The views and experiences of patients and health-care professionals on the disclosure of adverse events: A systematic review and qualitative meta-ethnographic synthesis

Psychosocial working conditions as determinants of slips and lapses, and poor social interactions with patients among medical assistants in Germany: A cohort study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the relationship of unfavorable psychosocial working conditions with slips and lapses and poor patient interaction as well as potential intermediate factors among medical assistants (MAs) in Germany based on prospective data.

METHODS

We used data from 408 MAs from a 4-year cohort study (follow-up: 2021). At baseline, psychosocial working conditions were assessed by the established effort-reward-imbalance questionnaire and a MA-specific questionnaire with 7 subscales. Frequency of slips and lapses (e.g., pertaining to measurements and documentation) and the quality of patient interactions (e.g., unfriendliness or impatience) due to work stress were assessed at follow-up with three items each (potential score ranges = 3-15). Potential intermediate factors at baseline included work engagement (i.e., vitality and dedication (UWES)), work satisfaction (COPSOQ), anxiety (GAD-2), depressiveness (PHQ-2), and self-reported health. We ran multivariable linear regression using z-standardized exposures to estimate unstandardized coefficients (B) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Potential intermediate factors were added separately to the regression models. Attenuation of the association between exposure and outcome toward the null value (B = 0) was interpreted as mediation.

RESULTS

High reward and lack of resources were weakly associated with the frequency of slips and lapses (the Bs were -0.18 and 0.23, respectively; p<0.05), with little evidence of mediation. With the exception of low recognition, all unfavorable psychosocial working conditions predicted a higher frequency of poor interactions with patients (p-values<0.01). These associations were attenuated by work engagement, work satisfaction, and health outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We found mostly non-significant associations between adverse psychosocial working conditions and the frequency of slips and lapses. However, unfavorable psychosocial working conditions among MAs predicted a higher frequency of poor interaction with patients due to stress.

The anatomy of safe surgical teams: an interview-based qualitative study among members of surgical teams at tertiary referral hospitals in Norway

BACKGROUND

In spite of the global implementation of surgical safety checklists to improve patient safety, patients undergoing surgical procedures remain vulnerable to a high risk of potentially preventable complications and adverse outcomes. The present study was designed to explore the surgical teams' perceptions of patient safety culture, capture their perceptions of the risk for adverse events, and identify themes of interest for quality improvement within the surgical department.

METHODS

This qualitative study had an explorative design with an abductive approach. Individual semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted between 10/01/23 and 11/05/23. The participants were members of surgical teams (n = 17), general and orthopedic surgeons (n = 5), anesthesiologists (n = 4), nurse anesthetists (n = 4) and operating room nurses (n = 4). Middle managers recruited purposively from general and orthopedic surgical teams in two tertiary hospitals in Norway, aiming for a maximum variation due to gender, age, and years within the specialty. The data material was analyzed following Braun and Clarke's method for reflexive thematic analysis to generate patterns of meaning and develop themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

The analysis process resulted in three themes describing the participants' perceptions of patient safety culture in the surgical context: (1) individual accountability as a safety net, (2) psychological safety as a catalyst for well-being and safe performance in the operating room, and (3) the importance of proactive structures and participation in organizational learning.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an empirical insight into the culture of patient safety in the surgical context. The study highlighted the importance of supporting the individuals' competence, building psychological safety in the surgical team, and creating structures and culture promoting a learning organization. Quality improvement projects, including interventions based on these results, may increase patient safety culture and reduce the frequency of adverse events in the surgical context.

Enhancing Pharmacovigilance in Côte d'Ivoire: Impact of GSK's Training and Mentoring Pilot Project in the Abidjan Region

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacovigilance (PV) in sub-Saharan Africa relies on passive surveillance but underreporting of adverse events (AEs) by health care professionals (HCPs) is a major challenge. A PV enhancement project was implemented to address this in Côte d'Ivoire.

OBJECTIVE

To improve safety surveillance of medicines through PV training and mentoring of HCPs in selected health care facilities (HCFs).

METHODS

This collaborative project between national PV stakeholders, GSK, and PATH was implemented from September 2018 to February 2020 in Abidjan region, Côte d'Ivoire. Trained PV focal points provided training and regular mentoring of HCPs. Key performance indicator (KPI) categories for AE reporting were the volume of AE reports, efficiency of report transmission and data entry, quality of reports, and quality of the central (Vigilance Unit) response to AE reports.

