Frequency of and predictors for patient-reported medical and medication errors in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the frequency of and identify risk factors for patient-reported medical errors in Switzerland. The joint effect of risk factors on error-reporting probability was modelled for hypothetical patients. METHODS: A representative population sample of Swiss citizens (n = 1306) was surveyed as part of the Commonwealth Fund’s 2010 lnternational Survey of the General Public’s Views of their Health Care System’s Performance in Eleven Countries. Data on personal background, utilisation of health care, coordination of care problems and reported errors were assessed. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for patients’ reports of medical mistakes and medication errors. RESULTS: 11.4% of participants reported at least one error in their care in the previous two years (8% medical errors, 5.3% medication errors). Poor coordination of care experiences was frequent. 7.8% experienced that test results or medical records were not available, 17.2% received conflicting information from care providers and 11.5% reported that tests were ordered although they had been done before. Age (OR = 0.98, p = 0.014), poor health (OR = 2.95, p = 0.007), utilisation of emergency care (OR = 2.45, p = 0.003), inpatient-stay (OR = 2.31, p = 0.010) and poor care coordination (OR = 5.43, p <0.001) are important predictors for reporting error. For high utilisers of care that unify multiple risk factors the probability that errors are reported rises up to p = 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety remains a major challenge for the Swiss health care system. Despite the health related and economic burden associated with it, the widespread experience of medical error in some subpopulations also has the potential to erode trust in the health care system as a whole.

Frequency of and harm associated with primary care safety incidents

To assess frequency and severity of patient safety incidents in primary care. Study Design: Cross-sectional survey of health-care professionals in Swiss primary care offices.

Can outcome prediction data change patient outcomes and organizational outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Intensive care medicine consumes a high share of healthcare costs, and there is growing pressure to use the scarce resources efficiently. Accordingly, organizational issues and quality management have become an important focus of interest in recent years. Here, we will review current concepts of how outcome data can be used to identify areas requiring action. RECENT FINDINGS: Using recently established models of outcome assessment, wide variability between individual ICUs is found, both with respect to outcome and resource use. Such variability implies that there are large differences in patient care processes not only within the ICU but also in pre-ICU and post-ICU care. Indeed, measures to improve the patient process in the ICU (including care of the critically ill, patient safety, and management of the ICU) have been presented in a number of recently published papers. SUMMARY: Outcome assessment models provide an important framework for benchmarking. They may help the individual ICU to spot appropriate fields of action, plan and initiate quality improvement projects, and monitor the consequences of such activity.

Safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery: Roux-en-y gastric bypass is superior to gastric banding in the management of morbidly obese patients: a reply to the response by Bhoyrul et al

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: We have read the letter by Bhoyrul et al. in response to our recently published article "Safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is superior to gastric banding in the management of morbidly obese patients". We strongly disagree with the content of the letter. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Bhoyrul et al. base their letter mostly on low level evidence such as single-institutional case series (level IV evidence) and expert opinion (level V evidence). Surprisingly, they do not comment on the randomized controlled trial, which clearly favours gastric bypass over gastric banding. CONCLUSION: The letter by Bhoyrul et al. is based on low level evidence and is itself biased, unsubstantiated, and not supported by the current literature.

Towards a hybrid method to categorize interruptions and activities in healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: Interruptions are known to have a negative impact on activity performance. Understanding how an interruption contributes to human error is limited because there is not a standard method for analyzing and classifying interruptions. Qualitative data are typically analyzed by either a deductive or an inductive method. Both methods have limitations. In this paper, a hybrid method was developed that integrates deductive and inductive methods for the categorization of activities and interruptions recorded during an ethnographic study of physicians and registered nurses in a Level One Trauma Center. Understanding the effects of interruptions is important for designing and evaluating informatics tools in particular as well as improving healthcare quality and patient safety in general. METHOD: The hybrid method was developed using a deductive a priori classification framework with the provision of adding new categories discovered inductively in the data. The inductive process utilized line-by-line coding and constant comparison as stated in Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The categories of activities and interruptions were organized into a three-tiered hierarchy of activity. Validity and reliability of the categories were tested by categorizing a medical error case external to the study. No new categories of interruptions were identified during analysis of the medical error case. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study provide evidence that the hybrid model of categorization is more complete than either a deductive or an inductive method alone. The hybrid method developed in this study provides the methodical support for understanding, analyzing, and managing interruptions and workflow.

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.

Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential?

