Nurses' experience of the incident reporting culture before and after implementing the Green Cross method: A quality improvement project

Learning from patient safety incidents: The Green Cross method

BACKGROUND

Hospitals can improve how they learn from patient safety incidents. The Green Cross method, a proactive reporting and learning method, is one strategy to meet this challenge. In it, nurses play a key role. However, describing its impact on learning from the users' perspective is important.

AIM

This study aimed to describe nurses' experiences of learning from patient safety incidents before and 3 months after implementing the Green Cross method in a postanaesthesia care unit.

STUDY DESIGN

A qualitative study with an inductive descriptive design with focus group interviews was conducted before and 3 months after implementing the Green Cross method to assess its impact. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The study was conducted in a postanaesthesia care unit in a Norwegian hospital trust.

RESULTS

Before implementing the Green Cross method, participants indicated limited openness and learning, including the subcategories 'Lack of openness hampers learning', 'Adverse events were taken seriously' and 'Insufficient visible improvements'. After implementing the Green Cross method, participants indicated the emergence of a learning environment, including the subcategories 'Transparency increases learning', 'Increased patient safety awareness' and 'Committed to quality improvements'.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing the Green Cross method in a postanaesthesia care unit positively impacted openness and nurses' patient safety awareness, which is crucial for learning and improving quality.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The Green Cross method could be useful for organizational learning and facilitating learning from patient safety incidents through transparency, discussion and involvement of nursing staff.

Public perceptions of reportable safety events and risks in United States primary care

INTRODUCTION

Patients may not feel responsible for reporting safety events, and social norms may prevent patients from questioning health care providers' judgment. There is a paucity of research regarding public awareness of reportable safety events/risks. Educating the public about reporting is paramount in error prevention. Because more than 70% of errors (e.g., errors in diagnosis, communication errors, unsafe medication practices, and care fragmentation) occur in primary care settings, the purpose of this study was to explore public perceptions of when to report safety events/risks in these settings.

METHOD

System-level primary and outpatient facility safety incident scenarios conducive to safety events/risk reporting were developed and administered via online survey methodology. Following completion of the scenario questions, participants were asked a single open-text item: "As you were reading the scenarios above, what did you think makes an event/risk 'reportable'?"

RESULTS

At least one-third of participants responded incorrectly in 70% of the scenarios. The percentage of incorrect responses ranged from 5.2% to 62.3% with "unwitnessed falls" and "nursing scope of practice" queries incorrectly reported at 44.5% and 53.9%, respectively. Rationales for inappropriate events/risk reporting included "risk prediction at the management/system level," "legal repercussions/protection (e.g., negligence, legal responsibility to patient)," "violations of scope of practice/professional expectations," "degree of potential/actual lethality," and "personnel errors."

CONCLUSION

This study revealed a gap between understanding why to report an event/risk and when to correctly report (or not report) an actual healthcare issue.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Awareness of reasons for correctly reporting incidents and how correct reporting builds a culture of safety needs to be strengthened.

Effect of the Green Cross method on patient safety culture in a postanaesthesia care unit: a longitudinal quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

Hospitals should adopt multiple methods to monitor incidents for a comprehensive review of the types of incidents that occur. Contrary to traditional incident reporting systems, the Green Cross (GC) method is a simple visual method to recognise incidents based on teamwork and safety briefings. Its longitudinal effect on patient safety culture has not been previously assessed. This study aimed to explore whether the implementation of the GC method in a postanaesthesia care unit changed nurses' perceptions of different factors associated with patient safety culture over 4 years.

