International recommendations for national patient safety incident reporting systems: an expert Delphi consensus-building process

Grand rounds in methodology: key considerations for implementing machine learning solutions in quality improvement initiatives

Machine learning (ML) solutions are increasingly entering healthcare. They are complex, sociotechnical systems that include data inputs, ML models, technical infrastructure and human interactions. They have promise for improving care across a wide range of clinical applications but if poorly implemented, they may disrupt clinical workflows, exacerbate inequities in care and harm patients. Many aspects of ML solutions are similar to other digital technologies, which have well-established approaches to implementation. However, ML applications present distinct implementation challenges, given that their predictions are often complex and difficult to understand, they can be influenced by biases in the data sets used to develop them, and their impacts on human behaviour are poorly understood. This manuscript summarises the current state of knowledge about implementing ML solutions in clinical care and offers practical guidance for implementation. We propose three overarching questions for potential users to consider when deploying ML solutions in clinical care: (1) Is a clinical or operational problem likely to be addressed by an ML solution? (2) How can an ML solution be evaluated to determine its readiness for deployment? (3) How can an ML solution be deployed and maintained optimally? The Quality Improvement community has an essential role to play in ensuring that ML solutions are translated into clinical practice safely, effectively, and ethically.

A qualitative study of the reasons for low patient safety incident reporting among Indonesian nurses

OBJECTIVES

to investigate the reasons for low patient safety incident reporting among Indonesian nurses.

METHODS

this qualitative case study was conducted among 15 clinical nurses selected purposively from a public hospital in Lampung, Indonesia. Interview guidelines were used for data collection through face-to-face in-depth interviews in July 2022. The thematic approach was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

in this present study, seven themes emerged (1) Understanding incident reporting; (2) The culture; (3) Consequences of reporting; (4) Socialization and training; (5) Facilities; (6) Feedback; and (7) Rewards and punishments.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

these findings should be considered challenges for the patient safety committee and hospital management to increase patient safety incident reporting, particularly among nurses in the hospital.

Characterization of Safety Events Involving Technology in Primary and Community Care

BACKGROUND

The adoption of technology in health care settings is often touted as an opportunity to improve patient safety. While some adverse events can be reduced by health information technologies, technology has also been implicated in or attributed to safety events. To date, most studies on this topic have focused on acute care settings.

OBJECTIVES

To describe voluntarily reported safety events that involved health information technology in community and primary care settings in a large Canadian health care organization.

METHODS

Two years of safety events involving health information technology (2016-2018) were extracted from an online voluntary safety event reporting system. Events from primary and community care settings were categorized according to clinical setting, type of event, and level of harm. The Sittig and Singh sociotechnical system model was then used to identify the most prominent sociotechnical dimensions of each event.

RESULTS

Of 104 reported events, most (n = 85, 82%) indicated the event resulted in no harm. Public health had the highest number of reports (n = 45, 43%), whereas home health had the fewest (n = 7, 7%). Of the 182 sociotechnical concepts identified, many events (n = 61, 59%) mapped to more than one dimension. Personnel (n = 48, 46%), Workflow and Communication (n = 37, 36%), and Content (n = 30, 29%) were the most common. Personnel and Content together was the most common combination of dimensions.

CONCLUSION

Most reported events featured both technical and social dimensions, suggesting that the nature of these events is multifaceted. Leveraging existing safety event reporting systems to screen for safety events involving health information technology, and applying a sociotechnical analytic framework can aid health organizations in identifying, responding to, and learning from reported events.

A Web-Based Tool to Report Adverse Drug Reactions by Community Pharmacists in Australia: Usability Testing Study

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are unintended and harmful events associated with medication use. Despite their significance in postmarketing surveillance, quality improvement, and drug safety research, ADRs are vastly underreported. Enhanced digital-based communication of ADR information to regulators and among care providers could significantly improve patient safety.

OBJECTIVE

This paper presents a usability evaluation of the commercially available GuildCare Adverse Event Recording system, a web-based ADR reporting system widely used by community pharmacists (CPs) in Australia.

METHODS

We developed a structured interview protocol encompassing remote observation, think-aloud moderating techniques, and retrospective questioning to gauge the overall user experience, complemented by the System Usability Scale (SUS) assessment. Thematic analysis was used to analyze field notes from the interviews.

RESULTS

A total of 7 CPs participated in the study, who perceived the system to have above-average usability (SUS score of 68.57). Nonetheless, the structured approach to usability testing unveiled specific functional and user interpretation issues, such as unnecessary information, lack of system clarity, and redundant data fields-critical insights not captured by the SUS results. Design elements like drop-down menus, free-text entry, checkboxes, and prefilled or auto-populated data fields were perceived as useful for enhancing system navigation and facilitating ADR reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The user-centric design of technology solutions, like the one discussed herein, is crucial to meeting CPs' information needs and ensuring effective ADR reporting. Developers should adopt a structured approach to usability testing during the developmental phase to address identified issues comprehensively. Such a methodological approach may promote the adoption of ADR reporting systems by CPs and ultimately enhance patient safety.

Comparing rates of adverse events detected in incident reporting and the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review

Many hospitals continue to use incident reporting systems (IRSs) as their primary patient safety data source. The information IRSs collect on the frequency of harm to patients [adverse events (AEs)] is generally of poor quality, and some incident types (e.g. diagnostic errors) are under-reported. Other methods of collecting patient safety information using medical record review, such as the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), have been developed. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review to empirically quantify the gap between the percentage of AEs detected using the GTT to those that are also detected via IRSs. The review was conducted in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies published in English, which collected AE data using the GTT and IRSs, were included. In total, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were undertaken in hospitals and were published between 2006 and 2022. The studies were conducted in six countries, mainly in the USA (nine studies). Studies reviewed 22 589 medical records using the GTT across 107 institutions finding 7166 AEs. The percentage of AEs detected using the GTT that were also detected in corresponding IRSs ranged from 0% to 37.4% with an average of 7.0% (SD 9.1; median 3.9 and IQR 5.2). Twelve of the fourteen studies found <10% of the AEs detected using the GTT were also found in corresponding IRSs. The >10-fold gap between the detection rates of the GTT and IRSs is strong evidence that the rate of AEs collected in IRSs in hospitals should not be used to measure or as a proxy for the level of safety of a hospital. IRSs should be recognized for their strengths which are to detect rare, serious, and new incident types and to enable analysis of contributing and contextual factors to develop preventive and corrective strategies. Health systems should use multiple patient safety data sources to prioritize interventions and promote a cycle of action and improvement based on data rather than merely just collecting and analysing information.

Identifying a list of healthcare 'never events' to effect system change: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Never events (NEs) are patient safety incidents that are preventable and so serious they should never happen. To reduce NEs, several frameworks have been introduced over the past two decades; however, NEs and their harms continue to occur. These frameworks have varying events, terminology and preventability, which hinders collaboration. This systematic review aims to identify the most serious and preventable events for targeted improvement efforts by answering the following questions: Which patient safety events are most frequently classified as never events? Which ones are most commonly described as entirely preventable?

METHODS

For this narrative synthesis systematic review we searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and CINAHL for articles published from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021. We included papers of any study design or article type (excluding press releases/announcements) that listed NEs or an existing NE framework.

RESULTS

Our analyses included 367 reports identifying 125 unique NEs. Those most frequently reported were surgery on the wrong body part, wrong surgical procedure, unintentionally retained foreign objects and surgery on the wrong patient. Researchers classified 19.4% of NEs as 'wholly preventable'. Those most included in this category were surgery on the wrong body part or patient, wrong surgical procedure, improper administration of a potassium-containing solution and wrong-route administration of medication (excluding chemotherapy).

