Medicina defensiva: uma prática necessária?

We discuss the reasons why Defensive Medicine is widely used in Brazil and worldwide. The Defensive Medicine is characterized by excessive use of complementary tests, the use of supposedly safer therapeutic procedures, the frequent referral of patients to other specialists and by the refusal to care for critically ill patients and with greater potential for complications. This is a practice that aims to defend the doctor from legal suits. The way the processes are conducted by the judiciary certainly contributes to the consolidation of this foolish practice. The slow pace of justice in our country, associated with the unpreparedness of judges and legal experts in the analysis of cases, leads to an emotional exhaustion of the parties involved. Furthermore, poor training of doctors in our country values the use of sophisticated diagnostic and treatment methods, rather than a thorough clinical examination and appropriate communication with the patient. Besides inefficient in protecting the doctor, Defensive Medicine has severe consequences to the patient and to society, since it generates an additional invaluable cost to medical practice, determines greater suffering to the patient and causes deterioration of the doctor-patient relationship, which has always been marked by trust, respect and personhood.

The reasons of the nursing staff to notify adverse events

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

'New perspectives on well-known issues': patients' experiences and perceptions of safety in Swiss hospitals

Patients' reports of safety-related events and perceptions of safety can be a valuable source for hospitals. Patients of eight acute care hospitals in Switzerland were surveyed for safety-related events and concerns for safety. In workshops with hospitals areas for improvement were analyzed and priorities for change identified. To evaluate the benefit of the approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital risk managers. 3,983 patients returned the survey (55% response rate). 21.4% reported at least one definite safety event, and the mean number of 'definite' incidents per patient was 0.31 (95% CI=0.29 to 0.34). 3.2% were very concerned and 14.7% were somewhat concerned about medical errors and safety. Having experienced a safety-related event, younger age, length of stay, poor health and a poor education increased the probability of reporting concerns. With some exceptions, results confirmed the hospitals' a priori expectations regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their institutions. Risk managers emphasized the usability of results for their work and the special value of referring to the patient's perspective at their home institutions. A considerable fraction of patients subjectively experiences safety-related events and is concerned about safety. Patient-generated data introduced a new quality into the discussion of safety issues within hospitals, and some expected that patients' experiences and concerns could affect patient volumes. Though the study is limited by the short time horizon and the lack of follow-up, the results suggest that the described approach is feasible and can serve as a supplemental tool for risk identification and management.

Patient safety--who cares?

Medical errors and adverse events are a serious threat to patients worldwide. In recent years methodologically sound studies have demonstrated that interventions exist, can be implemented and can have sustainable, measurable positive effects on patient safety. Nonetheless, system-wide progress and adoption of safety practices is slow and evidence of improvements on the organisational and systems level is scarce and ambiguous. This paper reports on the Swiss Patient Safety Conference in 2011 and addresses emerging issues for patient safety and future challenges.

[Second victim : Critical incident stress management in clinical medicine]

BACKGROUND Critical incidents in clinical medicine can have far-reaching consequences on patient health. In cases of severe medical errors they can seriously harm the patient or even lead to death. The involvement in such an event can result in a stress reaction, a so-called acute posttraumatic stress disorder in the healthcare provider, the so-called second victim of an adverse event. Psychological distress may not only have a long lasting impact on quality of life of the physician or caregiver involved but it may also affect the ability to provide safe patient care in the aftermath of adverse events. METHODS A literature review was performed to obtain information on care giver responses to medical errors and to determine possible supportive strategies to mitigate negative consequences of an adverse event on the second victim. An internet search and a search in Medline/Pubmed for scientific studies were conducted using the key words "second victim, "medical error", "critical incident stress management" (CISM) and "critical incident stress reporting system" (CIRS). Sources from academic medical societies and public institutions which offer crisis management programs where analyzed. The data were sorted by main categories and relevance for hospitals. Analysis was carried out using descriptive measures. RESULTS In disaster medicine and aviation navigation services the implementation of a CISM program is an efficient intervention to help staff to recover after a traumatic event and to return to normal functioning and behavior. Several other concepts for a clinical crisis management plan were identified. CONCLUSIONS The integration of CISM and CISM-related programs in a clinical setting may provide efficient support in an acute crisis and may help the caregiver to deal effectively with future error events and employee safety.

