Patient Safety Alert : A new way to share patient safety information among departments and units

Communication : If there is one topic that comes up over and over again as we discuss ways to make John Dempsey Hospital the safest hospital, it is “communication.” In fact, several of the 2006 and 2007 National Patient Safety Goals are centered around improving the effectiveness of communication among caregivers. There are many ways of doing this, and we have implemented several already. These include handoffs, medication reconciliation, “SBAR,” etc. On page two, we will talk in more detail about hand-offs and the use of “SBAR.”

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. ^

The relationship between surgical residents' perception of leadership and patient safety culture

Introduction. Patient safety culture is the integration of interrelated practices that once developed is supported by both the culture and leadership of the organization (Sagan, 1993). The purpose of this study is to describe and examine the relationship between surgical residents’ perception of their leadership and the resulting organizational safety culture within their clinical setting. This assessment is important to understanding the extent that leadership style affects the perception of the safety culture.^ Methods. A secondary dataset was used which included data from 68 surgical residents from two survey instruments, Organizational Description Questionnaire (ODQ) and Patient Safety Climate In Healthcare Organizations (PSCHO) Survey. Multiple regressions followed by hierarchical regressions with the introduction of the Post Graduate Year (PGY) variable examined the association between the leadership styles, Transactional and Transformational and the organizational safety culture variables, Overall Emphasis on Safety, Senior management engagement, Organizational resources for safety. Independent t-tests were conducted to assess whether males and females differ among the organizational safety culture variables and either leadership style.^ Results. The surgical residents perceived their organizational leadership to have greater emphasis placed on transformational leadership culture style relative to transactional leadership culture style. The only significant association found was between Transformational leadership and Organizational resources for safety. PGY had no significant effect on the leadership or the safety culture perceived. No significant difference was found between females and males in regards to the safety culture or the leadership style.^ Discussion. These results have implications as they support the premise for the study which is surgical residents perceive their existing leadership and organizational culture to be more transformational in nature than transactional. Significance was found between the leadership perceived and one of the safety culture variables, Organizational resources for safety. The foundation for this association lies in the fact that surgical residents are the personnel which are a part of the organizational resources. Although PGY differentiation did not seem to play a difference in the leadership perceived this could be attributed to the small sample size. No gender difference were found which supports the assumption that within such a highly specialized group such as surgical residents there is no gender differences since the highly specialized field draws a certain type of person with distinct characteristics. In future research these survey tools can be used to gauge the survey audiences’ perception and safety interventions can be developed based on the results. ^

Patient safety in the operating room and documentary quality related to infection and hospitalization

Objective: To describe the documentary quality of two records related to patient safety in the operating room and to identify differences between information related to infection and hospitalization. Methods: Comparative study based on two cross sections, conducted with 3,033 patients who had been hospitalized for more than 24 hours in an Orthopedics and Traumatology Center. Sociodemographic and clinical data, as well as information provided in forms were compared. Postoperative infection was identified as an adverse event. Results: There was a significant correlation between hospitalization days and the total number of diagnoses collected (Pearson=0.328; p<0.001). When diagnoses and infections were grouped together, a significant value was found between closed fractures and infection (p=0.001). Conclusion: Differences in the degree of completion were observed between the two records. There were no differences between adverse events.

Australian patient safety survey

The national telephone survey found that 6.5% of respondents reported experiencing a medical adverse event during the preceding 12 months. Most reported were medication incidents, with misdiagnosis or wrong treatment second most common. Predictors of adverse event reporting included health status, hospital admission, and length of time seeing regular doctor.

Accountability, organisational learning and risks to patient safety in England: conflict or compromise?

