Critical incident monitoring in paediatric and adult critical care: from reporting to improved patient outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critical incident reporting alone does not necessarily improve patient safety or even patient outcomes. Substantial improvement has been made by focusing on the further two steps of critical incident monitoring, that is, the analysis of critical incidents and implementation of system changes. The system approach to patient safety had an impact on the view about the patient's role in safety. This review aims to analyse recent advances in the technique of reporting, the analysis of reported incidents, and the implementation of actual system improvements. It also explores how families should be approached about safety issues. RECENT FINDINGS: It is essential to make as many critical incidents as possible known to the intensive care team. Several factors have been shown to increase the reporting rate: anonymity, regular feedback about the errors reported, and the existence of a safety climate. Risk scoring of critical incident reports and root cause analysis may help in the analysis of incidents. Research suggests that patients can be successfully involved in safety. SUMMARY: A persisting high number of reported incidents is anticipated and regarded as continuing good safety culture. However, only the implementation of system changes, based on incident reports, and also involving the expertise of patients and their families, has the potential to improve patient outcome. Hard outcome criteria, such as standardized mortality ratio, have not yet been shown to improve as a result of critical incident monitoring.

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.

Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain?

BACKGROUND: Follow-up of abnormal outpatient laboratory test results is a major patient safety concern. Electronic medical records can potentially address this concern through automated notification. We examined whether automated notifications of abnormal laboratory results (alerts) in an integrated electronic medical record resulted in timely follow-up actions. METHODS: We studied 4 alerts: hemoglobin A1c > or =15%, positive hepatitis C antibody, prostate-specific antigen > or =15 ng/mL, and thyroid-stimulating hormone > or =15 mIU/L. An alert tracking system determined whether the alert was acknowledged (ie, provider clicked on and opened the message) within 2 weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. Within 30 days of result transmission, record review and provider contact determined follow-up actions (eg, patient contact, treatment). Multivariable logistic regression models analyzed predictors for lack of timely follow-up. RESULTS: Between May and December 2008, 78,158 tests (hemoglobin A1c, hepatitis C antibody, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and prostate-specific antigen) were performed, of which 1163 (1.48%) were transmitted as alerts; 10.2% of these (119/1163) were unacknowledged. Timely follow-up was lacking in 79 (6.8%), and was statistically not different for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (6.4% vs 10.1%; P =.13). Of 1163 alerts, 202 (17.4%) arose from unnecessarily ordered (redundant) tests. Alerts for a new versus known diagnosis were more likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 7.35; 95% confidence interval, 4.16-12.97), whereas alerts related to redundant tests were less likely to lack timely follow-up (odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Safety concerns related to timely patient follow-up remain despite automated notification of non-life-threatening abnormal laboratory results in the outpatient setting.

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.

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.

Undermining patient and public engagement and limiting its impact:the consequences of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 on collective patient and public involvement

Patient and public involvement has been at the heart of UK health policy for more than two decades. This commitment to putting patients at the heart of the British National Health Service (NHS) has become a central principle helping to ensure equity, patient safety and effectiveness in the health system. The recent Health and Social Care Act 2012 is the most significant reform of the NHS since its foundation in 1948. More radically, this legislation undermines the principle of patient and public involvement, public accountability and returns the power for prioritisation of health services to an unaccountable medical elite. This legislation marks a sea-change in the approach to patient and public involvement in the UK and signals a shift in the commitment of the UK government to patient-centred care. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A KM perspective on implementing an electronic patient record within an NHS hospital

The Electronic Patient Record (EPR) is being developed by many hospitals in the UK and across the globe. We class an EPR system as a type of Knowledge Management System (KMS), in that it is a technological tool developed to support the process of knowledge management (KM). Healthcare organisations aim to use these systems to provide a vehicle for more informed and improved clinical decision making thereby delivering reduced errors and risks, enhanced quality and consequently offering enhanced patient safety. Finding an effective way for a healthcare organisation to practically implement these systems is essential. In this study we use the concept of the business process approach to KM as a theoretical lens to analyse and explore how a large NHS teaching hospital developed, executed and practically implemented an EPR system. This theory advocates the importance of taking into account all organizational activities - the business processes - in considering any KM initiatives. Approaching KM through business processes allows for a more holistic view of the requirements across a process: emphasis is placed on how particular activities are performed, how they are structured and what knowledge demanded and not just supplied across each process. This falls in line with the increased emphasis in healthcare on patient-centred approaches to care delivery. We have found in previous research that hospitals are happy with the delivery of patient care being referred to as their 'business'. A qualitative study was conducted over a two and half year period with data collected from semi-structured interviews with eight members of the strategic management team, 12 clinical users and 20 patients in addition to non- participant observation of meetings and documentary data. We believe that the inclusion of patients within the study may well be the first time this has been done in examining the implementation of a KMS. The theoretical propositions strategy was used as the overarching approach for data analysis. Here Initial theoretical research themes and propositions were used to help shape and organise the case study analysis. This paper will present preliminary findings about the hospital's business strategy and its links to the KMS strategy and process.

