A qualitative content analysis of retained surgical items: learning from root cause analysis investigations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe incidents of retained surgical items, including their characteristics and the circumstances in which they occur. DESIGN: A qualitative content analysis of root cause analysis investigation reports. SETTING: Public health services in Victoria, Australia, 2010-2015. PARTICIPANTS: Incidents of retained surgical items as described by 31 root cause analysis investigation reports. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The type of retained surgical item, the length of time between the item being retained and detected and qualitative descriptors of the contributing factors and the circumstances in which the retained surgical items occurred. RESULTS: Surgical packs, drain tubes and vascular devices comprised 68% (21/31) of the retained surgical items. Nearly one-quarter of the retained surgical items were detected either immediately in the post-operative period or on the day of the procedure (7/31). However, about one-sixth (5/31) were only detected after 6 months, with the longest period being 18 months. Contributing factors included complex or multistage surgery; the use of packs not specific to the purpose of the surgery; and design features of the surgical items. CONCLUSION: Retained drains occurred in the post-operative phase where surgical counts are not applicable and clinician situational awareness may not be as great. Root cause analysis investigation reports can be a valuable means of characterizing infrequently occurring adverse events such as retained surgical items. They may detect incidents that are not detected by other data collections and can inform the design enhancements and development of technologies to reduce the impact of retained surgical items.

Are root cause analyses recommendations effective and sustainable? An observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the strength of root cause analysis (RCA) recommendations and their perceived levels of effectiveness and sustainability. DESIGN: All RCAs related to sentinel events (SEs) undertaken between the years 2010 and 2015 in the public health system in Victoria, Australia were analysed. The type and strength of each recommendation in the RCA reports were coded by an expert patient safety classifier using the US Department of Veteran Affairs type and strength criteria. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Thirty-six public health services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportion of RCA recommendations which were classified as 'strong' (more likely to be effective and sustainable), 'medium' (possibly effective and sustainable) or 'weak' (less likely to be effective and sustainable). RESULTS: There were 227 RCAs in the period of study. In these RCAs, 1137 recommendations were made. Of these 8% were 'strong', 44% 'medium' and 48% were 'weak'. In 31 RCAs, or nearly 15%, only weak recommendations were made. In 24 (11%) RCAs five or more weak recommendations were made. In 165 (72%) RCAs no strong recommendations were made. The most frequent recommendation types were reviewing or enhancing a policy/guideline/documentation, and training and education. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of recommendations arising from RCAs in Victoria are 'strong'. This suggests that insights from the majority of RCAs are not likely to inform practice or process improvements. Suggested improvements include more human factors expertise and independence in investigations, more extensive application of existing tools that assist teams to prioritize recommendations that are likely to be effective, and greater use of observational and simulation techniques to understand the underlying systems factors. Time spent in repeatedly investigating similar incidents may be better spent aggregating and thematically analysing existing sources of information about patient safety.

Lessons learnt from incidents involving the airway and breathing reported from Australasian emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: To review incident reports relating to problems encountered during the ED management of patients with 'airway or breathing' problems, with the aim of finding and highlighting common themes within these rare events, and making recommendations to further improve patient safety in the areas in which deficiencies have been identified. METHODS: Thematic analysis of 36 incidents reported from Australasian EDs, which were related to problems with airway and breathing. RESULTS: In all, 51 problems were identified among the 36 incidents related to airway and/or breathing. Fourteen involved clinical decision-making, 11 equipment, nine communication, seven intubation, five surgical access and five pneumothorax. Eight incidents involved children and there were nine deaths within hours or days. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for improving preparedness of ED staff and facilities have been made for each of the problem areas identified with respect to clinical practice, equipment, communication and clinical process. Analysis of incidents from the Australasian Emergency Medicine Events Register allows clusters of like-events to be identified and characterised, providing the possibility of getting a better idea of how problems present and progress, with some information about contributing factors, characteristics and context. This will pave the way for earlier and better detection of life-threatening problems and the development and reinforcement of preventive and corrective strategies.

Mixed methods study on the use of and attitudes towards safety checklists in interventional radiology.

INTRODUCTION: The use of safety checklists in interventional radiology is an intervention aimed at reducing mortality and morbidity. Currently there is little known about their practical use in Australian radiology departments. The primary aim of this mixed methods study was to evaluate how safety checklists (SC) are used and completed in radiology departments within Australian hospitals, and attitudes towards their use as described by Australian radiologists. METHODS: A mixed methods approach employing both quantitative and qualitative techniques was used for this study. Direct observations of checklist use during radiological procedures were performed to determine compliance. Medical records were also audited to investigate whether there was any discrepancy between practice (actual care measured by direct observation) and documentation (documented care measured by an audit of records). A focus group with Australian radiologists was conducted to determine attitudes towards the use of checklists. RESULTS: Among the four participating radiology departments, overall observed mean completion of the components of the checklist was 38%. The checklist items most commonly observed to be addressed by the operating theatre staff as noted during observations were correct patient (80%) and procedure (60%). Findings from the direct observations conflicted with the medical record audit, where there was a higher percentage of completion (64% completion) in comparison to the 38% observed. The focus group participants spoke of barriers to the use of checklists, including the culture of radiology departments. CONCLUSION: This is the first study of safety checklist use in radiology within Australia. Overall completion was low across the sites included in this study. Compliance data collected from observations differed markedly from reported compliance in medical records. There remain significant barriers to the proper use of safety checklists in Australian radiology departments.