CONCLUSIONS

To improve collaboration and facilitate learning from errors, we need a single list that focuses on the most preventable and serious NEs. Our review shows that surgery on the wrong body part or patient, or the wrong surgical procedure best meet these criteria.

Learning from experience: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives on reporting and dealing with serious adverse events

INTRODUCTION

In surgery, serious adverse events have effects on the patient journey, the patient outcome and may constitute a burden to the surgeon involved. This study aims to investigate facilitators and barriers to transparency around, reporting of and learning from serious adverse events among surgeons.

METHODS

Based on a qualitative study design, we recruited 15 surgeons (4 females and 11 males) with 4 different surgical subspecialties from four Norwegian university hospitals. The participants underwent individual semistructured interviews and data were analysed according to principles of inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We identified four overarching themes. All surgeons reported having experienced serious adverse events, describing these as part of 'the nature of surgery'. Most surgeons reported that established strategies failed to combine facilitation of learning with taking care of the involved surgeons. Transparency about serious adverse events was by some felt as an extra burden, fearing that openness on technical-related errors could affect their future career negatively. Positive implications of transparency were linked with factors such as minimising the surgeon's feeling of personal burden with positive impact on individual and collective learning. A lack of facilitation of individual and structural transparency factors could entail 'collateral damage'. Our participants suggested that both the younger generation of surgeons in general, and the increasing number of women in surgical professions, might contribute to 'maturing' the culture of transparency.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study suggests that transparency associated with serious adverse events is hampered by concerns at both personal and professional levels among surgeons. These results emphasise the importance of improved systemic learning and the need for structural changes; it is crucial to increase the focus on education and training curriculums and offer advice on coping strategies and establish arenas for safe discussions after serious adverse events.

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.

Barriers and facilitators to improving patient safety learning systems: a systematic review of qualitative studies and meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

The implementation and continuous improvement of patient safety learning systems (PSLS) is a principal strategy for mitigating preventable harm to patients. Although substantial efforts have sought to improve these systems, there is a need to more comprehensively understand critical success factors. This study aims to summarise the barriers and facilitators perceived by hospital staff and physicians to influence the reporting, analysis, learning and feedback within PSLS in hospitals.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-synthesis by searching MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science. We included English-language manuscripts of qualitative studies evaluating effectiveness of the PSLS and excluded studies evaluating specific individual adverse events, such as systems for tracking only medication side effects, for example. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for qualitative systematic reviews.

RESULTS

We extracted data from 22 studies, after screening 2475 for inclusion/exclusion criteria. The included studies focused on reporting aspects of the PSLS, however, there were important barriers and facilitators across the analysis, learning and feedback phases. We identified the following barriers for effective use of PSLS: inadequate organisational support with shortage of resources, lack of training, weak safety culture, lack of accountability, defective policies, blame and a punitive environment, complex system, lack of experience and lack of feedback. We identified the following enabling factors: continuous training, a balance between accountability and responsibility, leaders as role models, anonymous reporting, user-friendly systems, well-structured analysis teams, tangible improvement.

CONCLUSION

Multiple barriers and facilitators to uptake of PSLS exist. These factors should be considered by decision makers seeking to enhance the impact of PSLS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No formal ethical approval or consent were required as no primary data were collected.

Interorganizational health information exchange-related patient safety incidents: A descriptive register-based qualitative study

PURPOSE

The current literature related to patient safety of interorganizational health information is fragmented. This study aims to identify interorganizational health information exchange-related patient safety incidents occurring in the emergency department, emergency medical services, and home care. The research also aimed to describe the causes and consequences of these incidents.

METHODS

A total of sixty (n = 60) interorganizational health information exchange-related patient safety incident free text reports were analyzed. The reports were reported in the emergency department, emergency medical services, or home care between January 2016 and December 2019 in one hospital district in Finland.

RESULTS

The identified interorganizational health information exchange-related incidents were grouped under two main categories: "Inadequate documentation"; and "Inadequate use of information". The causes of these incidents were grouped under the two main categories "Factors related to the healthcare professional " and "Organizational factors", while the consequences of these incidents fell under the two main categories "Adverse events" and "Additional actions to prevent, avoid, and correct adverse events".

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the inadequate documentation and use of information is mainly caused by factors related to the healthcare professional and organization, including technical problems. These incidents cause adverse events and additional actions to prevent, avoid, and correct the events. The sociotechnical perspective, including factors related to health care professionals, organization, and technology, should be emphasized in patient safety development of inter-organizational health information exchange and it will be the focus of our future research. Continuous research and development work is needed because the processes and information systems used in health care are constantly evolving.

Ten years of online incident reporting and learning using CPiRLS: implications for improved patient safety

BACKGROUND

Safety incident (SI) reporting and learning via incident reporting systems (IRSs) is used to identify areas for patient safety improvement. The chiropractic patient incident reporting and learning system (CPiRLS) is an online IRS that was launched in the UK in 2009 and, from time to time, has been licensed for use by the national members of the European Chiropractors' Union (ECU), members of Chiropractic Australia and a Canada-based research group. The primary aim of this project was to analyse the SIs submitted to CPiRLS over a 10-year period to identify key areas for patient safety improvement.

METHOD

All SIs reported to CPiRLS between April 2009 and March 2019 were extracted and analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to describe: (1) the frequency of SI reporting and learning by the chiropractic profession, and (2) the character of reported SIs. Key areas for patient safety improvement were developed following a mixed methods approach.

RESULTS

A total of 268 SIs were recorded on the database over the 10-year period, 85% of which originated from the UK. Evidence of learning was documented in 143 (53.4%) SIs. The largest subcategory of SIs related to post-treatment distress or pain (n = 71, 26.5%). Seven key areas for patient improvement were developed including: (1) patient trip/fall, (2) post treatment distress/pain, (3) negative effects during treatment, (4) significant post-treatment effects, (5) syncope, (6) failure to recognize serious pathology, and (7) continuity of care.

CONCLUSION

The low number of SIs reported over a 10-year period suggests significant under-reporting, however, an upward trend was identified over the 10-year period. Several key areas for patient safety improvement have been identified for dissemination to the chiropractic profession. Improved reporting practice needs to be facilitated to improve the value and validity of reporting data. CPiRLS is important in identifying key areas for patient safety improvement.

Developing the Safer Dx Checklist of Ten Safety Recommendations for Health Care Organizations to Address Diagnostic Errors

BACKGROUND

Most health care organizations (HCOs) find diagnostic errors hard to address. The research team developed a checklist (the Safer Dx Checklist) of 10 high-priority safety practices HCOs can use to conduct a proactive risk assessment to address diagnostic error.

METHODS

First, the team identified potential practices based on reviews of recent literature, reports by national and international organizations, and interviews with quality/safety leaders. Then a Delphi panel was conducted, followed by an online expert panel, to prioritize 10 practices. The prioritization process considered impact on safety and feasibility of practice implementation within a one- to three-year time frame. Finally, cognitive walkthroughs were conducted for a face-validity check with end users. The team also conducted content analysis in each step to look for themes that influenced prioritization or checklist implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 71 practices for prioritization were identified through the Delphi panel of 28 experts; 65% of participants reached consensus on 28 practices. A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts helped prioritize and refine the top 10 practices, which were then developed into a checklist paired with implementation guidance. Practices included themes related to creating organizational and leadership accountability for improving diagnosis, including patients in diagnostic safety work, and developing and implementing organizational infrastructure for measurement and improvement activities. Qualitative analysis revealed insights for implementation. End users at three different HCOs helped refine implementation guidance for the checklist.