RESULTS

Overall, 1427 HCPs at 91 HCFs were trained. In the 8 months before implementation, 33 AE reports were received versus 85 after 3 months and 361 after 18 months of implementation (71 [83.5%] and 278 [77.0%], respectively, from Abidjan). The KPIs with the highest proportions were: AE reports received centrally (100%), complete AE reports (69.0%), AE reports entered into the local PV database within 48 h (99.6%), and AE reports entered into the global database, VigiBase (86.7%). Report notification within 72 h, causality assessment, and serious AE reporting had proportions below 20%; feedback to reporters was provided for only 0.4% of reports.

CONCLUSION

Regular PV trainings and mentoring improved AE reporting in Côte d'Ivoire but further enhancement is required to improve passive safety surveillance.

Error disclosure in neonatal intensive care: a multicentre, prospective, observational study

IMPORTANCE

Surveys based on hypothetical situations suggest that health-care providers agree that disclosure of errors and adverse events to patients and families is a professional obligation but do not always disclose them. Disclosure rates and reasons for the choice have not previously been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the proportion of errors disclosed by neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) professionals to parents and identify motives for and barriers to disclosure.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study nested in a randomised controlled trial (Study on Preventing Adverse Events in Neonates (SEPREVEN); ClinicalTrials.gov). Event disclosure was not intended to be related to the intervention tested.

SETTING

10 NICUs in France with a 20-month follow-up, starting November 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

n=1019 patients with NICU stay ≥2 days with ≥1 error.

EXPOSURE

Characteristics of errors (type, severity, timing of discovery), patients and professionals, self-reported motives for disclosure and non-disclosure.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Rate of error disclosure reported anonymously and voluntarily by physicians and nurses; perceived parental reaction to disclosure.

RESULTS

Among 1822 errors concerning 1019 patients (mean gestational age: 30.8±4.5 weeks), 752 (41.3%) were disclosed. Independent risk factors for non-disclosure were nighttime discovery of error (OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.75 to 3.30), milder consequence (for moderate consequence: OR 1.85; 95% CI 0.89 to 3.86; no consequence: OR 6.49; 95% CI 2.99 to 14.11), a shorter interval between admission and error, error type and fewer beds. The most frequent reported reasons for non-disclosure were parental absence at its discovery and a perceived lack of serious consequence.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In the particular context of the SEPREVEN randomised controlled trial of NICUs, staff did not disclose the majority of errors to parents, especially in the absence of moderate consequence for the infant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02598609.

When Mistakes Multiply: How Inadequate Responses to Medical Mishaps Erode Trust in American Medicine

In this essay, we explore consequences of the systemic failure to track and to publicize the prevalence of patient-safety threats in American medicine. Tens of millions of Americans lose trust in medical care every year due to safety shortfalls. Because this loss of trust is long-lasting, the corrosive effects build up over time, yielding a collective maelstrom of mistrust among the American public. Yet no one seems to notice that patient safety is a root cause, because no one is counting. In addition to identifying the origins of this purblindness, we offer an alternative policy approach. This would call for government to transparently track safety threats through the systematic collection and reporting of patients' experiences. This alternative strategy offers real promise for stemming the erosion of trust that currently accompanies patient-safety shortfalls while staying consistent with Americans' preferences for a constrained government role with respect to medical care.

Analysis of the nature and contributory factors of medication safety incidents following hospital discharge using National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data from England and Wales: a multi-method study

Introduction

Improving medication safety during transition of care is an international healthcare priority. While existing research reveals that medication-related incidents and associated harms may be common following hospital discharge, there is limited information about their nature and contributory factors at a national level which is crucial to inform improvement strategy.

Aim

To characterise the nature and contributory factors of medication-related incidents during transition of care from secondary to primary care.

Method

A retrospective analysis of medication incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) in England and Wales between 2015 and 2019. Descriptive analysis identified the frequency and nature of incidents and content analysis of free text data, coded using the Patient Safety Research Group (PISA) classification, examined the contributory factors and outcome of incidents.

Results

A total of 1121 medication-related incident reports underwent analysis. Most incidents involved patients over 65 years old (55%, n = 626/1121). More than one in 10 (12.6%, n = 142/1121) incidents were associated with patient harm. The drug monitoring (17%) and administration stages (15%) were associated with a higher proportion of harmful incidents than any other drug use stages. Common medication classes associated with incidents were the cardiovascular (n = 734) and central nervous (n = 273) systems. Among 408 incidents reporting 467 contributory factors, the most common contributory factors were organisation factors (82%, n = 383/467) (mostly related to continuity of care which is the delivery of a seamless service through integration, co-ordination, and the sharing of information between different providers), followed by staff factors (16%, n = 75/467).

Conclusion

Medication incidents after hospital discharge are associated with patient harm. Several targets were identified for future research that could support the development of remedial interventions, including commonly observed medication classes, older adults, increase patient engagement, and improve shared care agreement for medication monitoring post hospital discharge.