This article examines the current risk regulation regime, within the English National Health Service (NHS), by investigating the two, sometimes conflicting, approaches to risk embodied within the field of policies towards patient safety. The first approach focuses on promoting accountability and is built on legal principles surrounding negligence and competence. The second approach focuses on promoting learning from previous mistakes and near-misses, and is built on the development of a ‘safety culture’. Previous work has drawn attention to problems associated with risk-based regulation when faced with the dual imperatives of accountability and organisational learning. The article develops this by considering whether the NHS patient safety regime demonstrates the coexistence of two different risk regulation regimes, or merely one regime with contradictory elements. It uses the heuristic device of ‘institutional logics’ to examine the coexistence of and interrelationship between ‘organisational learning’ and ‘accountability’ logics driving risk regulation in health care.

Multiple component patient safety intervention in English hospitals:controlled evaluation of second phase

Objective: To independently evaluate the impact of the second phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI2) on a range of patient safety measures. Design: A controlled before and after design. Five substudies: survey of staff attitudes; review of case notes from high risk (respiratory) patients in medical wards; review of case notes from surgical patients; indirect evaluation of hand hygiene by measuring hospital use of handwashing materials; measurement of outcomes (adverse events, mortality among high risk patients admitted to medical wards, patients' satisfaction, mortality in intensive care, rates of hospital acquired infection). Setting: NHS hospitals in England. Participants: Nine hospitals participating in SPI2 and nine matched control hospitals. Intervention The SPI2 intervention was similar to the SPI1, with somewhat modified goals, a slightly longer intervention period, and a smaller budget per hospital. Results: One of the scores (organisational climate) showed a significant (P=0.009) difference in rate of change over time, which favoured the control hospitals, though the difference was only 0.07 points on a five point scale. Results of the explicit case note reviews of high risk medical patients showed that certain practices improved over time in both control and SPI2 hospitals (and none deteriorated), but there were no significant differences between control and SPI2 hospitals. Monitoring of vital signs improved across control and SPI2 sites. This temporal effect was significant for monitoring the respiratory rate at both the six hour (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.010) and 12 hour (2.4, 1.1 to 5.0; P=0.002) periods after admission. There was no significant effect of SPI for any of the measures of vital signs. Use of a recommended system for scoring the severity of pneumonia improved from 1.9% (1/52) to 21.4% (12/56) of control and from 2.0% (1/50) to 41.7% (25/60) of SPI2 patients. This temporal change was significant (7.3, 1.4 to 37.7; P=0.002), but the difference in difference was not significant (2.1, 0.4 to 11.1; P=0.236). There were no notable or significant changes in the pattern of prescribing errors, either over time or between control and SPI2 hospitals. Two items of medical history taking (exercise tolerance and occupation) showed significant improvement over time, across both control and SPI2 hospitals, but no additional SPI2 effect. The holistic review showed no significant changes in error rates either over time or between control and SPI2 hospitals. The explicit case note review of perioperative care showed that adherence rates for two of the four perioperative standards targeted by SPI2 were already good at baseline, exceeding 94% for antibiotic prophylaxis and 98% for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Intraoperative monitoring of temperature improved over time in both groups, but this was not significant (1.8, 0.4 to 7.6; P=0.279), and there were no additional effects of SPI2. A dramatic rise in consumption of soap and alcohol hand rub was similar in control and SPI2 hospitals (P=0.760 and P=0.889, respectively), as was the corresponding decrease in rates of Clostridium difficile and meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection (P=0.652 and P=0.693, respectively). Mortality rates of medical patients included in the case note reviews in control hospitals increased from 17.3% (42/243) to 21.4% (24/112), while in SPI2 hospitals they fell from 10.3% (24/233) to 6.1% (7/114) (P=0.043). Fewer than 8% of deaths were classed as avoidable; changes in proportions could not explain the divergence of overall death rates between control and SPI2 hospitals. There was no significant difference in the rate of change in mortality in intensive care. Patients' satisfaction improved in both control and SPI2 hospitals on all dimensions, but again there were no significant changes between the two groups of hospitals. Conclusions: Many aspects of care are already good or improving across the NHS in England, suggesting considerable improvements in quality across the board. These improvements are probably due to contemporaneous policy activities relating to patient safety, including those with features similar to the SPI, and the emergence of professional consensus on some clinical processes. This phenomenon might have attenuated the incremental effect of the SPI, making it difficult to detect. Alternatively, the full impact of the SPI might be observable only in the longer term. The conclusion of this study could have been different if concurrent controls had not been used.