CONCLUSION

The researchers identified 10 safety practices to help organizations conduct a proactive, systematic assessment of risks to timely and accurate diagnosis. The Safer Dx Checklist can enable HCOs to begin implementing strategies to address diagnostic error.

Performance measures for the SACRED team-centered approach to advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology have defined performance measures for upper and lower gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and small-bowel endoscopy. Quality indicators to guide endoscopists in the growing field of advanced endoscopy are also underway. We propose that equal attention is given to developing the entire advanced endoscopy team and not the individual endoscopist alone.We suggest that the practice of teams intending to deliver high quality advanced endoscopy is underpinned by six crucial principles concerning: selection, acceptance, complications, reconnaissance, envelopment, and documentation (SACRED).

Factors contributing to under-reporting of patient safety incidents in Indonesia: leaders’ perspectives

Background: Understanding the causes of patient safety incidents is essential for improving patient safety; therefore, reporting and analysis of these incidents is a key imperative. Despite its implemention more than 15 years ago, the institutionalization of incident reporting in Indonesian hospitals is far from satisfactory. The aim of this study was to analyze the factors responsible for under-reporting of patient safety incidents in Indonesian public hospitals from the perspectives of leaders of hospitals, government departments, and independent institutions. Methods: A qualitative research methodology was adopted for this study using semi-structured interviews of key informants. 25 participants working at nine organizations (government departments, independent institutions, and public hospitals) were interviewed. The interview transcripts were analyzed using a deductive analytic approach. Nvivo 10 was used to for data processing prior to thematic analysis. Results: The key factors contributing to the under-reporting of patient safety incidents were categorized as hospital related and nonhospital related (government or independent agency). The hospital-related factors were: lack of understanding, knowledge, and responsibility for reporting; lack of leadership and institutional culture of reporting incidents; perception of reporting as an additional burden. The nonhospital-related factors were: lack of feedback and training; lack of confidentiality mechanisms in the system; absence of policy safeguards to prevent any punitive measures against the reporting hospital; lack of leadership. Conclusion: Our study identified factors contributing to the under-reporting of patient safety incidents in Indonesia. The lack of government support and absence of political will to improve patient safety incident reporting appear to be the root causes of under-reporting. Our findings call for concerted efforts involving government, independent agencies, hospitals, and other stakeholders for instituting reforms in the patient safety incident reporting system.

A 6-Year Thematic Review of Reported Incidents Associated With Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Calls in a United Kingdom Hospital

BACKGROUND

Critical incident reporting can be applied to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events as a means of reducing further occurrences. We hypothesized that local CPR-related events might follow patterns only seen after a long period of analysis.

DESIGN

We reviewed 6 years of local incidents associated with cardiac arrest calls. The following search terms were used to identify actual or potential resuscitation events: "resuscitation," "cardio-pulmonary," "CPR," "arrest," "heart attack," "DNR," "DNAR," "DNACPR," "Crash," "2222." All identified incidents were independently reviewed and categorized, looking for identifiable patterns.

SETTING

Nottingham University Hospitals is a large UK tertiary referral teaching hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 1017 reports were identified, relating to 1069 categorizable incidents. During the same time, there were approximately 1350 cardiac arrest calls, although it should be noted that many arrest-related incidents were not associated with cardiac arrest call (e.g., failure to have the correct equipment available in the event of a cardiac arrest). Incidents could be broadly classified into 10 thematic areas: no identifiable incident (n = 189; 18%), failure to rescue (n = 133; 12%), staffing concerns (n = 134; 13%), equipment/drug concerns (n = 133; 12%), communication issues (n = 122; 10%), do-not-attempt-CPR decisions (n = 101; 9%), appropriateness of patient location or transfer (n = 96; 9%), concerns that the arrest may have been iatrogenic (n = 76; 7%), patient or staff injury (n = 43; 4%), and miscellaneous (n = 52; 5%). Specific patterns of events were seen within each category.

CONCLUSIONS

By reviewing incidents, we were able to identify patterns only noticeable over a long time frame, which may be amenable to intervention. Our findings may be generalizable to other centers or encourage others to undertake this exercise themselves.

Defining Minimum Necessary Communication During Care Transitions for Patients on Antihyperglycemic Medication: Consensus of the Care Transitions Task Force of the IPRO Hypoglycemia Coalition

INTRODUCTION

Antihyperglycemic agents are significant contributors to adverse drug events, responsible for emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death. Nationally, the rate of serious hypoglycemic events associated with these agents remains high despite widespread efforts to improve drug safety. Transitions of care between healthcare settings can lead to communication challenges between care professionals and increase the risk of adverse drug events. System-based improvements are needed to assure the safe transitions for patients with diabetes who are on antihyperglycemic agents. The objective of this study was to develop a consensus list of requisite elements that should be communicated between care settings during transitions of patients who are prescribed antihyperglycemic agents.

METHODS

The Island Peer Review Organization (IPRO) Hypoglycemia Coalition identified suboptimal transitions of care as a barrier to improving patient safety and quality of diabetes care. The Coalition formed a multidisciplinary Task Force with experts in the field of diabetes care. The Task Force created a draft list of requisite communication elements through literature review and deliberation on monthly conference calls. A blinded iterative Delphi process was subsequently performed to generate a consensus list of requisite communication elements that participating experts agreed were necessary to safely and effectively assume the management of patients with diabetes upon care transitions.

RESULTS

The Task Force completed a series of four iterative polls from September 2015 to August 2016, resulting in a final list of 22 requisite communication elements (the Diabetes Management Discharge Communication List), with the elements conceptually categorized into three domains: diagnosis and treatment, factors affecting glycemic control or patient risk, and patient self-management.

CONCLUSIONS

The Diabetes Management Discharge Communication List provides an initial framework for the development of diabetes-specific resources to improve clinical communication between care settings.

How do healthcare practitioners use incident data to improve patient safety in Japan? A qualitative study

Background

Patient incident reporting systems have been widely used for ensuring safety and improving quality in care settings in many countries. However, little is known about the way in which incident data are used by frontline clinical staff. Furthermore, while the use of a systems perspective has been reported as an effective way of learning from incident data in a multidisciplinary team, the level of adaptability of this perspective to a different cultural context has not been widely explored. The primary aim of the study, therefore, was to investigate how healthcare practitioners in Japan perceive the reporting systems and utilize a systems perspective in learning from incident data in acute care and mental health settings.

Methods

A non-experimental, descriptive and exploratory research design was adopted with the following two data-collection methods: 1) Sixty-one semi-structured interviews with frontline staff in two hospitals; and 2) Non-participatory observations of thirty-seven regular incident review meetings. The two hospitals in the Greater Tokyo area which were invited to take part were: 1) a not-for-profit, privately-run, acute care hospital with approximately 500 beds; and 2) a publicly-run mental health hospital with 200 beds.

Results

While the majority of staff acknowledge the positive impacts of the reporting systems on safety, the observation data found that little consideration was given to systems aspects during formal meetings. The meetings were primarily a place for the exchange of practical information, as opposed to in-depth discussions regarding causes of incidents and corrective measures. Learning from incident data was influenced by four factors: professional boundaries; dealing with a psychological burden; leadership and educational approach; and compatibility of patient safety with patient-centered care.

Conclusions

Healthcare organizations are highly complex, comprising of many professional boundaries and risk perceptions, and various communication styles. In order to establish an optimum method of individual and organizational learning and effective safety management, a fine balance has to be struck between respect for professional expertise in a local team and centralized safety oversight with a strong focus on systems. Further research needs to examine culturally-sensitive organizational and professional dynamics, including leader–follower relationships and the impact of resource constraints.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07631-0.

Voluntary patient safety incidents reporting in forensic psychiatry-What do the reports tell us?