Patient/carers' recollection of medicines related information from an out-patient clinic appointment

AIM: To identify what medicines related information children/young people or their parents/carers are able to recall following an out-patient clinic appointment. METHOD: A convenience sample of patients' prescribed at least one new long-term (>6 weeks) medicine were recruited from a single UK paediatric hospital out-patient pharmacy. A face-to-face semi-structured questionnaire was administered to participants when they presented with their prescription. The questionnaire included the following themes: names of the medicines, therapeutic indication, dose regimen, duration of treatment and adverse effects.The results were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2013. RESULTS: One hundred participants consented and were included in the study. One hundred and forty-five medicines were prescribed in total. Participants were able to recall the names of 96 (66%) medicines and were aware of the therapeutic indication for 142 (97.9%) medicines. The dose regimen was accurately described for 120 (82.8%) medicines with the duration of treatment known for 132 (91%). Participants mentioned that they had been advised about side effects for 44 (30.3%) medicines. Specific counselling points recommended by the BNFc1, were either omitted or not recalled by participants for the following systemic treatments: cetirizine (1), chlorphenamine (1), desmopressin (2), hydroxyzine (2), itraconazole (1), piroxicam (2), methotrexate (1), stiripentol (1) and topiramate (1). CONCLUSION: Following an out-patient consultation, where a new medicine is prescribed, children and their parents/carers are usually able to recall the indication, dose regimen and duration of treatment. Few were able to recall, or were told about, possible adverse effects. This may include some important drug specific effects that require vigilance during treatment.Patients, along with families and carers, should be involved in the decision to prescribe a medicine.2 This includes a discussion about the benefits of the medicine on the patient's condition and possible adverse effects.2 Treatment side effects have been shown to be a factor in treatment non-adherence in paediatric long-term medical conditions.3 Practitioners should explain to patients, and their family members or carers where appropriate, how to identify and report medicines-related patient safety incidents.4 However, this study suggests that medical staff may not be comfortable discussing the adverse effects of medicines with patients or their parents/carers.Further research in to the shared decision making process in the paediatric out-patient clinic when a new long-term medicine is prescribed is required to further support medicines adherence and the patient safety agenda.

Medication reconciliation at patient admission: a randomized controlled trial

Objective: To measure length of hospital stay (LHS) in patients receiving medication reconciliation. Secondary characteristics included analysis of number of preadmission medications, medications prescribed at admission, number of discrepancies, and pharmacists interventions done and accepted by the attending physician. Methods: A 6 month, randomized, controlled trial conducted at a public teaching hospital in southern Brazil. Patients admitted to general wards were randomized to receive usual care or medication reconciliation, performed within the first 72 hours of hospital admission. Results: The randomization process assigned 68 patients to UC and 65 to MR. LHS was 10±15 days in usual care and 9±16 days in medication reconciliation (p=0.620). The total number of discrepancies was 327 in the medication reconciliation group, comprising 52.6% of unintentional discrepancies. Physicians accepted approximately 75.0% of the interventions. Conclusion: These results highlight weakness at patient transition care levels in a public teaching hospital. LHS, the primary outcome, should be further investigated in larger studies. Medication reconciliation was well accepted by physicians and it is a useful tool to find and correct discrepancies, minimizing the risk of adverse drug events and improving patient safety.

Inclusion of salt form on prescription medication labeling as a source of patient confusion: a pilot study

Background: It has been estimated that 10,000 patient injuries occur in the US annually due to confusion involving drug names. An unexplored source of patient misunderstandings may be medication salt forms. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess patient knowledge and comprehension regarding the salt forms of medications as a potential source of medication errors. Methods: A 12 item questionnaire which assessed patient knowledge of medication names on prescription labels was administered to a convenience sample of patients presenting to a family practice clinic. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: There were 308 responses. Overall, 41% of patients agreed they find their medication names confusing. Participants correctly answered to salt form questions between 12.1% and 56.9% of the time. Taking more prescription medications and higher education level were positively associated with providing more correct answers to 3 medication salt form knowledge questions, while age was negatively associated. Conclusions: Patient misconceptions about medication salt forms are common. These findings support recommendations to standardize the inclusion or exclusion of salt forms. Increasing patient education is another possible approach to reducing confusion.