Large scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals:mixed method evaluation

Objectives: To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting: NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results: Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration - monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items) - there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission recording increased from 40% (93) to 69% (165) in control hospitals and from 37% (141) to 78% (296) in SPI1 hospitals (odds ratio for "difference in difference" 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.008). Use of a formal scoring system for patients with pneumonia also increased over time (from 2% (102) to 23% (111) in control hospitals and from 2% (170) to 9% (189) in SPI1 hospitals), which favoured controls and was not significant (0.3, 0.02 to 3.4; P=0.173). There were no improvements in the proportion of prescription errors and no effects that could be attributed to SPI1 in non-targeted generic areas (such as enhanced safety culture). On some measures, the lack of effect could be because compliance was already high at baseline (such as use of steroids in over 85% of cases where indicated), but even when there was more room for improvement (such as in quality of medical history taking), there was no significant additional net effect of SPI1. There were no changes over time or between control and SPI1 hospitals in errors or rates of adverse events in patients in medical wards. Mortality increased from 11% (27) to 16% (39) among controls and decreased from17%(63) to13%(49) among SPI1 hospitals, but the risk adjusted difference was not significant (0.5, 0.2 to 1.4; P=0.085). Poor care was a contributing factor in four of the 178 deaths identified by review of case notes. The survey of patients showed no significant differences apart from an increase in perception of cleanliness in favour of SPI1 hospitals. Conclusions The introduction of SPI1 was associated with improvements in one of the types of clinical process studied (monitoring of vital signs) and one measure of staff perceptions of organisational climate. There was no additional effect of SPI1 on other targeted issues nor on other measures of generic organisational strengthening.

Organisational and systems factors impacting on patient safety in acute care organisations: lessons from four multi-site research studies

Background Patient safety is concerned with preventable harm in healthcare, a subject that became a focus for study in the UK in the late 1990s. How to improve patient safety, presented both a practical and a research challenge in the early 2000s, leading to the eleven publications presented in this thesis. Research question The overarching research question was: What are the key organisational and systems factors that impact on patient safety, and how can these best be researched? Methods Research was conducted in over 40 acute care organisations in the UK and Europe between 2006 and 2013. The approaches included surveys, interviews, documentary analysis and non-participant observation. Two studies were longitudinal. Results The findings reveal the nature and extent of poor systems reliability and its effect on patient safety; the factors underpinning cases of patient harm; the cultural issues impacting on safety and quality; and the importance of a common language for quality and safety across an organisation. Across the publications, nine key organisational and systems factors emerged as important for patient safety improvement. These include leadership stability; data infrastructure; measurement capability; standardisation of clinical systems; and creating an open and fair collective culture where poor safety is challenged. Conclusions and contribution to knowledge The research presented in the publications has provided a more complete understanding of the organisation and systems factors underpinning safer healthcare. Lessons are drawn to inform methods for future research, including: how to define success in patient safety improvement studies; how to take into account external influences during longitudinal studies; and how to confirm meaning in multi-language research. Finally, recommendations for future research include assessing the support required to maintain a patient safety focus during periods of major change or austerity; the skills needed by healthcare leaders; and the implications of poor data infrastructure.

Team- och ledarskapsfaktorer som påverkar sjuksköterskors förmåga att arbeta patientsäkert – en litteraturstudie : Team level- and leadership predictors that affect nurses' in their work to achieve patient safety- a literature study