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Patient safety incident reporting has been recognized as a key process for organizational learning and safety culture; however, there is limited knowledge about patient safety in forensic psychiatric care. There are distinct patient safety issues in psychiatric nursing, associated (inter alia) with the self-harm, violence, seclusion/restrain and restrictions. Many adverse events are preventable. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: No harm was caused to patients in less than half (51%) of all reported incidents (in a Finnish forensic psychiatric hospital during a six-year period) considered in this study. The most common location of violent incidents was corridors (31%), followed by day rooms (20%), and patient rooms (15%). The most common patient safety incidence type was violence against another patient (38%), which typically occurred in corridors (36%), dayrooms (25%) and patient rooms (15%), and was usually related to daily activities in the afternoon (1,400-1,600 hr) and evening (1,800-2,000 hr). Typically, recommendations for improving patient safety focus on human behaviours. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: There is a need to notify and report all patient safety incidents (following staff training), learn from previous incidents (also learn for success), prevent typical incidents, learn for success, promote patient participation in incident prevention, share development measures outside the ward to enable exploitation by others and strengthen safety culture. In forensic psychiatry, conversation with patients regarding safety measures is strongly recommended to prevent patient safety incidents related to violence. The perspective should be extended from patient-specific factors to general factors such as patient treatment and general comfort and privacy.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Patient safety incident reporting has been recognized as a key process for organizational learning and safety culture, but there is limited knowledge about patient safety in forensic psychiatric care.

AIMS

To characterize the types and frequencies of incidents in forensic psychiatric care and assess the implications for practice.

METHODS

Data were collected from a patient safety incident reporting system (PSiRS) database of one forensic psychiatry hospital in Finland and analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

No harm was caused in more than half of the 2,521 reported incidents examined (51%, n = 1,260). The most frequently recorded incident type was violence (38%), which typically occurred in corridors (31%) or dayrooms (20%). The most frequently recommended action to prevent violent events was that potential risks should be discussed (77%).

DISCUSSION

Patient safety incidents related to violence are common in forensic psychiatric hospitals. Although very few adverse events were classified as causing serious harm to patients, many cases of violence could be prevented by identifying potential circumstances that lead to violence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Staff need encouragement and training to detect and report all patient safety incidents. Safety culture is strengthened by learning and sharing development measures to improve patient safety.

Residents transitioning between hospital and care homes: protocol for codesigning a systems-level response to safety issues (SafeST study)

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to develop a better understanding of incident reporting in relation to transitions in care between hospital and care home, and to codesign a systems-level response to safety issues for patients transitioning between hospital and care home.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two workstreams (W) will run in parallel. W1 will aim to develop a taxonomy of incident reporting in care homes, underpinned by structured interviews (N=150) with care home representatives, scoping review of care home incident reporting systems, and a review of incident reporting policy related to care homes. The taxonomy will be developed using a standardised approach to taxonomy development. W2 will be structured in three phases (P). P1a will consist of ≤40 interviews with care home staff to develop a better understanding of their specific internal systems for reporting incidents, and P1b will include ≤30 interviews with others involved in transitions between hospital and care home. P1a and P1b will also examine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on safe transitions. P2 will consist of a retrospective documentary analysis of care home data relating to resident transitions, with data size and sampling determined based on data sources identified in P1a. A validated data extraction form will be adapted before use. P3 will consist of four validation and codesign workshops to develop a service specification using National Health Service Improvement's service specification framework, which will then be mapped against existing systems and recommendations produced. Framework analysis informed by the heuristic of systemic risk factors will be the primary mode of analysis, with content analysis used for analysing incident reports.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received university ethical approval and Health Research Authority approval. Findings will be disseminated to commissioners, providers and regulators who will be able to use the codesigned service specification to improve integrated care.

Characteristics of Critical Incident Reporting Systems in Primary Care: An International Survey

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to support the development of future critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) in primary care by collecting information on existing systems. Our focus was on processes used to report and analyze incidents, as well as strategies used to overcome difficulties.

METHODS

Based on literature from throughout the world, we identified existing CIRS in primary care. We developed a questionnaire and sent it to operators of a purposeful sample of 17 CIRS in primary care. We used cross-case analysis to compare the answers and pinpoint important similarities and differences in the CIRS in our sample.

RESULTS

Ten CIRS operators filled out the questionnaire, and 9 systems met our inclusion criteria. The sample of CIRS came from 8 different countries and was rather heterogeneous. The reporting systems invited a broad range of professions to report, with some also including reports by patients. In most cases, reporting was voluntary and conducted via an online reporting form. Reports were analyzed locally, centrally, or both. The various CIRS used interesting ideas to deal with barriers. Some, for example, used confidential reporting modes as a compromise between anonymity and the need for follow-up investigations, whereas others used smartphone applications and call centers to speed up the reporting process.

CONCLUSIONS

We found multiple CIRS that have operated in primary care for many years and have received a high number of reports. They were largely developed in accordance with recommendations found in literature. Developers of future systems may find this overview useful.

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.

Does Free-Text Information in Falls Incident Reports Assist to Explain How and Why the Falls Occurred in a Hospital Setting?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore whether information captured in falls reports in incident management systems could be used to explain how and why the falls occurred, with a view to identifying whether such reports can be a source of subsequent learnings that inform practice change.

METHODS

An analysis of prospectively collected falls incident reports found in the incident management systems from eight Western Australian hospitals during a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. The falls reported occurred in a cohort of older hospital patients (mean age = 82 y) on rehabilitation wards. Data coded from free-text comments in the incident reports were analyzed using deductive content analysis.

RESULTS

In the 493 analyzed falls incident reports, qualitative information describing aspects of the fall that clarified the patient, staff, and environment-related contributory factors was consistently low. Reports infrequently contained information about patients' and staff's call bell use behaviors (13%-19% of reports), fidelity of implementation of the care plan (8%) or environment-related factors such as bed settings (20%), and presence of clutter at the fall location (1%). The patients' account of the fall was present in less than 50% of reports, with an absence of concurrent text, which explained whether patient cognitive impairment was the reason for not obtaining this first-person account of the incident.

CONCLUSIONS

Falls reports in hospital incident management systems may not capture adequate information to explain how and why falls occur. This could limit creation of effective feedback loops to drive quality improvement efforts and targeted practice change.

An International Perspective on Definitions and Terminology Used to Describe Serious Reportable Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Patients are unintentionally, yet frequently, harmed in situations that are deemed preventable. Incident reporting systems help prevent harm, yet there is considerable variability in how patient safety incidents are reported. This may lead to inconsistent or unnecessary patterns of incident reporting and failures to identify serious patient safety incidents. This systematic review aims to describe international approaches in relation to defining serious reportable patient safety incidents.

METHODS

Multiple electronic and gray literature databases were searched for articles published between 2009 and 2019. Empirical studies, reviews, national reports, and policies were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted because of study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 50 articles were included. There was wide variation in the terminology used to represent serious reportable patient safety incidents. Several countries defined a specific subset of incidents, which are considered sufficiently serious, yet preventable if appropriate safety measures are taken. Terms such as "never events," "serious reportable events," or "always review and report" were used. The following dimensions were identified to define a serious reportable patient safety incident: (1) incidents being largely preventable; (2) having the potential for significant learning; (3) causing serious harm or have the potential to cause serious harm; (4) being identifiable, measurable, and feasible for inclusion in an incident reporting system; and (5) running the risk of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in terminology and reporting systems between countries might contribute to missed opportunities for learning. International standardized definitions and blame-free reporting systems would enable comparison and international learning to enhance patient safety.

