Quality improvement in neurology

Two-Year Profile of Preventable Errors in Hospital-Based Neurology

Background and Objectives:

Medical errors are estimated to cause 7,000 deaths and cost 17-29 billion USD per year, but there is a lack of published real-world data on preventable errors, in particular in hospital-based neurology. We sought to characterize the profile of errors that occur on the inpatient neurology services at our institution in order to inform strategies on future error prevention.

Methods:

We reviewed all cases of preventable errors occurring on the inpatient neurology services from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020, logged in institutional error reporting systems and reviewed at departmental morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MC). Each case was characterized by primary category of error, level of harm as determined by the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) Common Format Harm Scale version 1.2, primary intervention, and recurrence within one year, with a final censoring date of June 30, 2021.

Results:

Of 72 cases, 43 (60%) were attributed to errors in clinical decision-making and 20 (28%) to systems or electronic health record-related errors. The majority of cases resulted in in-conference education on systems-based errors (29%) at departmental M&MCs followed by in-conference education on clinical neurology (25%). Among errors classified primarily as clinical, 28% were addressed via systems-based interventions including in-conference education on systems issues and changes in written protocol. In 23 cases (32%), a similar error recurred within one year of the presentation. In total, 7 cases (10%) resulted in a change in written protocol, none with recurrences.

Discussion:

Systems-based interventions may reduce both clinical and systems-based errors, and protocol changes are effective when feasible. Given the important goal of optimizing care for every patient, quality leaders should conduct continuous audits of preventable errors and quality improvement systems in their clinical areas.

Tackling Quality—It's Never a Level Playing Field: Companion Piece to the Neurology Outcome Measure Set

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has recently proposed three outcome metrics crafted to be both broadly applicable across neurological diseases and to function as potential tools to facilitate quality improvement. These measures should be of interest to physicians and payers due to the increasing linkage of reimbursement to quality care. However, the use of quality measures cannot exist in a vacuum as external factors outside of physician control can negatively impact these metrics. The original Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) value-based programs illustrate the necessity for iterative review and revision of outcome metrics to allow for risk adjustment to avoid unjust penalties. Accordingly, at this time, the Neurology Outcome Measurement Set is not suitable for inclusion in a quality payment program.

Strategies to Improve Clinician-Patient Communication Experiences for Patients With Neurologic Conditions

Increasing research supports that effective clinician communication with patients and families leads to improved patient outcomes, higher patient satisfaction, and improved clinician experiences. As a result, patient- and family-centered communication is the focus of a 2020 American Academy of Neurology quality measure and part of neurology residency training milestones. Clinicians across training levels can implement strategies for improving patient- and family-centered communication, including optimizing the communication environment, using verbal and nonverbal skills, focusing on the patient's agenda, practicing active listening, demonstrating respect and empathy, individualizing encounters to patient and family needs, and providing clear explanations. These skills can be tailored for specialized encounters (e.g., when wearing masks, telemedicine) and for electronic communication. By purposefully identifying and incorporating key communication skills in everyday practice, clinicians have the opportunity to improve patient care and satisfaction and their own experiences in neurology clinical practice.

Primary Palliative Care in Dementia

Primary palliative care is a fundamental aspect of high-quality care for patients with a serious illness such as dementia. The clinician caring for a patient and family suffering with dementia can provide primary palliative care in numerous ways. Perhaps the most important aspects are high quality communication while sharing a diagnosis, counseling the patient through progression of illness and prognostication, and referral to hospice when appropriate. COVID-19 presents additional risks of intensive care requirement and mortality which we must help patients and families navigate. Throughout all of these discussions, the astute clinician must monitor the patient's decision making capacity and balance respect for autonomy with protection against uninformed consent. Excellent primary palliative care also involves discussion of deprescribing medications of uncertain benefit such as long term use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine and being vigilant in the monitoring of pain with its relationship to behavioral disturbance in patients with dementia. Clinicians should follow a standardized approach to pain management in this vulnerable population. Caregiver burden is high for patients with dementia and comprehensive care should also address this burden and implement reduction strategies. When these aspects of care are particularly complex or initial managements strategies fall short, palliative care specialists can be an important additional resource not only for the patient and family, but for the care team struggling to guide the way through a disease with innumerable challenges.

Ethical Considerations in Dementia Diagnosis and Care: AAN Position Statement

Alzheimer disease and other dementias present unique practical challenges for patients, their families, clinicians, and health systems. These challenges reflect not only the growing public health effect of dementia in an aging global population, but also more specific ethical complexities including early loss of patients' capacity to make decisions regarding their own care, the stigma often associated with a dementia diagnosis, the difficulty of balancing concern for patients' welfare with respect for patients' remaining independence, and the effect on the physical, emotional, and financial well-being of family caregivers. Caring for patients with dementia requires respecting patient autonomy while acknowledging progressively diminishing decisional capacity and continuing to provide care in accordance with other core ethical principles (beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence). Whereas these ethical principles remain unchanged, neurologists must reconsider how to apply them given changes across multiple domains including our understanding of disease, clinical and legal tools for addressing manifestations of illness, our expanding awareness of the crucial role of family caregivers in providing care and maintaining patient quality of life, and societal conceptions of dementia and individuals' personal expectations for aging. This revision to the American Academy of Neurology's 1996 position statement summarizes ethical considerations that often arise in caring for patients with dementia; although it addresses how such considerations influence patient management, it is not a clinical practice guideline.