Effects of an educational patient safety campaign on patients' safety behaviours and adverse events

Rationale, aims and objectives  The study aims to investigate the effects of a patient safety advisory on patients' risk perceptions, perceived behavioural control, performance of safety behaviours and experience of adverse incidents. Method  Quasi-experimental intervention study with non-equivalent group comparison was used. Patients admitted to the surgical department of a Swiss large non-university hospital were included. Patients in the intervention group received a safety advisory at their first clinical encounter. Outcomes were assessed using a questionnaire at discharge. Odds ratios for control versus intervention group were calculated. Regression analysis was used to model the effects of the intervention and safety behaviours on the experience of safety incidents. Results  Two hundred eighteen patients in the control and 202 in the intervention group completed the survey (75 and 77% response rates, respectively). Patients in the intervention group were less likely to feel poorly informed about medical errors (OR = 0.55, P = 0.043). There were 73.1% in the intervention and 84.3% in the control group who underestimated the risk for infection (OR = 0.51, CI 0.31-0.84, P = 0.009). Perceived behavioural control was lower in the control group (meanCon  = 3.2, meanInt  = 3.5, P = 0.010). Performance of safety-related behaviours was unaffected by the intervention. Patients in the intervention group were less likely to experience any safety-related incident or unsafe situation (OR for intervention group = 0.57, CI 0.38-0.87, P = 0.009). There were no differences in concerns for errors during hospitalization. There were 96% of patients (intervention) who would recommend other patients to read the advisory. Conclusions  The results suggest that the safety advisory decreases experiences of adverse events and unsafe situations. It renders awareness and perceived behavioural control without increasing concerns for safety and can thus serve as a useful instrument for communication about safety between health care workers and patients.

Implementation status of error disclosure standards reported by Swiss hospitals

QUESTION UNDER STUDY To establish at what stage Swiss hospitals are in implementing an internal standard concerning communication with patients and families after an error that resulted in harm. METHODS Hospitals were identified via the Swiss Hospital Association's website. An anonymous questionnaire was sent during September and October 2011 to 379 hospitals in German, French or Italian. Hospitals were asked to specify their hospital type and the implementation status of an internal hospital standard that decrees that patients or their relatives are to be promptly informed about medical errors that result in harm. RESULTS Responses from a total of 205 hospitals were received, a response rate of 54%. Most responding hospitals (62%) had an error disclosure standard or planned to implement one within 12 months. The majority of responding university and acute care (75%) hospitals had introduced a disclosure standard or were planning to do so. In contrast, the majority of responding psychiatric, rehabilitation and specialty (53%) clinics had not introduced a standard. CONCLUSION It appears that Swiss hospitals are in a promising state in providing institutional support for practitioners disclosing medical errors to patients. This has been shown internationally to be one important factor in encouraging the disclosure of medical errors. However, many hospitals, in particular psychiatric, rehabilitation and specialty clinics, have not implemented an error disclosure policy. Further research is needed to explore the underlying reasons.

Interruptions in Workflow for RNs in a Level One Trauma Center

An understanding of interruptions in healthcare is important for the design, implementation, and evaluation of health information systems and for the management of clinical workflow and medical errors. The purpose of this study is to identify and classify the types of interruptions experienced by Emergency Department(ED) nurses working in a Level One Trauma Center. This was an observational field study of Registered Nurses (RNs) employed in a Level One Trauma Center using the shadowing method. Results of the study indicate that nurses were both recipients and initiators of interruptions. Telephones, pagers, and face-to-face conversations were the most common sources of interruptions. Unlike other industries, the healthcare community has not systematically studied interruptions in clinical settings to determine and weigh the necessity of the interruption against their sometimes negative results such as medical errors, decreased efficiency, and increased costs. Our study presented here is an initial step to understand the nature, causes, and effects of interruptions, thereby improving both the quality of healthcare and patient safety. We developed an ethnographic data collection technique and a data coding method for the capturing and analysis of interruptions. The interruption data we collected are systematic, comprehensive, and close to exhaustive. They confirmed the findings from earlier studies by other researchers that interruptions are frequent events in critical care and other healthcare settings. We are currently using these data to analyze the workflow dynamics of ED clinicians, to identify the bottlenecks of information flow, and to develop interventions to improve the efficiency of emergency care through the management of interruptions.