Content Analysis of Patient Safety Incident Reports for Older Adult Patient Transfers, Handovers, and Discharges: Do They Serve Organizations, Staff, or Patients?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze content of incident reports during patient transitions in the context of care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke.

METHODS

A structured search strategy identified incident reports involving patient transitions (March 2014-August 2014, January 2015-June 2015) within 2 National Health Service Trusts (in upper and lower quartiles of incident reports/100 admissions) in care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke. Content analysis identified the following: incident classifications; active failures; latent conditions; patient/relative involvement; and evidence of individual or organizational learning. Reported harm was interpreted with reference to National Reporting and Learning System criteria.

RESULTS

A total 278 incident reports were analyzed. Fourteen incident classifications were identified, with pressure ulcers the modal category (n = 101,36%), followed by falls (n = 32, 12%), medication (n = 31, 11%), and documentation (n = 29, 10%). Half (n = 139, 50%) of incident reports related to interunit/department/team transfers. Latent conditions were explicit in 33 (12%) reports; most frequently, these related to inadequate resources/staff and concomitant time pressures (n = 13). Patient/family involvement was explicit in 61 (22%) reports. Patient well-being was explicit in 24 (9%) reports. Individual and organizational learning was evident in 3% and 7% of reports, respectively. Reported harm was significantly lower than coder-interpreted harm (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Incident report quality was suboptimal for individual and organizational learning. Underreporting level of harm suggests reporter bias, which requires reducing as much as practicable. System-level interventions are warranted to encourage use of staff reflective skills, emphasizing joint ownership of incidents. Co-producing incident reports with other clinicians involved in the transition and patients/relatives could optimize organizational learning.

Analysis of Critical Incident Reporting System as an indicator of quality healthcare in a cardiology center in Tbilisi, Georgia

Critical Incident Reporting System (CIRS) have become most common patient safety tools in healthcare. The purpose of this study was to determine how effectively CIRS is used and how well healthcare professionals recognize it as a risk management tool. A quantitative approach using a cross sectional survey was adopted. The most common critical incidents were due to lack of personal attention and related to individual errors. The most of the critical incidents arise from non-adherence to guidelines and standards. CIRS can be seen as an effective clinical risk management tool that can be used to identify potential sources of critical incidents and help ensure patient safety at a healthcare organization.

Defining adverse events during trauma resuscitation: a modified RAND Delphi study

Background

The majority of preventable adverse event (AEs) in trauma care occur during the initial phase of resuscitation, often within the trauma bay. However, there is significant heterogeneity in reporting these AEs that limits performance comparisons between hospitals and trauma systems. The objective of this study was to create a taxonomy of AEs that occur during trauma resuscitation and a corresponding classification system to assign a degree of harm.

Methods

This study used a modified RAND Delphi methodology to establish a taxonomy of AEs in trauma and a degree of harm classification system. A systematic review informed the preliminary list of AEs. An interdisciplinary panel of 22 trauma experts rated these AEs through two rounds of online surveys and a final consensus meeting. Consensus was defined as 80% for each AE and the final checklist.

Results

The Delphi panel consisted of 22 multidisciplinary trauma experts. A list of 57 evidence-informed AEs was revised and expanded during the modified Delphi process into a finalized list of 67 AEs. Each AE was classified based on degree of harm on a scale from I (no harm) to V (death).

Discussion

This study developed a taxonomy of 67 AEs that occur during the initial phases of a trauma resuscitation with a corresponding degree of harm classification. This taxonomy serves to support a standardized evaluation of trauma care between centers and regions.

Level of evidence

Level 5.

Barriers and enablers in implementing an electronic incident reporting system in a teaching hospital: A case study from Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Widespread recognition of the impact of healthcare adverse events has triggered incident reporting system implementation to promote patient safety. The aim was to assess the effectiveness, usability, enablers, and barriers of the Electronic Occurrence Variance Reporting System (eOVR) in addition to end user satisfaction.

METHODS

This study comprised a cross-sectional survey two years after implementation of the eOVR. Secondary data analysis evaluated the volume of incident reporting before and after implementing the eOVR.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures: satisfaction and system usability, system security, workplace safety culture, training, and reporting trends. An overall satisfaction was collected. Secondary outcome: rate of reported OVRs per 1000 admissions. Furthermore, barriers and enablers to the reporting process were explored.

RESULTS

Study findings indicate that the eOVR has been successful in terms of high satisfaction according to respondents. Most of the respondents found the system easy to access, maintained patient confidentiality and reporting anonymity. Around half the respondents indicated having a non-punitive culture of reporting in their hospital. Physicians had significantly lower scores in all primary outcomes Incident reporting increased by 33.6% (p < 0.0001) after implementing the eOVR.

CONCLUSION

Successful incident reporting systems should be easy and simple to use, accessible and include features that guarantee anonymity and confidentiality. End-users should be trained prior to launching such a system. The implementation of such systems needs to be combined with promoting a just culture in the organization, timely feedback, more involvement and focus on physicians and junior staff which will improve user satisfaction and reporting rates.

Use of a Rubric to Improve the Quality of Internal Medicine Resident Event Reporting

INTRODUCTION

As frontline providers, residents report patient safety events and provide crucial safety feedback. Specific ACGME and AAMC requirements for graduating residents include active participation in event reporting and patient safety investigations. However, formal training on what information a quality event report should include to effect real change in the health care system is lacking.

METHODS

This practical, interactive, case-based workshop educates residents on the key components of a quality event report in a 1-hour time frame. The scoring rubric offers quantitative feedback on the quality of information provided in residents' own event reports. The materials include a presentation template, sample teaching points, pre- and posttraining patient safety cases for residents to complete their own event reports about, and a standardized rubric to score event reports for feedback.

RESULTS

During the fall of 2019, 198 internal medicine residents completed the workshop, and 143 matched pre- and postcourse surveys were reviewed. Residents' ability to correctly identify the key concepts of an event report improved from a median score of 4 to 8 (p < .001). After completion of training, residents reported increased knowledge regarding the content of an effective event report (p < .001) and increased confidence in their ability to write one (p < .001).

DISCUSSION

Residents' knowledge of key event-reporting concepts and confidence in reporting improved after completion of the workshop. This brief interactive training and its novel rubric can be used as a standardized tool for patient safety curricula in academic training programs.

Civil Liability of Regional Health Services: The Case of the Piedmont Region

Civil liability represents one of the main responsibilities for healthcare facilities; it is the legal responsibility of paying money for damage to a person’s health. Even though this responsibility plays a key role in the economic sustainability of healthcare facilities, the literature does not enough investigate this responsibility in regional health services. The paper aims to define the evolution of compensation models for health civil liability adopted by regional health services. Through a longitudinal case study, the paper investigates the compensation model by a leading regional health service. The finding highlights the evolution of the compensation model for health civil liability adopted by a leading Regional Health Service from 1990 to 2021. It describes a transition from an insurance model to a mixed model based on self-coverage up to a set economic level, an insurance policy with self-insurance retention and deductible for all claims. The research contributes to the literature and practice throughout the definition of a compensation model for damages based on self-insurance of regional health service and insurance policies. The research promotes a compensation model used by a leading regional health service.

Framing healthcare professionals in written adverse events: A discourse analysis

Healthcare professionals have a major responsibility to protect patients from harm. Despite vast efforts to decrease the number of adverse events, the progression of patient safety has internationally been acknowledged as slow. From a social construction perspective, it has been argued that the understanding of patient safety is contextual based on historical and structural rules, and that this meaning construction points out different directions of possible patient safety actions. By focusing on fact construction and its productive and limiting effect on how something can be understood, we explored the discourses about healthcare professionals in 29 written reports of adverse events as reported by patients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. Through the analysis, a discourse about the healthcare professionals as experts was found. The expert role most dominantly included an understanding that adverse events were identified through physical signs and that patient safety could be prevented by more strictly following routines and work procedures. We drew upon the conclusion that these regimes of truth brought power to the expert discourse, to the point that it became difficult for patients and relatives to engage in patient safety actions on their terms.

