Chemotherapy medication errors.

Although chemotherapy is a well established treatment modality, chemotherapy errors represent a potentially serious risk of patient harm. We reviewed published research from 1980 to 2017 to understand the extent and nature of medication errors in cancer chemotherapy, and to identify effective interventions to help prevent mistakes. Chemotherapy errors occur at a rate of about one to four per 1000 orders, affect at least 1-3% of adult and paediatric oncology patients, and occur at all stages of the medication use process. Oral chemotherapy use is a particular area of growing risk. Our knowledge of chemotherapy errors is drawn primarily from single-institution studies at university hospitals and referral centres, with a particular focus on prescription orders and pharmacy practices. Although the heterogeneity of research methods and measures used in these studies limits our understanding of this issue, the rate of chemotherapy error-related injuries is generally lower than those seen in comparable studies of general medical patients. Although many interventions show promise in reducing chemotherapy errors, most have little empirical support. Additional research is needed to understand and to mitigate the risk of chemotherapy medication errors.

Preventable and mitigable adverse events in cancer care: Measuring risk and harm across the continuum.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a critical concern in clinical oncology, but the ability to measure adverse events (AEs) across cancer care is limited by a narrow focus on treatment-related toxicities. The objective of this study was to assess the nature and extent of AEs among cancer patients across inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 400 adult patients selected by stratified random sampling who had breast (n = 128), colorectal (n = 136), or lung cancer (n = 136) treated at a comprehensive cancer center in 2012. Candidate AEs, or injuries due to medical care, were identified by trained nurse reviewers over the course of 1 year from medical records and safety-reporting databases. Physicians determined the AE harm severity and the likelihood of preventability and harm mitigation. RESULTS: The 400-patient sample represented 133,358 days of follow-up. Three hundred four AEs were identified for an overall rate of 2.3 events per 1000 patient days (91.2 per 1000 inpatient days and 0.9 per 1000 outpatient days). Thirty-four percent of the patients had 1 or more AEs (95% confidence interval, 29%-39%), and 16% of the patients had 1 or more preventable or mitigable AEs (95% confidence interval, 13%-20%). The AE rate for patients with breast cancer was lower than the rate for patients with colorectal or lung cancer (P ≤ .001). The preventable or mitigable AE rate was 0.9 per 1000 patient days. Six percent of AEs and 4% of preventable AEs resulted in serious harm. Examples included lymphedema, abscess, and renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: A heavy burden of AEs, including preventable or mitigable events, has been identified. Future research should examine risk factors and improvement strategies for reducing their burden. Cancer 2017;123:4728-4736. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Implementation and evaluation of a prototype consumer reporting system for patient safety events.

OBJECTIVE: No methodologically robust system exists for capturing consumer-generated patient safety reports. To address this challenge, we developed and pilot-tested a prototype consumer reporting system for patient safety, the Health Care Safety Hotline. DESIGN: Mixed methods evaluation. SETTING: The Hotline was implemented in two US healthcare systems from 1 February 2014 through 30 June 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, family members and caregivers associated with two US healthcare systems. INTERVENTION: A consumer-oriented incident reporting system for telephone or web-based administration was developed to elicit medical mistakes and care-related injuries. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Key informant interviews, measurement of website traffic and analysis of completed reports. RESULTS: Key informants indicated that Hotline participation was motivated by senior leaders' support and alignment with existing quality and safety initiatives. During the measurement period from 1 October 2014 through 30 June 2015, the home page had 1530 visitors with a unique IP address. During its 17 months of operation, the Hotline received 37 completed reports including 20 mistakes without harm and 15 mistakes with injury. The largest category of mistake concerned problems with diagnosis or advice from a health practitioner. Hotline reports prompted quality reviews, an education intervention, and patient follow-ups. CONCLUSION: While generating fewer reports than its capacity to manage, the Health Care Safety Hotline demonstrated the feasibility of consumer-oriented patient safety reporting. Further research is needed to understand how to increase consumers' use of these systems.

Delayed Workup of Rectal Bleeding in Adult Primary Care: Examining Process-of-Care Failures.

