calculation. For each dataset we examined the dose computed from the R&V record (RV) and from the delivery records (Tx), and the dose computed with a second verification TPS (vTPS). Each verification dose was compared to the clinical dose distribution using 3D gamma analysis and by comparison of mean dose and ROI-specific dose levels to target volumes. Plans were also compared to IMRT QA absolute and relative dose measurements. Results: The average 3D gamma passing percentages using 3%-3mm, 2%-2mm, and 1%-1mm criteria for the RV plan were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 100.0 (σ=0.1); for the Tx plan they were 100.0 (σ=0.0), 100.0 (σ=0.0), and 99.0 (σ=1.4); and for the vTPS plan they were 99.3 (σ=0.6), 97.2 (σ=1.5), and 79.0 (σ=8.6). When comparing target volume doses in the RV, Tx, and vTPS plans to the clinical plans, the average ratios of ROI mean doses were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.990 (σ=0.009) and ROI-specific dose levels were 0.999 (σ=0.001), 1.001 (σ=0.002), and 0.980 (σ=0.043), respectively. Comparing the clinical, RV, TR, and vTPS calculated doses to the IMRT QA measurements for all 48 patients, the average ratios for absolute doses were 0.999 (σ=0.013), 0.998 (σ=0.013), 0.999 σ=0.015), and 0.990 (σ=0.012), respectively, and the average 2D gamma(5%-3mm) passing percentages for relative doses for 9 patients was were 99.36 (σ=0.68), 99.50 (σ=0.49), 99.13 (σ=0.84), and 98.76 (σ=1.66), respectively. Conclusions: Together with mechanical and dosimetric QA, our calculation-based IMRT QA method promises to minimize the need for patient-specific QA measurements by identifying outliers in need of further review.