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. ^

Evaluating the relative status of health and safety programs for minority academic and research institutions

A variety of occupational hazards are indigenous to academic and research institutions, ranging from traditional life safety concerns, such as fire safety and fall protection, to specialized occupational hygiene issues such as exposure to carcinogenic chemicals, radiation sources, and infectious microorganisms. Institutional health and safety programs are constantly challenged to establish and maintain adequate protective measures for this wide array of hazards. A unique subset of academic and research institutions are classified as historically Black universities which provide educational opportunities primarily to minority populations. State funded minority schools receive less resources than their non-minority counterparts, resulting in a reduced ability to provide certain programs and services. Comprehensive health and safety services for these institutions may be one of the services compromised, resulting in uncontrolled exposures to various workplace hazards. Such a result would also be contrary to the national health status objectives to improve preventive health care measures for minority populations.^ To determine if differences exist, a cross-sectional survey was performed to evaluate the relative status of health and safety programs present within minority and non-minority state-funded academic and research institutions. Data were obtained from direct mail questionnaires, supplemented by data from publicly available sources. Parameters for comparison included reported numbers of full and part-time health and safety staff, reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) values, and reported workers compensation experience modifiers. The relative impact of institutional minority status, institution size, and OSHA regulatory environment, was also assessed. Additional health and safety program descriptors were solicited in an attempt to develop a preliminary profile of the hazards present in this unique work setting.^ Survey forms were distributed to 24 minority and 51 non-minority institutions. A total of 72% of the questionnaires were returned, with 58% of the minority and 78% of the non-minority institutions participating. The mean number of reported full-time health and safety staff for the responding minority institutions was determined to be 1.14, compared to 3.12 for the responding non-minority institutions. Data distribution variances were stabilized using log-normal transformations, and although subsequent analysis indicated statistically significant differences, the differences were found to be predicted by institution size only, and not by minority status or OSHA regulatory environment. Similar results were noted for estimated full-time equivalent health and safety staffing levels. Significant differences were not noted between reported OSHA 200 log (or equivalent) data, and a lack of information provided on workers compensation experience modifiers prevented comparisons on insurance premium expenditures. Other health and safety program descriptive information obtained served to validate the study's presupposition that the inclusion criteria would encompass those organizations with occupational risks from all four major hazard categories. Worker medical surveillance programs appeared to exist at most institutions, but the specific tests completed were not readily identifiable.^ The results of this study serve as a preliminary description of the health and safety programs for a unique set of workplaces have not been previously investigated. Numerous opportunities for further research are noted, including efforts to quantify the relative amount of each hazard present, the further definition of the programs reported to be in place, determination of other means to measure health outcomes on campuses, and comparisons among other culturally diverse workplaces. ^

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiretroviral activity of multiple doses of ibalizumab (formerly TNX-355), an anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody in HIV-1 infected adults

Context: Despite tremendous strides in HIV treatment over the past decade, resistance remains a major problem. A growing number of patients develop resistance and require new therapies to suppress viral replication. ^ Objective: To assess the safety of multiple administrations of the anti-CD4 receptor (anti-CD4) monoclonal antibody ibalizumab given as intravenous (IV) infusions, in three dosage regimens, in subjects infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). ^ Design: Phase 1, multi-center, open-label, randomized clinical trial comparing the safety, pharmacokinetics and antiviral activity of three dosages of ibalizumab. ^ Setting: Six clinical trial sites in the United States. ^ Participants: A total of twenty-two HIV-positive patients on no anti-retroviral therapy or a stable failing regimen. ^ Intervention: Randomized to one of two treatment groups in Arms A and B followed by non-randomized enrollment in Arm C. Patients randomized to Arm A received 10 mg/kg of ibalizumab every 7 days, for a total of 10 doses; patients randomized to Arm B received a total of six doses of ibalizumab; a single loading dose of 10 mg/kg on Day 1 followed by five maintenance doses of 6 mg/kg every 14 days, starting at Week 1. Patients assigned to Arm C received 25 mg/kg of ibalizumab every 14 days for a total of 5 doses. All patients were followed for safety for an additional 7 to 8 weeks. ^ Main Outcome Measures: Clinical and laboratory assessments of safety and tolerability of multiple administrations of ibalizumab in HIV-infected patients. Secondary measures of efficacy include HIV-1 RNA (viral load) measurements. ^ Results: 21 patients were treatment-experienced and 1 was naïve to HIV therapy. Six patients were failing despite therapy and 15 were on no current HIV treatment. Mean baseline viral load (4.78 log 10; range 3.7-5.9) and CD4+ cell counts (332/μL; range 89-494) were similar across cohorts. Mean peak decreases in viral load from baseline of 0.99 log10(1.11 log10, and 0.96 log 10 occurred by Wk 2 in Cohorts A, B and C, respectively. Viral loads decreased by >1.0 log10 in 64%; 4 patients viral loads were suppressed to < 400 copies/mL. Viral loads returned towards baseline by Week 9 with reduced susceptibility to ibalizumab. CD4+ cell counts rose transiently and returned toward baseline. Maximum median elevations above BL in CD4+ cell counts for Cohorts A, B and C were +257, +198 and +103 cells/μL, respectively and occurred within 3 Wks in 16 of 22 subjects. The half-life of ibalizumab was 3-3.5 days and elimination was characteristic of capacity-limited kinetics. Administration of ibalizumab was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported during the study. None of these events were related to study drug. Headache, nausea and cough were the most frequently reported treatment emergent adverse events and there were no laboratory abnormalities related to study drug. ^ Conclusions: Ibalizumab administered either weekly or bi-weekly was safe, well tolerated, and demonstrated antiviral activity. Further studies with ibalizumab in combination with standard antiretroviral treatments are warranted.^