BACKGROUND: Although delayed colorectal cancer diagnoses figure prominently in medical malpractice claims, little is known about the quality of primary care clinicians' workup of rectal bleeding. METHODS: In this study, 438 patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for rectal bleeding, hemorrhoids, and blood in the stool at 10 Boston adult primary care practices. Following nurse chart abstraction, physician reviewers assessed the overall quality of care and key care processes. Subjects' characteristics and physician reviewers' processes-of-care assessments were tabulated, and logistic regression models were used to examine the association of process failures with overall quality and guideline concordance. RESULTS: Although reviewers judged the overall quality of care to be good or excellent in 337 (77%) of 438 cases, 312 (71%) patients experienced at least one process-of-care failure in the workup of rectal bleeding. Clinicians failed to obtain an adequate family history in 38% of cases, complete a pertinent physical exam in 23%, and order laboratory tests in 16%. Failure to order or perform tests, or to make follow-up plans were associated with increased odds of poor or fair care. Guideline concordance bore little relationship with quality judgments. Reviewers judged that 128 delays could have been reduced or prevented. CONCLUSION: Process-of-care failures among adult primary care patients with rectal bleeding were frequent and associated with fair or poor quality. Educating practitioners and creating systems to ensure adequate history taking, physical examination, and processes for ordering, performing, and interpreting diagnostic tests may improve performance.

Racial/Ethnic disparities in patient experience with communication in hospitals: real differences or measurement errors?

BACKGROUND: An important aspect of medical care is clear and effective communication, which can be particularly challenging for individuals based on race/ethnicity. Quality of communication is measured systematically in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, and analyzed frequently such as in the National Healthcare Disparities Report. Caution is needed to discern differences in communication quality from racial/ethnic differences in perceptions about concepts or expectations about their fulfillment. OBJECTIVES: To examine assumptions about the degree of commonality across racial/ethnic groups in their perceptions and expectations, and to investigate the validity of conclusions regarding racial/ethnic differences in communication quality. METHODS: We used 2007 HCAHPS data from the National CAHPS Benchmarking Database to construct racial/ethnic samples that controlled for other patient characteristics (828 per group). Using multiple-groups confirmatory factor analyses, we tested whether the factor structure and model parameters (ie, factor loadings, intercepts) differed across groups. RESULTS: We identified support for basic tests of equivalence across 7 racial/ethnic groups in terms of equivalent factor structure and loadings. Even stronger support was found for Communication with Doctors and Nurses. However, potentially important nonequivalence was found for Communication about Medicines, including instances of statistically significant differences between non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks, Asians, and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islanders. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide strongest support for racial/ethnic comparisons on Communication with Nurses and Doctors, and reason to caution against comparisons on Communication about Medicines due to significant differences in model parameters across groups; that is, a lack of invariance in the intercept.

Disparities in evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding 40 years and older.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Rectal bleeding is associated with colorectal cancer. We characterized the evaluation of patients aged 40 years and older with rectal bleeding and identified characteristics associated with inadequate evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of records of outpatient visits that contained reports of rectal bleeding for patients aged 40 years and older (N = 480). We studied whether patient characteristics affected whether or not they received a colonoscopy examination within 90 days of presentation with rectal bleeding. Patient characteristics included demographics; family history of colon cancer and polyps; and histories of screening colonoscopies, physical examinations, referrals to specialists at the index visit, and communication of laboratory results. Data were collected from medical records, and patient income levels were estimated based on Zip codes. RESULTS: Nearly half of the patients presenting with rectal bleeding received colonoscopies (48.1%); 81.7% received the procedure within 90 days. A history of a colonoscopy examination was more likely to be reported in white patients compared with Hispanic or Asian patients (P = .012 and P = .006, respectively), and in high-income compared with low-income patients (P = .022). A family history was more likely to be documented among patients with private insurance than those with Medicaid or Medicare (P = .004). A rectal examination was performed more often for patients who were white or Asian, male, and with high or middle incomes, compared with those who were black, Hispanic, female, or with low incomes (P = .027). White patients were more likely to have their laboratory results communicated to them than black patients (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Sex, race, ethnicity, patient income, and insurance status were associated with disparities in evaluation of rectal bleeding. There is a need to standardize the evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding.

Understanding process-of-care delays in surgical treatment of breast cancer at a comprehensive cancer center.

