Important factors for effective patient safety governance auditing: a questionnaire survey

Opportunities to enhance ward audit: a multi-site qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Hospitals in many countries are encouraged to develop audits to assess and improve the quality of care. Ward audit is a specific form of audit and feedback that is commonly used but little studied. The aim of this study is to describe the content and application of hospital ward audit in order to identify potential enhancements to such audits.

METHODS

Multiple qualitative methods were used to study a diversity sample of four English National Health Service organisations over a 16-month period. We undertook semi-structured interviews (n = 32), documentary analysis (n = 44) and 25 h of observations of healthcare workers involved in the design and implementation of ward audit. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Findings were presented iteratively to stakeholders who used them to develop a description of the content and delivery of ward audit.

RESULTS

Ward audit consisted of seven stages: impetus; method; preparation of staff; assessing practice; analysis; feedback; and decide on action to improve. Two key stages were the monthly assessment of practice using case note data extraction, and the resulting feedback to clinical staff, ward managers, matrons and directors of nursing. At three organisations, the case note data were extracted by staff and there was evidence that this resulted in misrepresentation of the clinical performance audited. The misrepresentation appeared to be associated with the anticipation of punitive feedback from directors of nursing and matrons, as well as time pressures and a lack clarity about the method of audit data collection. Punitive feedback was reported to occur if no data were collected, if data demonstrated poor performance or if performance did not improve.

CONCLUSIONS

Organisations invest considerable clinical resources in ward audit, but such audits may have unintended, potentially negative, consequences due to the impacts from punitive feedback. We discuss potential enhancements to ward audit (e.g. providing feedback recipients with suggested actions for improvement) and discuss implications for theory. There is a need to reduce the use of punitive feedback.

Feasibility of reusing routinely recorded data to monitor the safe preparation and administration of injectable medication: A multicenter cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Reusing routinely recorded data from electronic hospital records (EHR) may offer a less-time consuming, and more real time alternative for monitoring compliance by nurses with a protocol for the safe preparation and administration of injectable medication. However, at present it is unknown if the data necessary to calculate the quality indicators (QIs) are recorded in EHRs, or if these data are suitable for automated QI calculation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of monitoring compliance by nurses with a protocol for the safe injectable medication preparation and administration by reusing routinely recorded EHR data for the automated calculation of QIs.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study in 12 Dutch hospitals (October 2015-May 2016). The checks included in the currently prevailing national protocol for the safe preparation and administration of injectable medication were translated into 16 data elements required to calculate the QIs. At each hospital, one interview was conducted using a structured questionnaire to decide whether the data elements were available in EHRs. To present these results, descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

In total, 20 health-care professionals were interviewed and four different EHR systems were evaluated. The availability of data elements was comparable between the four evaluated EHR systems. Nine of the 16 required data elements were recorded in EHRs, eight in a structured format. The seven missing data elements were mainly related to checks such as 'gather all materials needed' or 'conduct hand hygiene'. Furthermore, changes were identified in the process for the preparation and administration of injectable medication. These changes are mostly related to the increased use of electronic medication administration registration and barcode medication administration systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Reusing EHR data to monitor compliance by nurses with the currently prevailing protocol for the safe preparation and administration of injectable medication is not entirely feasible. A decision should be made on which checks should be recorded in the EHRs and which checks should be audited in order to minimize the registration burden for nurses. Moreover, the currently prevailing protocol should be revised to bring it in line with work-as-done. Our results can be used as guidance for such a revision and also for designing new QIs that can be calculated by reusing routinely recorded EHR data.