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. ^

A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^

Survey analysis on dental infection control & occupational safety from India---1999 & 2010

The objective was to study knowledge, attitudes, practice (KAP) and needs regarding infection control measures using two cross-sectional surveys from 1999 and 2010 conducted in India. Both data collection instruments had only about 35 comparable variables in common. In 1999, there were 456 respondents (dentists) who completed a self-administered survey instrument compared to 272 respondents in 2010. Both the 1999 and 2010 samples were mutually independent with no overlap, had regional differences, and therefore, were not completely comparable for changes in KAP over time. While almost all respondents from both surveys felt that education in dental safety was needed and wanted mandatory dental safety curriculum in dental schools, severe inadequacies in dental safety knowledge, protection against immunizable diseases, and practice of universal precaution were noted. Data from the study demonstrated that there is a substantial opportunity to improve the knowledge, attitude and practice of dental infection control and occupational safety in India. Few respondents (27%) reported that the infectious disease status of a patient is always known and a significant number reported that they had the right to refuse care for patients of known infectious disease status. This indicates that Stigma in treating HIV/AIDS patients remains a concern, which in turn suggests that a stronger focus on educating dentists about dental safety and on stigma and infectious disease is needed. Information obtained from this study could be utilized for developing policies oriented towards increasing dental safety educational efforts, in both dental schools as curriculum, and for practicing dentists through professional updates or continuing dental education.^

Teaching safety at a summer camp: Evaluation of a children's fire safety curriculum in an urban community setting

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Danger Rangers Fire Safety Curriculum in increasing the fire safety knowledge of low-income, minority children in pre-kindergarten to third grade in Austin, TX during a summer day camp in 2007.^ Methods: Data was collected from child participants via teacher and researcher administered tests at pretest, posttest (immediately after the completion of the fire safety module), and at a 3 week follow-up to asses retention. In addition, a self-administered questionnaire was collected from parents pre- and post-intervention to assess home-related fire/burn risk factors. Paired t-tests were conducted using STATA 12.0 to evaluate pretest, posttest, and retention test mean scores as well as mean fire safety rules listed by grade group. McNemar's test was used to determine if there was a difference in fire-related risk factors as reported by the parents of the participants before and after the intervention. Only those who had paired data for the tests/surveys being compared were included in the analysis.^ Results: The first/second grade group and the third grade group scored significantly higher on fire safety knowledge on the posttest compared to the pretest (p<0.0001 for both groups). However, there was no significant change in knowledge scores for the pre-kindergarten to kindergarten group (p=0.14). Among the first/second grade group, knowledge levels did not significantly decline between the posttest and retention test (p=0.25). However, the third grade group had significantly lower fire safety knowledge scores on the retention test compared to the posttest (p<0.001). A similar increase was seen in the amount of fire safety rules listed after the intervention (p<0.0001 between pre and posttest for both the first/second grade and third grade groups), with no decline from the posttest to the retention test (p=0.50) for the first/second grade group, but a significant decline in the third grade group (p=0.001). McNemar's chi-square test showed a significant increase in the percentage of participants' parents reporting smoke detector testing on a regular basis and having a fire escape plan for their family after the intervention (p=0.01 and p<0.0001, respectively). However, there was no significant change in the frequency of reports of the child playing in the kitchen while the parent cooks or the house/apartment having a working smoke detector.^ Conclusion: We found that general fire safety knowledge improved and the number of specific fire safety rules increased among the first to third grade children who participated in the Danger Rangers fire safety program. However, it did not significantly increase general fire safety knowledge among the pre-k/k group. This study also showed that a program targeted towards children has the potential to influence familial risk factors by proxy. The Danger Rangers Fire Safety Curriculum should be further evaluated by conducting a randomized controlled trial, using valid measures that assess fire safety attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, as well as fire/burn related outcomes.^