Few studies have examined care processes within providers' and institutions' control that expedite or delay care. The authors investigated the timeliness of breast cancer care at a comprehensive cancer center, focusing on factors influencing the time from initial consultation to first definitive surgery (FDS). The care of 1,461 women with breast cancer who underwent surgery at Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center from 2011 to 2013 was studied. The interval between consultation and FDS was calculated to identify variation in timeliness of care based on procedure, provider, and patients' sociodemographic characteristics. Targets of 14 days for lumpectomy and mastectomy and 28 days from mastectomy with immediate reconstruction were set and used to define delay. Mean days between consultation and FDS was 21.6 (range 1-175, sd 15.8) for lumpectomy, 36.7 (5-230, 29.1) for mastectomy, and 37.5 (7-111, 16) for mastectomy with reconstruction. Patients under 40 were less likely to be delayed (OR = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.33-0.94, p = 0.03). Patients undergoing mastectomy alone (OR = 2.64, 95 % CI = 1.80-3.89, p < 0.0001) and mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (OR = 1.34 95 % CI = 1.00-1.79, p = 0.05) were more likely to be delayed when compared to lumpectomy. Substantial variation in surgical timeliness was identified. This study provides insight into targets for improvement including better coordination with plastic surgery and streamlining pre-operative testing. Cancer centers may consider investing in efforts to measure and improve the timeliness of cancer care.

Do drug interaction alerts between a chemotherapy order-entry system and an electronic medical record affect clinician behavior?

INTRODUCTION: We developed an enhancement to a chemotherapy order-entry system that alerted prescribers to potential drug interactions between patients' usual outpatient medications and those prescribed for onsite cancer treatment. This report summarizes the interactions and analyzes the impact of alerts on clinician behavior. METHODS: We studied electronic orders created from November 2010 to December 2011 by oncology clinicians at two comprehensive cancer centers who shared a chemotherapy order-entry system and an ambulatory electronic medical record. The enhancement generated an alert if a new chemotherapy system order for an antineoplastic agent or supportive care medication interacted with an existing medication in the ambulatory record, and tracked prescribers' responses. RESULTS: New chemotherapy system orders triggered 29,592 drug interaction alerts. New orders for antineoplastic agents accounted for 495 (32.6%) of 1518 high- and medium-severity alerts. Interactions with antibiotics accounted for the majority of these alerts. New chemotherapy system orders for antiemetics triggered 352 (23.2%) alerts and more than two-thirds were attributed to interactions with analgesic opioids. High- and medium-severity alerts changed prescriber behavior in 224 (14.8%) occurrences, including potentially fatal interactions between meperidine and monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Clinicians who overrode alerts indicated that they would monitor the patient (54.6%), the patient already tolerated the combination (24.5%), and they would adjust the dose (15.1%). CONCLUSION: Cancer patients are at risk of serious interactions between medications ordered for cancer care and those provided for general medical care. Organizations and order-entry applications should develop countermeasures to identify and prevent potentially serious drug interactions.

The association of hospital quality ratings with adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how patient-reported quality is related to adverse events (AEs). DESIGN: Random sample telephone survey. SETTING: Sixteen acute care Massachusetts hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand and five hundred and eight-two of 4163 (62% response rate) eligible adult patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients hospitalized from 1 April 2003 to 1 October 2003 provided global quality ratings and whether they experienced AEs. Service recovery, defined as efforts by a service provider to return customers to a state of satisfaction after a lapse in service, was operationalized as high participation in one's care, timely discharge and disclosure of the circumstances of an AE. RESULTS: Of respondents, 82% rated the quality as high and 23% reported one or more AEs. Patients with no AEs gave higher quality ratings (85 vs. 77 or 62% for patients with 1 or 2+ AEs, respectively, P < 0.001). Patients were more likely to rate the quality high if they reported high participation (86 vs. 53%), or felt discharge timing was just right (85 vs. 64%); for those with AEs, ratings were higher among those reporting disclosure (82 vs. 66%) (all P < 0.01). In adjusted analyses, patients with AEs experiencing all three service recovery components rated their quality higher (86 vs. 68%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AEs rate the quality of care lower than others. However, patients with AEs who experienced 'service recovery' as we defined it rated their quality of care at levels similar to those who did not experience AEs. Hospitals seeking to improve quality ratings might consider efforts to ensure patient safety and to address AEs in a transparent and responsive way.

Comparing clinicians' use of an anticoagulation management service and usual care in ambulatory oncology.