Plain language summary

Study using reports about unsafe or substandard care mainly written by healthcare professionals to better understand the type and causes of medication safety problems following hospital discharge Why was the study done? The safe use of medicines after hospital discharge has been highlighted by the World Health Organization as an important target for improvement in patient care. Yet, the type of medication problems which occur, and their causes are poorly understood across England and Wales, which may hamper our efforts to create ways to improve care as they may not be based on what we know causes the problem in the first place.What did the researchers do? The research team studied medication safety incident reports collected across England and Wales over a 5-year period to better understand what kind of medication safety problems occur after hospital discharge and why they happen, so we can find ways to prevent them from happening in future.What did the researchers find? The total number of incident reports studied was 1121, and the majority (n = 626) involved older people. More than one in ten of these incidents caused harm to patients. The most common medications involved in the medication safety incidents were for cardiovascular diseases such as high blood pressure, conditions such as mental illness, pain and neurological conditions (e.g., epilepsy) and other illnesses such as diabetes. The most common causes of these incidents were because of the organisation rules, such as information sharing, followed by staff issues, such as not following protocols, individual mistakes and not having the right skills for the task.What do the findings mean? This study has identified some important targets that can be a focus of future efforts to improve the safe use of medicines after hospital discharge. These include concentrating attention on medication for the cardiovascular and central nervous systems (e.g., via incorporating them in prescribing safety indicators and pharmaceutical prioritisation tools), staff skill mix (e.g., embedding clinical pharmacist roles at key parts of the care pathway where greatest risk is suspected), and implementation of electronic interventions to improve timely communication of medication and other information between healthcare providers.

Psychosocial working conditions as determinants of concerns to have made important medical errors and possible intermediate factors of this association among medical assistants - a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the association of psychosocial working conditions with concerns to have made important medical errors and to identify possible intermediate factors in this relationship.

METHODS

We used data from 408 medical assistants (MAs) in Germany who participated in a 4-year prospective cohort study (follow-up period: 03-05/2021). Psychosocial working conditions were assessed at baseline by the effort-reward imbalance questionnaire and by a MA-specific questionnaire with seven subscales. MAs reported at follow-up whether they are concerned to have made an important medical error throughout the last 3 months, 12 months or since baseline (yes/no). These variables were merged into a single variable (any affirmative response vs. none) for primary analyses. Potential intermediate factors measured at baseline included work engagement (i.e., vigor and dedication, assessed by the UWES), work satisfaction (COPSOQ), depression (PHQ-2), anxiety (GAD-2) and self-rated health. We ran Poisson regression models with a log-link function to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Doing so, we employed the psychosocial working condition scales as continuous variables (i.e. z-scores) in the primary analyses. Potential intermediate factors were added separately to the regression models.

RESULTS

Poor collaboration was the only working condition, which was significantly predictive of the concern of having made an important medical error (RR = 1.26, 95%CI = 1.00-1.57, p = 0.049). Partial intermediate factors in this association were vigor, depression and anxiety.

CONCLUSION

We found weak and mostly statistically non-significant associations. The only exception was poor collaboration whose association with concerns to have made an important medical error was partially explained by vigor and poor mental health.

The Relationship of Medical Assistants' Work Engagement with Their Concerns of Having Made an Important Medical Error: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objectives: We aimed to examine associations of work engagement with self-reported concerns of having made medical errors among medical assistants. Methods: We used cross-sectional questionnaire data from 424 medical assistants in Germany (collected between March and May 2021). The nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale assessed the subdimensions vigor, dedication, and absorption. Participants further reported whether they were concerned that they had made an important medical error in the last three months. Work engagement scores were used both as categorized variables (i.e., highest tertile vs. remaining tertiles) and continuous variables (i.e., z-scores) and their associations with concerns to have made an important medical error were examined using multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: High vigor (versus low vigor) and high dedication (versus low dedication) were associated with substantially reduced odds of expressing concerns to have made an important medical error (OR = 0.19, 95%CI = 0.04–0.85 and OR = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.07–0.88, respectively), but absorption was not (OR = 1.10, 95%CI = 0.43–2.86). Analyses with z-scores confirmed this pattern of associations for vigor and absorption, but less so for dedication (OR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.47–1.11). Conclusions: Vigor and possibly also dedication are inversely related to concerns of having made an important medical error. Our findings may suggest that promotion of these subdimensions of work engagement may improve patient safety.