Interruptions in workflow for RNs in a Level One Trauma Center.

An understanding of interruptions in healthcare is important for the design, implementation, and evaluation of health information systems and for the management of clinical workflow and medical errors. The purpose of this study is to identify and classify the types of interruptions experienced by ED nurses working in a Level One Trauma Center. This was an observational field study of Registered Nurses employed in a Level One Trauma Center using the shadowing method. Results of the study indicate that nurses were both recipients and initiators of interruptions. Telephone, pagers, and face-to-face conversations were the most common sources of interruptions. Unlike other industries, the outcomes caused by interruptions resulting in medical errors, decreased efficiency and increased cost have not been systematically studied in healthcare. Our study presented here is an initial step to understand the nature, causes, and effects of interruptions, and to develop interventions to manage interruptions to improve healthcare quality and patient safety. We developed an ethnographic data collection technique and a data coding method for the capturing and analysis of interruptions. The interruption data we collected are systematic, comprehensive, and close to exhaustive. They confirmed the findings from early studies by other researchers that interruptions are frequent events in critical care and other healthcare settings. We are currently using these data to analyze the workflow dynamics of ED clinicians, identify the bottlenecks of information flow, and develop interventions to improve the efficiency of emergency care through the management of interruptions.

Ambulatory care adverse events and preventable adverse events leading to a hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: Most healthcare in the US is delivered in the ambulatory care setting, but the epidemiology of errors and adverse events in ambulatory care is understudied. METHODS: Using the population-based data from the Colorado and Utah Medical Practices Study, we identified adverse events that occurred in an ambulatory care setting and led to hospital admission. Proportions with 95% CIs are reported. RESULTS: We reviewed 14,700-hospital discharge records and found 587 adverse events of which 70 were ambulatory care adverse events (AAEs) and 31 were ambulatory care preventable adverse events (APAEs). When weighted to the general population, there were 2608 AAEs and 1296 (44.3%) APAEs in Colorado and Utah, USA, in 1992. APAEs occurred most commonly in physicians' offices (43.1%, range 46.8-27.8), the emergency department (32.3%, 46.1-18.5) and at home (13.1%, 23.1-3.1). APAEs in day surgery were less common (7.1%, 13.6-0.6) but caused the greatest harm to patients. The types of APAEs were broadly distributed among missed or delayed diagnoses (36%, 50.2-21.8), surgery (24.1%, 36.7-11.5), non-surgical procedures (14.6%, 25.0-4.2), medication (13.1%, 23.1-3.1) and therapeutic events (12.3%, 22.0-2.6). Overall, 10% of the APAEs resulted in serious permanent injury or death. The proportion of APAEs that resulted in death was 31.8% for general internal medicine, 22.5% for family practice and 16.7% for emergency medicine. CONCLUSION: An estimated 75,000 hospitalisations per year are due to preventable adverse events that occur in outpatient settings in the US, resulting in 4839 serious permanent injuries and 2587 deaths.

Patient Safety: What Is It All about?

Patient safety is a major concern in health care systems worldwide. Patients with serious conditions, multimorbidity, and with intense and fragmented health care utilization, like end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, are at increased risk for suffering adverse events. In this chapter, the fundamental terms and concepts of patient safety are introduced. Essential epidemiological data relating to the frequency of adverse events and medical errors are provided. The chapter reports important safety threats for ESRD patients and describes examples of key innovations which contribute to patient safety. Recommendations and risk reduction strategies to improve care of ESRD patients are presented. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Biomarker-guided personalised emergency medicine for all - hope for another hype?