PURPOSE: There is no consensus in the oncology community about the optimal model for anticoagulation management of ambulatory cancer patients. To understand oncologists' preferences regarding anticoagulation management, we compared the characteristics of patients referred to an oncology-oriented anticoagulation management service with "usual care" patients managed by the patient's primary oncologist. METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review of ambulatory oncology patients' anticoagulation care at a comprehensive cancer center. We examined the characteristics of 33 patients anticoagulated before implementation of a dedicated oncology anticoagulation management service. We compared this group with 33 patients managed by the anticoagulation management service and with 39 usual care patients managed by the primary oncologist after the anticoagulation management service was created. We also examined differences in laboratory test utilization, time in the therapeutic range (for patients anticoagulated with warfarin), and anticoagulation-related adverse events during a 3-month assessment period. RESULTS: Anticoagulation management service patients were more likely to be treated for hematologic malignancies, use erythropoietin stimulating agents, and require warfarin management for previous venous thromboembolic disease compared to usual care patients. In contrast, oncologists were more likely to manage anticoagulation care of patients with advanced solid tumors undergoing active chemotherapy. Anticoagulation management service and usual care patients on warfarin therapy had comparable time in the therapeutic range and complication rates. CONCLUSION: Oncologists selectively referred patients to the anticoagulation management service. Anticoagulation management service patients' warfarin control and complication rates were comparable to care provided by the primary oncologist, suggesting that an oncology-specific anticoagulation management service may be a feasible and effective option for anticoagulation management of ambulatory oncology patients.

Preventing lost-to-follow up diagnostic imaging in ambulatory care: evaluation of an electronic notification tool.

OBJECTIVE: Missed or cancelled imaging tests may be invisible to the ordering clinician and result in diagnostic delay. We developed an outpatient results notification tool (ORNT) to alert physicians of patients' missed radiology studies. DESIGN: Randomised controlled evaluation of a quality improvement intervention. SETTING: 23 primary care and subspecialty ambulatory clinics at an urban academic medical centre. PARTICIPANTS: 276 physicians randomised to intervention or usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: 90-day test completion of missed imaging tests. RESULTS: We included 3675 radiology tests in our analysis: 1769 ordered in the intervention group and 1906 in the usual care group. A higher per cent of studies were completed for intervention compared with usual care groups in CT (20.7% vs 15.3%, p=0.06), general radiology (19.6% vs 12.0%, p=0.02) and, in aggregate, across all modalities (18.1% vs 16.1%, p=0.03). In the multivariable regression model adjusting for sex, age and insurance type and accounting for clustering with random effects at the level of the physician, the intervention group had a 36% greater odds of test completion than the usual care group (OR: 1.36 (1.097-1.682), p=0.005). In the Cox regression model, patients in the intervention group were 1.32 times more likely to complete their test in a timely fashion (HR: 1.32 (1.10-1.58), p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: An electronic alert that notified the responsible clinician of a missed imaging test ordered in an ambulatory clinic reduced the number of incomplete tests at 90 days. Further study of the obstacles to completing recommended diagnostic testing may allow for the development of better tools to support busy clinicians and their patients and reduce the risk of diagnostic delays.

A longitudinal study of pain variability and its correlates in ambulatory patients with advanced stage cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although pain is common among patients with advanced cancer, little is known about longitudinal variability in pain intensity. For this report, the authors examined variability in pain intensity over 24 months among ambulatory patients with advanced stage cancers, associations between patient characteristics and within-patient pain variability, and the relation of pain variability to overall survival. METHODS: The sample comprised 949 patients with solid tumors who received care and reported pain scores in at least 3 different months within 24 months of their initial stage IV diagnosis during the period from 2004 to 2006. Pain intensity was measured using a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). Pain variability was defined as the standard deviation of the maximum monthly pain scores and was dichotomized at the 50th percentile into high and low variability groups. RESULTS: Considerable between-patient differences in pain variability (range, 0-5.77) were observed. Nonwhites, patients with a stage IV cancer diagnosed within the previous 3 months, and those with moderate or severe pain at baseline were more likely to experience high pain variability. Although patients with head and neck cancer generally had the highest pain variability, the intensity of their pain typically decreased over the disease course. High pain variability with worsening pain trajectory was associated with increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinally, pain intensity was highly variable among patients with stage IV cancer. Minority patients, newly diagnosed patients, patients with head and neck cancer, and patients with moderate or severe pain at baseline were at higher risk of large fluctuations in pain intensity.

What constitutes patient safety culture in Chinese hospitals?