Sjuksköterskor ska arbeta utifrån patientens behov för att åstadkomma en patientsäker vård. Det är teamet samt ledaren som står sjuksköterskor närmast i utövandet av hens omvårdnadsarbete. Syftet med denna litteraturstudie var att beskriva vilka team- och ledarskapsfaktorer som påverkar sjuksköterskors förmåga att arbeta patientsäkert. Metoden som användes för denna litteraturstudie är baserad på Forsberg & Wengströms modell (2013). Resultatet är baserat på 11 vetenskapliga artiklar, publicerade mellan år 2000 och 2016. Vid bearbetning av artiklarna framkom flera teman vilka delades in mot teamfaktorer som påverkar sjuksköterskors förmåga att arbeta patientsäkert samt ledarskapsfaktorer som påverkar sjuksköterskors förmåga att arbeta patientsäkert. Teamets huvudfaktor identifierades som att ha förmåga att samarbeta. Teman som visade ingå var förmåga att kommunicera och förmedla kunskap samt relationer i teamet genom respekt och konflikthantering. Ledarens huvudtema som identifierades var att inspirera och motivera samt att ge stöd. Slutsatsen av denna litteraturstudie är att teamet samt ledaren visade sig ha en betydande roll för sjuksköterskors förmåga att arbeta patientsäkerhet. Då teamet och ledaren har visat sig kunna påverka patientsäkerheten på många olika sätt, genom att påverka sjuksköterskors arbete, är det väsentligt att dessa uppmärksammas i patientsäkerhetsarbete.

Adaptive regulation or governmentality: patient safety and the changing regulation of medicine

Studies from across the world have shown that clinical mistakes are a major threat to the safety of patient care (World Health Organisation 2004). For the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales it is estimated that one in ten hospital patients experience some form of error, and each year these cost the service over £2billion in remedial care (Department of Health 2000). Unsurprisingly, ‘patient safety’ is now a major international health policy priority, questioning the efficacy of existing regulatory practices and proposing a new ethos of learning. Within England and Wales, the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has been created to lead policy development and champion service-wide learning, whilst throughout the NHS the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) has been introduced to enable this learning (NPSA 2003). This paper investigates the extent to which, in seeking to better manage the threats to patient safety, this policy agenda represents a transition in medical regulation.

Doctors' thinking about the system as a threat to patient safety

‘Systems thinking’ is an important feature of the emerging ‘patient safety’ agenda. As a key component of a ‘safety culture’, it encourages clinicians to look past individual error to recognise the latent factors that threaten safety. This paper investigates whether current medical thinking is commensurate with the idea of ‘systems thinking’ together with its implications for policy. The findings are based on qualitative semistructured interviews with specialist physicians working within one NHS District General Hospital in the English Midlands. It is shown that, rather then favouring a 'person-centred’ perspective, doctors readily identify ‘the system’ as a threat to patient safety. This is not necessarily a reflection of the prevailing safety discourse or knowledge of policy, but reflects a tacit understanding of how services are (dis)organised. This line of thinking serves to mitigate individual wrong-doing and protect professional credibility by encouraging doctors to accept and accommodate the shortcomings of the system, rather than participate in new forms of organisational learning.

Safety and complexity: the inter-departmental threats to patient safety in the operating department

Purpose: Current thinking about ‘patient safety’ emphasises the causal relationship between the work environment and the delivery of clinical care. This research draws on the theory of Normal Accidents to extend this analysis and better understand the ‘organisational factors’ that threaten safety. Methods: Ethnographic research methods were used, with observations of the operating department setting for 18 month and interviews with 80 members of hospital staff. The setting for the study was the Operating Department of a large teaching hospital in the North-West of England. Results: The work of the operating department is determined by inter-dependant, ‘tightly coupled’ organisational relationships between hospital departments based upon the timely exchange of information, services and resources required for the delivery of care. Failures within these processes, manifest as ‘breakdowns’ within inter-departmental relationships lead to situations of constraint, rapid change and uncertainty in the work of the operating department that require staff to break with established routines and work with increased time and emotional pressures. This means that staff focus on working quickly, as opposed to working safely. Conclusion: Analysis of safety needs to move beyond a focus on the immediate work environment and individual practice, to consider the more complex and deeply structured organisational systems of hospital activity. For departmental managers the scope for service planning to control for safety may be limited as the structured ‘real world’ situation of service delivery is shaped by inter-department and organisational factors that are perhaps beyond the scope of departmental management.