Classification of Electronic Health Record-Related Patient Safety Incidents: Development and Validation Study

Background

It is assumed that the implementation of health information technology introduces new vulnerabilities within a complex sociotechnical health care system, but no international consensus exists on a standardized format for enhancing the collection, analysis, and interpretation of technology-induced errors.

Objective

This study aims to develop a classification for patient safety incident reporting associated with the use of mature electronic health records (EHRs). It also aims to validate the classification by using a data set of incidents during a 6-month period immediately after the implementation of a new EHR system.

Methods

The starting point of the classification development was the Finnish Technology-Induced Error Risk Assessment Scale tool, based on research on commonly recognized error types. A multiprofessional research team used iterative tests on consensus building to develop a classification system. The final classification, with preliminary descriptions of classes, was validated by applying it to analyze EHR-related error incidents (n=428) during the implementation phase of a new EHR system and also to evaluate this classification’s characteristics and applicability for reporting incidents. Interrater agreement was applied.

Results

The number of EHR-related patient safety incidents during the implementation period (n=501) was five-fold when compared with the preimplementation period (n=82). The literature identified new error types that were added to the emerging classification. Error types were adapted iteratively after several test rounds to develop a classification for reporting patient safety incidents in the clinical use of a high-maturity EHR system. Of the 427 classified patient safety incidents, interface problems accounted for 96 (22.5%) incident reports, usability problems for 73 (17.1%), documentation problems for 60 (14.1%), and clinical workflow problems for 33 (7.7%). Altogether, 20.8% (89/427) of reports were related to medication section problems, and downtime problems were rare (n=8). During the classification work, 14.8% (74/501) of reports of the original sample were rejected because of insufficient information, even though the reports were deemed to be related to EHRs. The interrater agreement during the blinded review was 97.7%.

Conclusions

This study presents a new classification for EHR-related patient safety incidents applicable to mature EHRs. The number of EHR-related patient safety incidents during the implementation period may reflect patient safety challenges during the implementation of a new type of high-maturity EHR system. The results indicate that the types of errors previously identified in the literature change with the EHR development cycle.

The nature, severity and causes of medication incidents from an Australian community pharmacy incident reporting system: The QUMwatch study

AIMS

Most research into medication safety has been conducted in hospital settings with less known about primary care. The aim of this study was to characterise the nature and causes of medication incidents (MIs) in the community using a pharmacy incident reporting programme.

METHODS

Thirty community pharmacies participated in an anonymous or confidential MI spontaneous reporting programme in Sydney, Australia. The Advanced Incident Management System was used to record and classify incident characteristics, contributing factors, severity and frequency ratings.

RESULTS

In total, 1013 incidents were reported over 30 months, 831 of which were near misses while 165 reports involved patient harm. The largest proportion of cases pertained to patients aged >65 years (35.7%). Most incidents involved errors during the prescribing stage (61.1%), followed by dispensing (25.7%) and administration (23.5%), while some errors occurred at multiple stages (17.9%). Systemic antibacterials (12.2%), analgesics (11.8%) and renin-angiotensin medicines (11.7%) formed the majority of implicated classes. Participants identified diverse and interrelating contributing factors: those concerning healthcare providers included violations to procedures/guidelines (75.6%), rule-based mistakes (55.6%) and communication (50.6%); those concerning patients included cognitive factors (31.9%), communication (25.5%) and behaviour (6.1%). Organisational safety culture and inadequate risk management processes were rated as suboptimal.

CONCLUSION

An MI reporting programme can capture and characterise medication safety problems in the community and identify the human and system factors that contribute to errors. Since medicine use is ubiquitous in the community, morbidity and mortality from MIs may be reduced by addressing the prioritised risks and contributing factors identified in this study.

Introducing Critical Incident Reporting System as an Indicator of Quality Healthcare in Georgia

Critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) have become the most common patient safety tools in healthcare. The purpose of this study was to present the development of CIRS in Georgia. A quantitative approach using a cross-sectional survey was adopted. Critical incidents were mainly derived from surgical disciplines. The highest number of cases was registered by nurses. The most common critical incidents were due to lack of personal attention. CIRS can be seen as an effective clinical risk management tool that can be used to identify potential sources of critical incidents and help ensure patient safety at a healthcare organization.

Factors contributing to under-reporting of patient safety incidents in Indonesia: leaders' perspectives

Background: Understanding the causes of patient safety incidents is essential for improving patient safety; therefore, reporting and analysis of these incidents is a key imperative. Despite its implemention more than 15 years ago, the institutionalization of incident reporting in Indonesian hospitals is far from satisfactory. The aim of this study was to analyze the factors responsible for under-reporting of patient safety incidents in Indonesian public hospitals from the perspectives of leaders of hospitals, government departments, and independent institutions.

METHODS

A qualitative research methodology was adopted for this study using semi-structured interviews of key informants. 25 participants working at nine organizations (government departments, independent institutions, and public hospitals) were interviewed. The interview transcripts were analyzed using a deductive analytic approach. Nvivo 10 was used to for data processing prior to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The key factors contributing to the under-reporting of patient safety incidents were categorized as hospital related and nonhospital related (government or independent agency). The hospital-related factors were: lack of understanding, knowledge, and responsibility for reporting; lack of leadership and institutional culture of reporting incidents; perception of reporting as an additional burden. The nonhospital-related factors were: lack of feedback and training; lack of confidentiality mechanisms in the system; absence of policy safeguards to prevent any punitive measures against the reporting hospital; lack of leadership.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified factors contributing to the under-reporting of patient safety incidents in Indonesia. The lack of government support and absence of political will to improve patient safety incident reporting appear to be the root causes of under-reporting. Our findings call for concerted efforts involving government, independent agencies, hospitals, and other stakeholders for instituting reforms in the patient safety incident reporting system.

Medication Without Harm: Developing optimal medication error reporting systems

Medication errors are amongst the most frequently occurring health care related incidents and have the potential to lead to life-threatening harm to patients. An incident reporting system is a traditional approach to improvement of patient safety and entails the retrieval of information from incident reports. This not only provides a better understanding of causes and contributing factors but also enables the collection of data on the severity of incidents, system deficiencies and the role of human factors in safety incidents. Medication error reporting systems are often developed as a part of larger incident reporting systems which deal with other types of incidents. Although a rise in the prevalence of medication errors has led to an increased demand for medication error reporting, little is known about characteristics and limitations of medication error reporting systems. The authors broach the subject of medication error reporting systems and propose a more robust and standardized approach.

Enhancing patient safety by integrating ethical dimensions to Critical Incident Reporting Systems

BACKGROUND

Critical Incident Reporting Systems (CIRS) provide a well-proven method to identify clinical risks in hospitals. All professions can report critical incidents anonymously, low-threshold, and without sanctions. Reported cases are processed to preventive measures that improve patient and staff safety. Clinical ethics consultations offer support for ethical conflicts but are dependent on the interaction with staff and management to be effective. The aim of this study was to investigate the rationale of integrating an ethical focus into CIRS.

METHODS

A six-step approach combined the analysis of CIRS databases, potential cases, literature on clinical and organizational ethics, cases from ethics consultations, and experts' experience to construct a framework for CIRS cases with ethical relevance and map the categories with principles of biomedical ethics.

