Enabling patient safety awareness using the Green Cross method: A qualitative description of users' experience

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.

Documentation of pressure ulcers in medical records at an internal medicine ward in university hospital in western Sweden

OBJECTIVES

Pressure ulcers cause suffering, prolong care periods, and increase mortality. The aim was to describe and analyze the documentation of pressure ulcers and focused on the medical records from an internal medicine ward in a university hospital in western Sweden.

METHODS

A quantitative, retrospective review of medical records was conducted for all care events (n = 1,458) with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Documentation of the pressure ulcers in care plans was 2.1% (n = 31) compared to 6.7 % (n = 46) within final notes written by registered nurses (RN), a lower result compared to PPM (n = 3/14, 21.4%). Risk assessments were carried out in 68 (4.7%) care events, and 31 care plans included pressure ulcers. Moreover, 198 cases of tissue damage were documented, 43 (21.7%) defined as pressure ulcers, the other 147 (74.2%) lacked definition.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences (2.1%-21.4%) highlight improvements; knowledge and communication of pressure ulcers ensure reliable documentation in medical records.

The Barriers and Enhancers to Trust in a Just Culture in Hospital Settings: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare workers wanting to report errors often encounter a culture of fear or blame. A just culture can improve patient safety by promoting safe and open communication, trust is hereby essential. We defined trust in a just culture when healthcare professionals believe that error communication is honest, safe, and reliable. In this study, we investigated barriers and enhancers to trust in error reporting in a just culture.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, Emcare, and Web of Science database were searched on June 21, 2021.

RESULTS

Several factors were found to influence trust in error reporting in a just culture, namely, organizational factors, team factors, and experience. Trust depends on the management style, open information about error handling, a focus on patient safety instead of blaming an individual, a well-executed walk-round, a code of professionalism, and a departmental incident reporting system (organizational factors). A close relationship between employee and primary supervisor, with discussion of the nature of an error and ascribing clear roles to physicians in care teams, can be enhancers of trust in error reporting. Moreover, creating a mutual understanding of the challenges faced by professionals can enhance trust (team factors). Trust in error reporting is also influenced by a health professional's experience and training in patient safety. Factors such as a lack of confidence in clinical skills, more fear of shame/blame by less experienced workers, and knowledge of the existing error reporting system will influence a person's trust in error reporting (experience).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified barriers and enhancers to trust in error reporting in a just culture. The barriers and enhancers can be divided into 3 main themes: organizational factors, team factors, and experience. Findings show that trust can be learned and created based on practical principles.

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.

Monitoring Preventable Adverse Events and Near Misses: Number and Type Identified Differ Depending on Method Used

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate how many preventable adverse events (PAEs) and near misses are identified through the methods structured record review, Web-based incident reporting (IR), and daily safety briefings, and to distinguish the type of events identified by each method.

METHODS

One year of retrospective data from 2017 were collected from one patient cohort in a 422-bed acute care hospital. Preventable adverse events and near misses were collected from the hospital's existing resources and presented descriptively as number per 1000 patient-days.

RESULTS

The structured record review identified 19.9 PAEs; the IR system, 3.4 PAEs; and daily safety briefings, 5.4 PAEs per 1000 patient-days. The most common PAEs identified by the record review method were drug-related PAEs, pressure ulcers, and hospital-acquired infections. The most common PAEs identified by the IR system and daily safety briefings were fall injury and pressure ulcers, followed by skin/superficial vessel injuries for the IR system and hospital-acquired infections for the daily safety briefings. Incident reporting and daily safety briefings identified 7.8 and 31.9 near misses per 1000 patient-days, respectively. The most common near misses were related to how care is organized.

CONCLUSIONS

The different methods identified different amounts and types of PAEs and near misses. The study supports that health care organizations should adopt multiple methods to get a comprehensive review of the number and type of events occurring in their setting. Daily safety briefings seem to be a particularly suitable method for assessing an organization's inherent security and may foster a nonpunitive culture.

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

BACKGROUND

Adverse events are a leading cause of death worldwide, although many are considered preventable. Incident reporting is a prerequisite for preventing adverse events; however, underreporting is common. The Green Cross method is an alternative incident reporting process that includes a daily team meeting to discuss incidents and work on improvements.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this quality improvement project was to improve the culture of incident reporting by implementing the Green Cross method and to evaluate the improvement by describing nurses' experience with the culture of incident reporting.

METHODS

The project included a three-month implementation of the method in a postanesthesia care unit, which was evaluated by focus group interviews (n = 22 nurses) and analysed by qualitative content analysis.

FINDINGS

Four focus group interviews were conducted before implementation (n = 19 nurses) and four after implementation (n = 16 nurses). Before implementation, Theme 1, "Incident reporting with potential for improvement", was constructed, describing a culture wherein nurses expressed motivation to report incidents but barriers, such as finding the system complicated and experiencing emotional obstacles towards reporting, prevented them. After implementation, Theme 2, "Increased focus on transparency", was constructed, describing a culture wherein nurses perceived an increased rate of incident reporting but still encountered barriers, such as finding reporting uncomfortable and demanding, experiencing a threatened working environment, and still wanting visible improvement.

CONCLUSION

The nurses in the postanesthesia care unit experienced the Green Cross method as a useful patient safety initiative for improving the rate of incident reporting, but barriers to reporting still existed.