Use of surgical safety checklists in Australian operating theatres: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of surgical safety checklists (SSC) is an intervention aimed at reducing mortality and morbidity. Although the effectiveness of their use in surgery has been studied extensively, little is known about their practical use in Australian hospitals. The aim of this study was to observe and document the use of SSC in Australia. METHODS: This study employed direct observations of checklist use for surgical procedures by trained observers. Medical records were also audited to determine compliance with checklist use and to investigate whether there was any discrepancy between practice (actual care measured by direct observation) and documentation (documented care measured by an audit of records). RESULTS: Among the 11 participating hospitals, overall observed mean completion of the components of the checklist was 27%. Only one hospital used the original World Health Organization checklist. The checklist items most commonly observed to be addressed by the operating theatre staff as noted during observations were: correct patient (99%) and procedure (97%), whether the patient had any allergies (80%), and whether the instrument counts were performed correctly (56%). Findings from the direct observations conflicted with the medical record audit, where there was a higher percentage of completion (86% completion) in comparison to the 27% observed. CONCLUSION: This is the first study of surgical checklist use within Australia. Overall completion was low across the sites included in this study. Compliance data collected from observations differed markedly from reported compliance in medical records.

The Emergency Medicine Events Register: An analysis of the first 150 incidents entered into a novel, online incident reporting registry.

OBJECTIVE: Incident reporting systems are critical to understanding adverse events, in order to create preventative and corrective strategies. There are very few systems dedicated to Emergency Medicine with published results. All EDs in Australia and New Zealand were contacted to encourage the use of an Emergency Medicine - specific online reporting system called the Emergency Medicine Events Register (EMER). METHODS: We conducted an analysis of the first 150 incidents entered into EMER. EMER captures Emergency-medicine-specific details including triage score, clinical presentation, outcome, contributing factors, mitigating factors, other specialities involved and patient journey stage. These details were analysed by an expert panel. RESULTS: Over the first 26 months, 150 incidents were reported into EMER. The most common categories reported, in order, were diagnostic error, procedural complication and investigation errors. Most incidents contained more than one category of error. The most common stage of the patient's journey in which an incident was detected was after discharge from the ED. CONCLUSION: A focus on correct diagnosis, procedure performance and investigation interpretation may reduce errors in the ED. The ability to learn from incidents and make system changes to enhance patient safety in healthcare organisations is an inherent part of providing a proactive, quality culture.

Investigating Errors in Medical Imaging: Lessons for Practice From Medicolegal Closed Claims.

PURPOSE: Radiology has lagged behind other disciplines in using medicolegal data to improve patient safety. The aim of this study was to characterize a sample of closed claims files to inform radiology practice and identify opportunities for system change. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 443 medicolegal closed claims provided to the Radiology Events Register. Data were provided by 2 medical defense organizations that provide medical indemnity insurance to Australian private practitioners. We calculated a procedural risk ratio (prevalence in the closed claims dataset divided by prevalence among all diagnostic imaging procedures reimbursed by the Australian Government over the corresponding timeframe) for each modality (CT, ultrasound, radiography, MRI, nuclear medicine) and some procedures. For each closed claim, the incident type was determined, and a classification of 12 patient safety fields was conducted. RESULTS: Misdiagnosis (delay or failure to correctly read imaging) accounted for 62% of error types. Modalities and procedures at higher risk of leading to a claim were: mammography (risk ratio [RR] = 4.0, 95% CI 2.9-5.5); breast ultrasound (RR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.7-4.7); total MRI (RR = 3.4, 95% CI 2.0-5.6); total CT (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.5-2.5), and obstetrics and gynecology ultrasound (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.4). Lower-risk modalities and procedures were: cardiac ultrasound (RR = 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.8); radiography extremities (RR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9); and total radiography (RR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-0.9). Information to inform patient safety classification was limited, with a mean of 5.8 ± 1.8 (SD) fields available. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its limitations, medicolegal data deserve further attention from patient safety analysts.

Piloting an online incident reporting system in Australasian emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: Medical-specific incident reporting systems are critical to understanding error in healthcare but underreporting by doctors reduces their value. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a pilot study of the implementation of an online ED-specific incident reporting system in Australasian hospitals and evaluated its use. METHODS: The reporting system was based on the literature and input of experts. Thirty-one hospital EDs were approached to pilot the Emergency Medicine Events Register (EMER). The pilot evaluated: website usage and analytics, reporting behaviours and rates, the quality of information collected in EMER. Semi-structured interviews of three site champions responsible for implementing EMER were conducted. RESULTS: Seventeen EDs expressed interest; however, due to delays and other barriers reporting only occurred at three sites. Over 354 days, the website received 362 unique visitors and 77 incidents. The median time to report was 4.6 min. The reporting rate was 0.07 reports per doctor month, suggesting a reporting rate of 0.08% of ED presentations. Data quality, as measured by the number of completed non-mandatory fields and ability to classify incidents, was very high. The interviews identified enablers (the EMER system, site champions) and barriers (chiefly the context of EM) to EMER uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting patient safety information by frontline doctors is essential to actively engage the profession in patent safety. Although the EMER system allowed easy online reporting of high quality incident data by doctors, site recruitment and system uptake proved difficult. System use by ED doctors requires dedicated and conscious effort from the profession.