RESULTS

Four main categories of critical incidents with ethical relevance were derived: (1) patient-related communication; (2) consent, autonomy, and patient interest; (3) conflicting economic and medical interests; (4) staff communication and corporate culture. Each category was refined with different subcategories and mapped with case examples and exemplary related ethical principles to demonstrate ethical relevance.

CONCLUSION

The developed framework for CIRS cases with its ethical dimensions demonstrates the relevance of integrating ethics into the concept of risk-, quality-, and organizational management. It may also support clinical ethics consultations' presence and effectiveness. The proposed enhancement could contribute to hospitals' ethical infrastructure and may increase ethical behavior, patient safety, and employee satisfaction.

Barriers to reporting near misses and adverse events among professionals performing laparoscopic surgeries: a mixed methodology approach

BACKGROUND

The literature has investigated barriers to reporting adverse events in surgery, but with less emphasis on near misses. No attempt was made to categorise near misses by type and reportability. This paper attempts to fill these two gaps in the literature.

METHODS

A mixed methodology approach was adopted. A sample of 16 laparoscopic surgeries were observed followed by a questionnaire distributed among professionals dealing with laparoscopies. Non-parametric tests and mediation-moderation analysis were used to compare responses and identify causal factors.

RESULTS

A total of 469 near misses were observed, and classified into two categories: reportable events and common events. Among 23 observed reportable events, only 9 events were reported. Out of 300 distributed questionnaires, we received 178 valid responses (response rate 59%). The professionals strongly disagreed that reporting near misses (Mean 4.09, STD 0.95) and adverse events (4.17, 1.02) makes little contribution to the quality of surgery. However, the results show that professionals were more willing to disclose adverse events than near misses, Heavy workload, privacy, lack of support, and fear from disciplinary actions negatively affected professionals' willingness to report near misses.

DISCUSSION

Error reporting should aim to promote safety, knowledge sharing and education. It is important to differentiate near misses that should be reported from voluntary reported events. Hospital's management might award professionals who frequently report errors and provide solutions, Quality rather than quantity of reports should be emphasised with flexibility in the way near misses are reported.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of this study has benefits of understanding the attitudes of surgical professionals towards error reporting. It provides healthcare management with tool for enhancing safety and providing suitable training for their professionals.

Using knowledge discovery through data mining to gain intelligence from routinely collected incident reporting in an acute English hospital

PURPOSE

Incident reporting systems are commonly deployed in healthcare but resulting datasets are largely warehoused. This study explores if intelligence from such datasets could be used to improve quality, efficiency, and safety.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Incident reporting data recorded in one NHS acute Trust was mined for insight (n = 133,893 April 2005-July 2016 across 201 fields, 26,912,493 items). An a priori dataset was overlaid consisting of staffing, vital signs, and national safety indicators such as falls. Analysis was primarily nonlinear statistical approaches using Mathematica V11.

FINDINGS

The organization developed a deeper understanding of the use of incident reporting systems both in terms of usability and possible reflection of culture. Signals emerged which focused areas of improvement or risk. An example of this is a deeper understanding of the timing and staffing levels associated with falls. Insight into the nature and grading of reporting was also gained.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare incident reporting data is underused and with a small amount of analysis can provide real insight and application to patient safety.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This study shows that insight can be gained by mining incident reporting datasets, particularly when integrated with other routinely collected data.

React and act: a qualitative study of how nursing home leaders follow up on staff-to-resident abuse

BACKGROUND

Elder abuse in nursing homes is a complex multifactorial problem and entails various associations across personal, social, and organisational factors. One way leaders can prevent abuse and promote quality and safety for residents is to follow up on any problems that may arise in clinical practice in a way that facilitates learning. How nursing home leaders follow up and what they follow up on might reflect their perceptions of abuse, its causal factors, and the prevention strategies used in the nursing home. The aim of this study was to explore how nursing home leaders follow up on reports and information regarding staff-to-resident abuse.

METHODS

A qualitative explorative design was used. The sample comprised 43 participants from two levels of nursing home leadership representing six municipalities and 21 nursing homes in Norway. Focus group interviews were conducted with 28 care managers, and individual interviews took place with 15 nursing home directors. The constant comparative method was used for the analyses.

RESULTS

Nursing home leaders followed up incidents of staff-to-resident abuse on three different levels as follows: 1) on an individual level, leaders performed investigations and meetings, guidance, supervision, and occasionally relocated staff members; 2) on a group level, feedback, openness, and reflection for shared understanding were strategies leaders used; and 3) on an organisational level, the main solutions were to adjust to available resources, training, and education. We found that leaders had difficulties defining harm and a perceived lack of power to follow up on all levels. In addition, they did not have adequate tools for evaluating the effect of the measures that were taken.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing home leaders need to be clear about how they should follow up incidents of elder abuse on different levels in the organisation and about their role in preventing elder abuse. Evaluation tools that facilitate systematic organisational learning are needed. Nursing homes must operate as open, blame-free cultures that acknowledge that incidents of elder abuse in patient care arise not only from the actions of individuals but also from the complex everyday life of which they are a part and in which they operate.

International recommendations for a vascular access minimum dataset: a Delphi consensus-building study

BACKGROUND

Data regarding vascular access device use and outcomes are limited. In part, this gap reflects the absence of guidance on what variables should be collected to assess patient outcomes. We sought to derive international consensus on a vascular access minimum dataset.

METHODS

A modified Delphi study with three rounds (two electronic surveys and a face-to-face consensus panel) was conducted involving international vascular access specialists. In Rounds 1 and 2, electronic surveys were distributed to healthcare professionals specialising in vascular access. Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of variables, feasibility of data collection and acceptability of items, definitions and response options. In Round 3, a purposive expert panel met to review Round 1 and 2 ratings and reach consensus (defined as ≥70% agreement) on the final items to be included in a minimum dataset for vascular access devices.

RESULTS

A total of 64 of 225 interdisciplinary healthcare professionals from 11 countries responded to Round 1 and 2 surveys (response rate of 34% and 29%, respectively). From the original 52 items, 50 items across five domains emerged from the Delphi procedure.Items related to demographic and clinical characteristics (n=5; eg, age), device characteristics (n=5; eg, device type), insertion (n=16; eg, indication), management (n=9; eg, dressing and securement), and complication and removal (n=15, eg, occlusion) were identified as requirements for a minimum dataset to track and evaluate vascular access device use and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We developed and internally validated a minimum dataset for vascular access device research. This study generated new knowledge to enable healthcare systems to collect relevant, useful and meaningful vascular access data. Use of this standardised approach can help benchmark clinical practice and target improvements worldwide.

Development of quality indicators for departments of hospital-based physiotherapy: a modified Delphi study

Background

International hospital accreditation instruments, such as Joint Commission International (JCI) and Qmentum, focus mainly on hospital policy and procedures and do not specifically cover a profession such as hospital-based physiotherapy. This justifies the need for a quality system to which hospital-based physiotherapy can better identify, based on a common framework of quality indicators for effective quality management.

Objective

This study aimed to identify the most important quality indicators of a hospital-based physiotherapy department in the eyes of hospital-based physiotherapists and their managers.

Methods

Based on input from three focus groups and a structured literature review, a first set of quality indicators for hospital physiotherapy was assembled. After checking this set for duplicates and for overlap with JCI and Qmentum, it formed the starting point of a modified Delphi procedure. In two rounds, 17 hospital-based physiotherapy experts rated the quality indicators on relevance through online surveys. In a final consensus meeting, quality indicators were established, classified in quality themes and operationalised by describing for each theme the rationale, specifications, domain and type of indicator.