Polymorbid patients, diverse diagnostic and therapeutic options, more complex hospital structures, financial incentives, benchmarking, as well as perceptional and societal changes put pressure on medical doctors, specifically if medical errors surface. This is particularly true for the emergency department setting, where patients face delayed or erroneous initial diagnostic or therapeutic measures and costly hospital stays due to sub-optimal triage. A "biomarker" is any laboratory tool with the potential better to detect and characterise diseases, to simplify complex clinical algorithms and to improve clinical problem solving in routine care. They must be embedded in clinical algorithms to complement and not replace basic medical skills. Unselected ordering of laboratory tests and shortcomings in test performance and interpretation contribute to diagnostic errors. Test results may be ambiguous with false positive or false negative results and generate unnecessary harm and costs. Laboratory tests should only be ordered, if results have clinical consequences. In studies, we must move beyond the observational reporting and meta-analysing of diagnostic accuracies for biomarkers. Instead, specific cut-off ranges should be proposed and intervention studies conducted to prove outcome relevant impacts on patient care. The focus of this review is to exemplify the appropriate use of selected laboratory tests in the emergency setting for which randomised-controlled intervention studies have proven clinical benefit. Herein, we focus on initial patient triage and allocation of treatment opportunities in patients with cardiorespiratory diseases in the emergency department. The following five biomarkers will be discussed: proadrenomedullin for prognostic triage assessment and site-of-care decisions, cardiac troponin for acute myocardial infarction, natriuretic peptides for acute heart failure, D-dimers for venous thromboembolism, C-reactive protein as a marker of inflammation, and procalcitonin for antibiotic stewardship in infections of the respiratory tract and sepsis. For these markers we provide an overview on physiopathology, historical evolution of evidence, strengths and limitations for a rational implementation into clinical algorithms. We critically discuss results from key intervention trials that led to their use in clinical routine and potential future indications. The rational for the use of all these biomarkers, first, tackle diagnostic ambiguity and consecutive defensive medicine, second, delayed and sub-optimal therapeutic decisions, and third, prognostic uncertainty with misguided triage and site-of-care decisions all contributing to the waste of our limited health care resources. A multifaceted approach for a more targeted management of medical patients from emergency admission to discharge including biomarkers, will translate into better resource use, shorter length of hospital stay, reduced overall costs, improved patients satisfaction and outcomes in terms of mortality and re-hospitalisation. Hopefully, the concepts outlined in this review will help the reader to improve their diagnostic skills and become more parsimonious laboratory test requesters.

C4I Roadmap March 2005

Patients expect to be safe from harm inside the walls of a hospital. Increasing reports of medical errors and adverse events have brought these concerns to public attention. Although we have celebrated many scientific advances over the past several decades, many patients do not benefit because the healthcare infrastructure is inadequate to deliver care to all. Studies confirm opportunities to improve in areas such as inpatient vaccination for flu and outpatient screening for breast, cervical or colon cancer. (Institute of Medicine, (IOM), 2000, 2001, 2004). This document outlines the steps needed to further increase our focus on patient safety in John Dempsey Hospital through the development of a multi-disciplinary Collaborative Center for Clinical Care Improvement (CCCCI). The dimensions of safety and outcomes are briefly discussed to provide some perspective on the scope of these challenges (Strongwater, 2003).

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. ^

Implementing and evaluating a Web -based close call reporting system at an urban hospital

Medical errors and close calls are pervasive in health care. It is hypothesized that the causes of close calls are the same as for medical errors; therefore learning about close calls can help prevent errors and increase patient safety. Yet despite efforts to encourage close call reporting, close calls as well as medical errors are under-reported in health care. The purpose of this dissertation was to implement and evaluate a web-based anonymous close call reporting system in three units at an urban hospital. ^ The study participants were physicians, nurses and medical technicians (N = 187) who care for patients in the Medical Intermediate Care Unit, the Surgical Intermediate Care Unit, and the Coronary Catheterization Laboratory in the hospital. We provided educational information to the participants on how to use the system and e-mailed and delivered paper reminders to report to the participants throughout the 19-month project. We surveyed the participants at the beginning and at the end of the study to assess their attitudes and beliefs regarding incident reporting. We found that the majority of the health care providers in our study are supportive of incident reporting in general but in practice very few had actually reported an error or a close call, semi-structured interview 20 weeks after we made the close call reporting system available. The purpose of the interviews was to further assess the participants' attitudes regarding incident reporting and the reporting system. Our findings suggest that the health care providers are supportive of medical error reporting in general, but are not convinced of the benefit of reporting close calls. Barriers to close call reporting cited include lack of time, heavy workloads, preferring to take care of close calls "on the spot", and not seeing the benefits of close call reporting. Consequently only two = close calls were reported via the system by two separate caregivers during the project. ^ The findings suggest that future efforts to increase close call reporting must address barriers to reporting, especially the belief among care givers that it is not worth taking time from their already busy schedules to report close calls. ^