BACKGROUND: Given the fragmentation of outpatient care, timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging results remains a challenge. We hypothesized that an electronic medical record (EMR) that facilitates the transmission and availability of critical imaging results through either automated notification (alerting) or direct access to the primary report would eliminate this problem. METHODS: We studied critical imaging alert notifications in the outpatient setting of a tertiary care Department of Veterans Affairs facility from November 2007 to June 2008. Tracking software determined whether the alert was acknowledged (ie, health care practitioner/provider [HCP] opened the message for viewing) within 2 weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. We reviewed medical records and contacted HCPs to determine timely follow-up actions (eg, ordering a follow-up test or consultation) within 4 weeks of transmission. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering effect by HCPs analyzed predictors for 2 outcomes: lack of acknowledgment and lack of timely follow-up. RESULTS: Of 123 638 studies (including radiographs, computed tomographic scans, ultrasonograms, magnetic resonance images, and mammograms), 1196 images (0.97%) generated alerts; 217 (18.1%) of these were unacknowledged. Alerts had a higher risk of being unacknowledged when the ordering HCPs were trainees (odds ratio [OR], 5.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.86-10.89) and when dual-alert (>1 HCP alerted) as opposed to single-alert communication was used (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.22-3.36). Timely follow-up was lacking in 92 (7.7% of all alerts) and was similar for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (7.3% vs 9.7%; P = .22). Risk for lack of timely follow-up was higher with dual-alert communication (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.06-3.48) but lower when additional verbal communication was used by the radiologist (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.38). Nearly all abnormal results lacking timely follow-up at 4 weeks were eventually found to have measurable clinical impact in terms of further diagnostic testing or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Critical imaging results may not receive timely follow-up actions even when HCPs receive and read results in an advanced, integrated electronic medical record system. A multidisciplinary approach is needed to improve patient safety in this area.

'Saying it without words': a qualitative study of oncology staff's experiences with speaking up about safety concerns.

OBJECTIVES To explore the experiences of oncology staff with communicating safety concerns and to examine situational factors and motivations surrounding the decision whether and how to speak up using semistructured interviews. SETTING 7 oncology departments of six hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Diverse sample of 32 experienced oncology healthcare professionals. RESULTS Nurses and doctors commonly experience situations which raise their concerns and require questioning, clarifying and correcting. Participants often used non-verbal communication to signal safety concerns. Speaking-up behaviour was strongly related to a clinical safety issue. Most episodes of 'silence' were connected to hygiene, isolation and invasive procedures. In contrast, there seemed to exist a strong culture to communicate questions, doubts and concerns relating to medication. Nearly all interviewees were concerned with 'how' to say it and in particular those of lower hierarchical status reflected on deliberate 'voicing tactics'. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate a widely accepted culture to discuss any concerns relating to medication safety while other issues are more difficult to voice. Clinicians devote considerable efforts to evaluate the situation and sensitively decide whether and how to speak up. Our results can serve as a starting point to develop a shared understanding of risks and appropriate communication of safety concerns among staff in oncology.

Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff's decisions to speak up about safety concerns

BACKGROUND Research suggests that "silence", i.e., not voicing safety concerns, is common among health care professionals (HCPs). Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and thus to prevent harm and also to improve a culture of teamwork and safety. The aim of our study was to explore factors that affect oncology staff's decision to voice safety concerns or to remain silent and to describe the trade-offs they make. METHODS In a qualitative interview study with 32 doctors and nurses from 7 oncology units we investigated motivations and barriers to speaking up towards co-workers and supervisors. An inductive thematic content analysis framework was applied to the transcripts. Based on the individual experiences of participants, we conceptualize the choice to voice concerns and the trade-offs involved. RESULTS Preventing patients from serious harm constitutes a strong motivation to speaking up but competes with anticipated negative outcomes. Decisions whether and how to voice concerns involved complex considerations and trade-offs. Many respondents reflected on whether the level of risk for a patient "justifies" the costs of speaking up. Various barriers for voicing concerns were reported, e.g., damaging relationships. Contextual factors, such as the presence of patients and co-workers in the alarming situation, affect the likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes. Speaking up to well-known co-workers was described as considerably easier whereas "not knowing the actor well" increases risks and potential costs of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS While doctors and nurses felt strong obligation to prevent errors reaching individual patients, they were not engaged in voicing concerns beyond this immediacy. Our results offer in-depth insight into fears and conditions conducive of silence and voicing and can be used for educational interventions and leader reinforcement.