Results

Three focus groups provided 120 potential indicators, which were complemented with 18 potential indicators based on literature. After duplicate and overlap check and the Delphi procedure, these 138 potential indicators were reduced to a set of 56 quality indicators for hospital-based physiotherapy. Finally, these 56 indicators were condensed into 7 composite indicators, each representing a quality theme based on definitions of the European Foundation for Quality Management.

Conclusion

A set of 56 quality indicators, condensed into 7 composite indicators each representing a quality theme, was developed to assess the quality of a hospital-based physiotherapy department.

Near-miss analysis in a large hospital in southern Brazil: A 5-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Near-miss analysis is an effective method for preventing serious adverse events, including never events such as wrong-site surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze all near-miss incidents reported in a large general hospital in southern Brazil between January 2013 and August 2017.

METHOD

We performed a descriptive retrospective study of near-miss incidents recorded in the hospital's electronic reporting system in a large non-profit hospital (497 beds). The results are expressed as absolute (n) and relative frequencies (%). Pearson's chi-square test, Fisher's exact test (Monte Carlo simulation) and linear regression were used.

RESULTS

A total of 12,939 near-miss incidents were recorded during the study period, with linear growth in the number of reports. Near-miss incidents were most frequent for medication, followed by processes unspecified in the International Classification for Patient Safety framework, followed by information control (patient chart and fluid balance data), followed by venous/vascular puncture. The highest prevalence of reports was observed in inpatient wards, in adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care units, and in the surgical center/post-anesthesia care unit. Pharmacists and nursing personnel recorded most of the reports during the day shift.

CONCLUSION

The most frequent categories of near-miss incidents were medication processes, other institutional protocols, information control issues, and venous/vascular puncture. The significant number of reported near-miss incidents reflects good adherence to the reporting system.

How incident reporting systems can stimulate social and participative learning: A mixed-methods study

Incident reporting systems (IRSs) have been widely adopted in healthcare, calling for the investigation of serious incidents to understand what causes patient harm. In this article, we study how the Dutch IRS contributed to social and participative learning from incidents. We integrate quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed-methods design. Between 1 July 2013 and 31 March 2019, Dutch hospitals reported and investigated 4667 incidents. Healthcare inspectors scored all investigations to assess hospitals' learning process following incidents. We analysed if and on what aspects hospitals improved over time. Additionally, we draw from semi-structured interviews with incident investigators, quality managers, healthcare inspectors and healthcare professionals. Healthcare inspectors score incident investigation reports better over time, suggesting that hospitals conduct better investigations or have become adept at writing reports in line with inspectors' expectations. Our qualitative data suggests the IRS contributed to practices that support social and participative learning-the professionalisation of incident investigation teams, the increased involvement of patients and families in investigations-and practices that do not-not linking learning from the investigation teams to that of professionals, not consistently monitoring the recommendations that investigations identify. The IRS both hits and misses the mark. We learned that IRSs need to be responsive to the (developing) capabilities of healthcare providers to investigate and learn from incidents, if the IRS is to stimulate social and participative learning from incidents.

Barriers and facilitators to incident reporting in mental healthcare settings: A qualitative study

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The barriers and facilitators to incident reporting are becoming well known in general healthcare settings due to a large body of research in this area. At present, it is unknown if these factors also affect incident reporting in mental healthcare settings as the same amount of research has not been conducted in these settings. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: Some of the barriers and facilitators to incident reporting in mental healthcare settings are the same as general healthcare settings (i.e., learning and improvement, time and fear). Other factors appear to be specific to mental healthcare settings (i.e., the role of patient diagnosis and how incidents involving assault are dealt with). WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Interventions to improve incident reporting in mental healthcare settings may be adapted from general healthcare settings in some cases. Bespoke interventions for mental healthcare settings that focus specifically on violence and aggression should be co-designed with patients and staff. Thresholds for incident reporting (i.e., what types of incidents will not be tolerated) need to be set, communicated and adopted Trust wide to ensure parity across staff groups and services. ABSTRACT: Introduction Barriers and facilitators to incident reporting have been widely researched in general health care. However, it is unclear if the findings are applicable to mental health care where care is increasingly complex. Aim To investigate if barriers and facilitators affecting incident reporting in mental health care are consistent with factors identified in other healthcare settings. Method Data were collected from focus groups (n = 8) with 52 members of staff from across West London NHS Trust and analysed with thematic analysis. Results Five themes were identified during the analysis. Three themes (a) learning and improvement, (b) time and (c) fear were consistent with the existing wider literature on barriers and facilitators to incident reporting. Two further themes (d) interaction between patient diagnosis and incidents and (e) aftermath of an incident-prosecution specifically linked to the provision of mental health care. Conclusions Whilst some barriers and facilitators to incident reporting identified in other settings are also prevalent in the mental healthcare setting, the increased incidence of violent and aggressive behaviour within mental health care presents a unique challenge for incident reporting. Clinical implications Although interventions to improve incident reporting may be adapted/adopted from other settings, there is a need to develop specific interventions to improve reporting of violent and aggressive incidents.

Anaesthesia and perioperative incident reporting systems: Opportunities and challenges

Incident Reporting Systems (IRS) continue to be an important influence on improving patient safety. IRS can provide valuable insights into how to prevent patients from being harmed at the organizational level. But inadequate expectations and misuse, for performance assessment, patient safety measurement or research, have hindered the full IRS potential. Health care organizations need to develop effective strategies built on trust and truth telling to improve the impact of IRS. This requires strategies to address the limited resources to analyse the near-misses or adverse events; avoid the punitive drift through maintaining the anonymity and protective legislation; integrating IRS and avoiding its confusion with mandatory adverse event response systems; training data analysts to focus on the system instead of the individual through a balanced simple taxonomy; combine the analyses at the local level, to reinforce effective and personalized feedback, with the potential of a national or supranational learning platform.

PROTOTYPE FOR MONITORING INCIDENTS IN THE HEALTH SERVICES: INNOVATION FOR PATIENT SAFETY

ABSTRACT Objective: to describe the participatory process of building a prototype to support the development of an information management system for notification, investigation and monitoring of health incidents. Method: a methodological research study on technology development, carried out in two stages: 1) documentary analysis of primary and secondary sources related to forms and legislation on incident notification systems, from September to October 2018; 2) deliberative dialog in two sessions, with 12 managers and coordinators of the Quality and Patient Safety Center of public hospitals in the Federal District, held in November 2018. In the deliberative session there was a presentation of the prototype and discussion of its applicability and functionality for the development of an information system for risk management in the health services. Results: creation and prototyping of a tool with 4 (four) screens representing the systematic flow of data. Screen 1: Simplified notification for patients and companions. Screen 2: Notification for the health professional. Screen 3: Investigation of the event and action plan. Screen 4: Intervention and monitoring by means of indicators. Conclusion: this is a tool capable of integrating actions to reduce the occurrence of incidents based on the identification and timely intervention on the risk factors. It can be used as a facilitating basis for the development or improvement of new instruments for risk management in the health services.

The impact of an adult intellectual disability screening questionnaire on service providers and users

BACKGROUND

One contributor to the health inequalities that people with an intellectual disability face is failure to identify their intellectual disability. The Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire (LDSQ) can identify adults who are likely to have an intellectual disability, but little is known about its impact.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach (literature search, interviews with staff and those using services [n = 28], and completion of an online survey by professionals [n = 29]) was used to develop a framework to evaluate the impact of the LDSQ.

RESULTS

Items endorsed by 60% or more of respondents (9/18) were included in the final framework. These all related to benefits of the LDSQ, including identifying people not previously known to have an intellectual disability; helping prioritize diagnostic assessment; informing support needs; and helping increase wellbeing and life chances.

CONCLUSION

The LDSQ may offer one way of helping address the health inequalities that people with an intellectual disability face.