Views of healthcare consumer representatives on defensive practice: 'We are your biggest advocate and supporter… not the enemy'

Background

The patient–clinician interaction is a site at which defensive practice could occur, when clinicians provide tests, procedures and treatments mainly to reduce perceived legal risks, rather than to advance patient care. Defensive practice is a driver of low‐value care and exposes patients to the risks of unnecessary interventions. To date, patient perspectives on defensive practice and its impacts on them are largely missing from the literature. This exploratory study conducted in Australia aimed to examine the views and experiences of healthcare consumer representatives in this under‐examined area.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with healthcare consumer representatives involved in healthcare consumer advocacy organisations in Australia. Data were transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

Nine healthcare consumer representatives participated. Most had over 20 years of involvement and advocacy in healthcare, including personal experiences as a patient or carer and/or formal service roles on committees or complaint bodies for healthcare organisations. Participants uniformly viewed defensive practice as having a negative impact on the clinician–patient relationship. Themes identified the importance of fostering patient–clinician partnership, effective communication and informed decision‐making. The themes support a shift from the concept of defensive practice to preventive practice in partnership, which focuses on the shared interests of patients and clinicians in achieving safe and high‐value care.

Conclusion

This Australian study offers healthcare consumers' perspectives on the impacts of defensive practice on patients. The findings highlight the features of clinician–patient partnership that will help to improve communication and decision‐making, and prevent the defensive provision of low‐value care.

Patient or Public Contribution

Healthcare consumer representatives were involved as participants in this study.

Perception Gaps of Disclosure of Patient Safety Incidents Between Nurses and the General Public in Korea

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore nurses' perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey was conducted, and results were compared with those of the general public using the same questionnaire in a previous study.

RESULTS

Among 689 nurses, 96.8% of nurses felt major errors should be disclosed to patients or their caregivers, but only 67.5% felt disclosure of medical errors should be mandatory. In addition, 58.5% of nurses were concerned that disclose will increase the incidence of medical lawsuits. More than two-thirds of nurses felt such discloses will reduce feelings of guilt associated with a patient safety incident. Only 51.1% of nurses, but 93.3% of the public, felt near misses should be disclosed to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses generally had a positive attitude toward disclosure of patient safety incidents, but they preferred it less than the general public. To reduce this gap, legal and nonlegal measures will need to be implemented. Furthermore, it is necessary to continue monitoring the gap by regularly assessing perceptions of disclosure of patient safety incidents among health care professionals and the general public.

Communication about medical errors

Communication about medical errors with patients and families demonstrates respect, compassion, and commitment by providing information, acknowledging harm, and maintaining trust through a process of dialogue that involves multiple conversations. This communication requires knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allow healthcare professionals to discuss facts transparently, take responsibility for what happened, and express regret and (as appropriate) apologize; these abilities also allow professionals to describe what will happen next for the patient and explain what will be done to prevent the error from happening to others in the future. Communication about medical errors also encompasses two other contexts: reporting information about errors to healthcare organizations through data collection systems designed to improve patient safety, and discussing errors with fellow healthcare professionals to promote professional learning and receive emotional support. Communication about errors in these three contexts depends on healthcare professionals who are honest, reflective, compassionate, courageous, accountable, reassuring, and willing to acknowledge and engage their own feelings of sadness, fear, and guilt. Healthcare organizations should promote a systems approach to patient safety and cultivate a culture of transparency and learning in which healthcare professionals are supported as they cope with the distress they experience after an error. Communication about errors should be incorporated into all healthcare practice settings (medical, surgical, in-patient, out-patient), and can be taught to medical students and residents using didactic, role-playing, or simulation methodologies.

The views and experiences of patients and health-care professionals on the disclosure of adverse events: A systematic review and qualitative meta-ethnographic synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the literature on the views and experiences of patients/family members and health-care professionals (HCPs) on the disclosure of adverse events.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative studies. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Study quality was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Qualitative data were analysed using a meta-ethnographic approach, comprising reciprocal syntheses of 'patient' and 'health-care professional' studies, combined to form a lines-of-argument synthesis embodying both perspectives.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the final syntheses. The results highlighted that there is a difference in attitudes and expectations between patients and HCPs regarding the disclosure conversation. Patients/family members expressed a need for information, the importance of sincere regret and a promise of improvement. However, HCPs faced several barriers, which hindered appropriate disclosure practices. These included difficulty of disclosure in a blame culture, avoidance of litigation, lack of skills on how to conduct disclosure and inconsistent guidance. A lines-of-argument synthesis is presented that identified both the key elements of an ideal disclosure desired by patients and the facilitators for HCPs, which can increase the likelihood of this taking place.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients/family members and HCPs both advocate disclosure, several barriers prevent HCPs from conducting disclosure effectively. Both groups have different needs for disclosure. To meet patients' requirements, training on disclosure for HCPs and the development of an open, transparent culture within organizations are potential areas for intervention.