The epistemology of patient safety research

Partnerships for safe care: A meta-narrative of the experience for the parent of a child with Intellectual Disability in hospital

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify and synthesize peer-reviewed qualitative evidence of the parental experience of hospitalization with a child with Intellectual Disability.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Key words, synonyms and MeSH subject headings that related to the three key concepts of parental experience, children with Intellectual Disability and hospital settings were applied to six electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Titles and abstracts of publications between January 2000 and February 2019 were screened for relevance.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Empirical qualitative research involved participants aged 0-18 years, involved children with Intellectual Disability, involved participants hospitalized as an in-patient and involved participants focused on parent perspective.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted and synthesized using a meta-narrative approach.

RESULTS

Eleven publications met the inclusion criteria. Data synthesis revealed three research traditions contributing to this meta-narrative: Paediatric Nursing Practice, Intellectual Disability Healthcare and Patient Experience. A total of five themes were identified: (a) being more than a parent, (b) importance of role negotiation, (c) building trust and relationships, (d) the cumulative effect of previous experiences of hospitalization and (e) knowing the child as an individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This review presents a working model for professional-parent partnership for the safe care of children with Intellectual Disability in hospital. Shifting paediatric healthcare to whole of hospital/multidisciplinary models of care that centre on the child will necessitate partnerships with the parent to identify and manage the needs of the child with Intellectual Disability, in order to achieve safe and equitable care for these children.

Potential value of patient record review to assess and improve patient safety in general practice: A systematic review

Background: There is limited research, and guidance, on how to address safety in general practice proactively.

Objectives: This review aimed to synthesize the literature describing the use of patient record review (PRR) to measure and improve patient safety in primary care. The PRR methodologies utilized and the resulting outcomes were examined.

Methods: Searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO in February 2017. Reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were also screened. English language, peer-reviewed studies that utilized PRR to identify patient safety incidents (PSIs) occurring in general practice were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from articles and applied the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs.

Results: A total of 3265 studies were screened, with 15 included. Trigger tools were the most frequent method used for the PRRs (n = 6). The mean number of safety incidents per 100 records was 12.6. Within studies, a mean of 30.6% of incidents were associated with severe harm (range 8.6–50%), and a mean of 55.6% of incidents was considered preventable (range 32.7–93.5%). The most commonly identified types of PSIs related to medication and prescribing, diagnosis, communication and treatment. Three studies reported on improvement actions taken after the PRRs.

Conclusion: This review suggests that PRR may be a promising means of proactively identifying patient safety incidents and informing improvements.

Medication adherence: staying within the boundaries of safety

An important domain of patient safety is the management of medications in home and community settings by patients and their caregiving network. This study applied human factors/ergonomics theories and methods to data about medication adherence collected from 61 patients with heart failure accompanied by 31 informal caregivers living in the US. Seventy non-adherence events were identified, described, and analysed for performance shaping factors. Half were classified as errors and half as violations. Performance shaping factors included elements of the person or team (e.g. patient limitations), task (e.g. complexity), tools and technologies (e.g. tool quality) and organisational, physical, and social context (e.g. resources, support, social influence). Study findings resulted in a dynamic systems model of medication safety applicable to patient medication adherence and the medication management process. Findings and the resulting model offer implications for future research on medication adherence, medication safety interventions, and resilience in home and community settings. Practitioner Summary: We describe situational and habitual errors and violations in medication use among older patients and their family members. Multiple factors pushed performance towards risk and harm. These factors can be the target for redesign or various forms of support, such as education, changes to the plan of care, and technology design.

Patient safety's missing link: using clinical expertise to recognize, respond to and reduce risks at a population level

INTRODUCTION

Although incident reporting systems are widespread in health care as a strategy to reduce harm to patients, the focus has been on reporting incidents rather than responding to them. Systems containing large numbers of incidents are uniquely placed to raise awareness of, and then characterize and respond to infrequent, but significant risks. The aim of this paper is to outline a framework for the surveillance of such risks, their systematic analysis, and for the development and dissemination of population-based preventive and corrective strategies using clinical and human factors expertise.

REQUIREMENTS FOR A POPULATION-LEVEL RESPONSE

The framework outlines four system requirements: to report incidents; to aggregate them; to support and conduct a risk surveillance, review and response process; and to disseminate recommendations. Personnel requirements include a non-hierarchical multidisciplinary team comprising clinicians and subject-matter and human factors experts to provide interpretation and high-level judgement from a range of perspectives. The risk surveillance, review and response process includes searching of large incident and other databases for how and why things have gone wrong, narrative analysis by clinical experts, consultation with the health care sector, and development and pilot testing of corrective strategies. Criteria for deciding which incidents require a population-level response are outlined.

DISCUSSION

The incremental cost of a population-based response function is modest compared with the 'reporting' element. Combining clinical and human factors expertise and a systematic approach underpins the creation of credible risk identification processes and the development of preventive and corrective strategies.