METHODS

A longitudinal quasi-experimental pre-post intervention design with a comparison group was used. The intervention unit and the comparison group, which consisted of nurses, were recruited from the surgical department of a Norwegian university hospital. The intervention unit implemented the GC method in February 2019. Both groups responded to the staff survey before and then annually between 2019 and 2022 on the factors 'work engagement', 'teamwork climate' and 'safety climate'. The data were analysed using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Within the intervention unit, relative to the changes in the comparison group, the results indicated significant large positive changes in all factor scores in 2019, no changes in 2020, significant large positive changes in 'work engagement' and 'safety climate' scores in 2021 and a significant medium positive change in 'work engagement' in 2022. At baseline, the comparison group had a significantly lower score in 'safety climate' than the intervention unit, but no significant baseline differences were found between the groups regarding 'work engagement' and 'teamwork climate'.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the GC method had a positive effect on the nurses' perception of factors associated with patient safety culture over a period of 4 years. The positive effect was completely sustained in 'work engagement' but was somewhat less persistent in 'teamwork climate' and 'safety climate'.

Green Cross method in a postanaesthesia care unit: a qualitative study of the healthcare professionals' experiences after 3 years, including the COVID-19 pandemic period

OBJECTIVES

Unsafe medical care causes morbidity and mortality among the hospital patients. In a postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), increasing patient safety is a joint effort between different professions. The Green Cross (GC) method is a user-friendly incident reporting method that incorporates daily safety briefings to support healthcare professionals in their daily patient safety work. Thus, this study aimed to describe healthcare professionals' experiences with the GC method in a PACU setting 3 years after its implementation, including the period of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic's three waves.

DESIGN

An inductive, descriptive qualitative study was conducted. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a PACU of a university hospital in South-Eastern Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

Five semistructured focus group interviews were conducted in March and April 2022. The informants (n=23) were PACU nurses (n=18) and collaborative healthcare professionals (n=5) including physicians, nurses and a pharmacist.

RESULTS

The theme 'still active, but in need of revitalisation' was created, describing the healthcare professionals' experiences with the GC method, 3 years post implementation. The following five categories were found: 'continuing to facilitate open communication', 'expressing a desire for more interprofessional collaboration regarding improvements', 'increasing reluctance to report', 'downscaling due to the pandemic' and 'expressing a desire to share more of what went well'.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers information regarding the healthcare professionals' experiences with the GC method in a PACU setting; further, it deepens the understanding of the daily patient safety work using this incident reporting method.

Experience of learning from everyday work in daily safety huddles-a multi-method study

BACKGROUND

To reduce patient harm, healthcare has focused on improvement based on learning from errors and adverse events (Safety-I). Daily huddles with staff are used to support incident reporting and learning in healthcare. It is proposed that learning for improvement should also be based on situations where work goes well (Safety-II); daily safety huddles should also reflect this approach. A Safety-II-inspired model for safety huddles was developed and implemented at the Neonatal Care Unit at a regional hospital in Sweden. This study followed the implementation with the research questions: Do patient safety huddles with a focus on Safety-II affect the results of measurements of the patient safety culture? What are the experiences of these huddles amongst staff? What experiences of everyday work arise in the patient safety huddles?

METHODS

A multi-method approach was used. The quantitative part consisted of a questionnaire (151 items), submitted on four different occasions, and analysed using Mann Whitney U-test and Kruskal Wallis ANOVA-test. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic content analyses of interviews with staff (n = 14), as well as answers to open questions in the questionnaires.

RESULTS

There were 151 individual responses to the questionnaires. The response rates were 44% to 59%. For most comparisons, there were no differences. There were minor changes in patient safety culture measurements. A lower rating was found in December 2020, compared to October 2019 (p < 0.05), regarding whether the employees pointed out when something was about to go wrong. The interviews revealed that, even though most respondents were generally positive towards the huddles (supporting factors), there were problems (hindering factors) in introducing Safety-II concepts in daily safety huddles. There was a challenge to understanding and describing things that go well.

CONCLUSIONS

For patient safety huddles aimed at exploring everyday work to be experienced as a base for learning, including both negative and positive events (Safety-II); there is a need for an open and permissive climate, that all professions participate and stable conditions in management. Support from managers and knowledge of the underpinning Safety-II theories of those who lead the huddles, may also be of importance.