Silence That Can Be Dangerous: A Vignette Study to Assess Healthcare Professionals' Likelihood of Speaking up about Safety Concerns

PURPOSE To investigate the likelihood of speaking up about patient safety in oncology and to clarify the effect of clinical and situational context factors on the likelihood of voicing concerns. PATIENTS AND METHODS 1013 nurses and doctors in oncology rated four clinical vignettes describing coworkers' errors and rule violations in a self-administered factorial survey (65% response rate). Multiple regression analysis was used to model the likelihood of speaking up as outcome of vignette attributes, responder's evaluations of the situation and personal characteristics. RESULTS Respondents reported a high likelihood of speaking up about patient safety but the variation between and within types of errors and rule violations was substantial. Staff without managerial function provided significantly higher levels of decision difficulty and discomfort to speak up. Based on the information presented in the vignettes, 74%-96% would speak up towards a supervisor failing to check a prescription, 45%-81% would point a coworker to a missed hand disinfection, 82%-94% would speak up towards nurses who violate a safety rule in medication preparation, and 59%-92% would question a doctor violating a safety rule in lumbar puncture. Several vignette attributes predicted the likelihood of speaking up. Perceived potential harm, anticipated discomfort, and decision difficulty were significant predictors of the likelihood of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians' willingness to speak up about patient safety is considerably affected by contextual factors. Physicians and nurses without managerial function report substantial discomfort with speaking up. Oncology departments should provide staff with clear guidance and trainings on when and how to voice safety concerns.

Simulation in vascular access surgery

In the last years, simulation training has become widespread in different areas of medicine due to social expectations, political accountability and professional regulation. Different types of simulators allow to improve knowledge, skills, communication and team behavior. Simulation sessions have been proven to shorten the learning curve and allow education in a safe environment. Patients on dialysis are an expanding group. They often suffer from several comorbidities and need complex surgical procedures with regard to their dialysis access. Therefore, education in evidence-based algorithms is as important as teaching of practical skills. In this chapter, we are presenting an overview of available dialysis access training modalities. We are convinced that simulation will become more important in the near future and has a substantial impact on strategies to improve aspects of patient safety. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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.

Disclosing and reporting medical errors: Cross-sectional survey of Swiss anaesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND There is limited research on anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication, particularly concerning disclosing errors to patients. OBJECTIVE To characterise anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients and reporting errors within the hospital, and to examine factors influencing their willingness to disclose or report errors. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SETTING Switzerland's five university hospitals' departments of anaesthesia in 2012/2013. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred and eighty-one clinically active anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication. RESULTS The overall response rate of the survey was 52% (281/542). Respondents broadly endorsed disclosing harmful errors to patients (100% serious, 77% minor errors, 19% near misses), but also reported factors that might make them less likely to actually disclose such errors. Only 12% of respondents had previously received training on how to disclose errors to patients, although 93% were interested in receiving training. Overall, 97% of respondents agreed that serious errors should be reported, but willingness to report minor errors (74%) and near misses (59%) was lower. Respondents were more likely to strongly agree that serious errors should be reported if they also thought that their hospital would implement systematic changes after errors were reported [(odds ratio, 2.097 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 3.81)]. Significant differences in attitudes between departments regarding error disclosure and reporting were noted. CONCLUSION Willingness to disclose or report errors varied widely between hospitals. Thus, heads of department and hospital chiefs need to be aware of the importance of local culture when it comes to error communication. Error disclosure training and improving feedback on how error reports are being used to improve patient safety may also be important steps in increasing anaesthesiologists' communication of errors.

Comparing Psychological Type and Explanatory Between Nursing Students and Clinical Faculty: A Pilot Study

Negotiation of complex collaboration and effective teamwork among health care providers is essential to patient safety and to quality of care. This study examined characteristics of nursing students and faculty influencing communication between them. Psychological type (Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998) and explanatory style (Attributional Style Questionnaire) (ASQ) (Peterson et al., 1982) were compared for participating first year baccalaureate nursing students (N=286), and clinical nursing faculty (N=59) from both two- and four-year nursing programs. Modal student psychological type was ESFJ; modal faculty psychological type was ISTJ. The two groups demonstrated significant differences in processing information, and making decisions and judgments. Students were slightly more optimistic than faculty. Psychological type and level of optimism did not appear to correlate. Data from this pilot study provide an initial framework on which to base further research that could enhance the quality of teamwork among healthcare providers.