Fitness for purpose study of the Field Assessment Conditioning Tool (FACT): a research protocol

INTRODUCTION

As part of a programme of research aiming to improve the outcomes of traumatically injured children, a multisource healthcare advocacy tool has been developed to allow trauma team members and hospital governance administrators to reflect and to act on complex trauma team-hospital systems interactions. We have termed this tool a Field Assessment Conditioning Tool (FACT). The FACT draws on quantitative data including clinical care points in addition to self-reflective qualitative data. The FACT is designed to provide feedback on this assessment data both horizontally across fellow potential team members and vertically to the hospital/organisation governance structure, enabling process gap identification and allowing an agenda of improvements to be realised. The aim of the study described in this paper is to explore the perceived fitness for purpose of the FACT to provide an opportunity for healthcare advocacy by healthcare professionals caring for traumatically injured children.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The FACT will be implemented and studied in three district hospitals, each around a major trauma centre in the UK, USA and New Zealand. Using a qualitative approach with standardised semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis we will explore the following question: Is the FACT fit for purpose in terms of providing a framework to evaluate, reflect and act on the individual hospital's own performance (trauma team-hospital interactions) in terms of readiness to receive traumatically injured children?

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics opinion was sought for each research host organisation participating and deemed not required. The results will be disseminated to participating sites, networks and published in high-impact journals.

Surveyors' perceptions of the impact of accreditation on patient safety in general practice

OBJECTIVES

To explore Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited (AGPAL) surveyors' perceptions of the impact of accreditation on patient safety and to elicit suggestions for improving patient safety in Australian general practices.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive national sample of 10 AGPAL surveyors from 2 July to 14 December 2012. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and summarised.

RESULTS

All participants agreed that accreditation has improved general practices' performance in quality and safety. Participants noted specific areas that need further attention, including sufficient evidence for clinical risk management, which half the participants estimated occurs in about 5%-10% of Australian general practices. Tangible evidence of patient safety activities included having a significant incidents register, providing documentation of near misses, slips, lapses or mistakes, and engaging in regular clinical meetings to discuss incidents and how to avoid them in the future. Participants agreed that the accreditation process could be improved through the inclusion of tighter clinical safety indicators and the requirement of verifiable evidence of a working clinical risk management system.

CONCLUSIONS

Accreditation has had a positive role in improving quality and safety in general practice. The inclusion of tighter indicators that require verifiable evidence will be a step forward. The Australian Primary Care Collaboratives (APCC) Program has an opportunity to build on its previous success in general practice quality improvement to further enhance patient safety in general practice.

How collaborative are quality improvement collaboratives: a qualitative study in stroke care

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) continue to be widely used, yet evidence for their effectiveness is equivocal. We sought to explain what happened in Stroke 90:10, a QIC designed to improve stroke care in 24 hospitals in the North West of England. Our study drew in part on the literature on collective action and inter-organizational collaboration. This literature has been relatively neglected in evaluations of QICs, even though they are founded on principles of co-operation and sharing.

METHODS

We interviewed 32 professionals in hospitals that participated in Stroke 90:10, conducted a focus group with the QIC faculty team, and reviewed purposively sampled documents including reports and newsletters. Analysis was based on a modified form of Framework Analysis, combining sensitizing constructs derived from the literature and new, empirically derived thematic categories.

RESULTS

Improvements in stroke care were attributed to QIC participation by many professionals. They described how the QIC fostered a sense of community and increased attention to stroke care within their organizations. However, participants' experiences of the QIC varied. Starting positions were different; some organizations were achieving higher levels of performance than others before the QIC began, and some had more pre-existing experience of quality improvement methods. Some participants had more to learn, others more to teach. Some evidence of free-riding was found. Benchmarking improvement was variously experienced as friendly rivalry or as time-consuming and stressful. Participants' competitive desire to demonstrate success sometimes conflicted with collaborative aims; some experienced competing organizational pressures or saw the QIC as duplication of effort. Experiences of inter-organizational collaboration were influenced by variations in intra-organizational support.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration is not the only mode of behavior likely to occur within a QIC. Our study revealed a mixed picture of collaboration, free-riding and competition. QICs should learn from work on the challenges of collective action; set realistic goals; account for context; ensure sufficient time and resources are made available; and carefully manage the collaborative to mitigate the risks of collaborative inertia and unhelpful competitive or anti-cooperative behaviors. Individual organizations should assess the costs and benefits of collaboration as a means of attaining quality improvement.

Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to develop a 'contributory factors framework' from a synthesis of empirical work which summarises factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods systematic review of the literature was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Medline, PsycInfo, ISI Web of knowledge, CINAHL and EMBASE), article reference lists, patient safety websites, registered study databases and author contacts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included that reported data from primary research in secondary care aiming to identify the contributory factors to error or threats to patient safety.

RESULTS

1502 potential articles were identified. 95 papers (representing 83 studies) which met the inclusion criteria were included, and 1676 contributory factors extracted. Initial coding of contributory factors by two independent reviewers resulted in 20 domains (eg, team factors, supervision and leadership). Each contributory factor was then coded by two reviewers to one of these 20 domains. The majority of studies identified active failures (errors and violations) as factors contributing to patient safety incidents. Individual factors, communication, and equipment and supplies were the other most frequently reported factors within the existing evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has culminated in an empirically based framework of the factors contributing to patient safety incidents. This framework has the potential to be applied across hospital settings to improve the identification and prevention of factors that cause harm to patients.