OBJECTIVE: To develop a patient safety culture instrument for use in Chinese hospitals, we assessed the appropriateness of existing safety culture questionnaires used in the USA and Japan for Chinese respondents and identified new items and domains suitable to Chinese hospitals. DESIGN: Focus group study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four physicians, nurses and other health-care workers from 11 hospitals in three Chinese cities. METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted in 2010 to elicit information from hospital workers about their perceptions of the appropriateness and importance of each of 97 questionnaire items, derived from a literature review and an expert panel, characterizing hospital safety culture. PARTICIPANTS: understood the concepts of patient safety and safety culture and identified features associated with safe care. They judged that numerous questions from existing surveys were inappropriate, including 39 items that were dropped because they were judged unimportant, semantically redundant, confusing, ambiguous or inapplicable in Chinese settings. Participants endorsed eight new items and three additional dimensions addressing staff training, mentoring of new hires, compliance with rules and procedures, equipment availability and leadership walk-rounds they judged appropriate to assessing safety culture in Chinese hospitals. This process resulted in a 66-item instrument for testing in cognitive interviews, the next stage of survey development. CONCLUSIONS: Focus group participants provided important insights into the refinement of existing items and the construction of new items for measuring patient safety culture in Chinese hospitals. This is a necessary first step in producing a culturally appropriate instrument applicable to specific local contexts.

Incidence of severe pain in newly diagnosed ambulatory patients with stage IV cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pain is common among cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the incidence of severe pain among newly diagnosed patients with stage IV cancer in ambulatory care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 505 ambulatory oncology patients with newly diagnosed stage IV solid tumours at a comprehensive cancer centre (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA) was followed from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2006. Pain intensity scores were extracted from electronic medical records. The incidence of severe pain was calculated using the maximum monthly pain scores reported at outpatient visits. RESULTS: Of the 505 patients included in the present study, 340 (67.3%) were pain-free at the initial visit, 90 (17.8%) experienced mild pain, 48 (9.5%) experienced moderate pain and 27 (5.4%) experienced severe pain. At least one episode of severe pain within one year of diagnosis was reported by 29.1% of patients. Patients with head and neck, gastrointestinal and thoracic malignancies were more likely to experience severe pain compared with patients with other types of cancer (52.6%, 33.9% and 30.5%, respectively). In the multivariable model, patients whose primary language was not English (OR 2.90 [95% CI 1.08 to 7.80]), patients who reported severe pain at the initial visit (OR 9.30 [95% CI 3.72 to 23.23]) and patients with head and neck (OR 10.17 [95% CI 2.87 to 36.00]) or gastrointestinal (OR 4.05 [95% CI 1.23 to 13.35]) cancers were more likely to report severe pain in the following year. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of severe pain was high in ambulatory patients with newly diagnosed stage IV cancer.

Can we rely on patients' reports of adverse events?

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patients can report a variety of adverse events (AEs) not captured by traditional methods such as a chart review. Little is known, however, about whether patient reports are useful for measuring patient safety. OBJECTIVES: To examine the degree to which physician reviewers agreed that patient reports of "negative effects" constituted AEs, and to identify questionnaire items that affected reviewers' judgments. METHODS: We surveyed patients discharged from Massachusetts hospitals in 2003 to elicit information about negative effects associated with hospitalization. Physician reviewers judged whether patient-reported negative effects represented AEs, and classified the severity of the event. Likelihood ratios were calculated to assess whether patient responses to questionnaire items affected reviewers' judgments. RESULTS: Of the 2582 patients surveyed, 753 patients reported 1170 negative effects, and 71.2% of these effects were classified as AEs by physician reviewers. Negative effects most likely to be classified as AEs involved newly prescribed medications and changes to previously prescribed medications. Additional information elicited from follow-up survey questions modestly affected reviewers' classification of serious AEs. Negative effects reported by women, younger patients, those reporting better health status, and those not admitted through the emergency department were more likely to be classified as AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients were able to identify care-related AEs. Patient responses to questions about the sequelae of the events provided limited additional information for physicians to use in gauging the presence and severity of the event. Patient reports complement other incident-detection methods by providing information that is credible and unavailable from other sources.

Hospitalized patients' participation and its impact on quality of care and patient safety.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the extent to which hospitalized patients participate in their care, and the association of patient participation with quality of care and patient safety. DESIGN: Random sample telephone survey and medical record review. SETTING: US acute care hospitals in 2003. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2025 recently hospitalized adults. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospitalized patients reported participation in their own care, assessments of overall quality of care and the presence of adverse events (AEs) in telephone interviews. Physician reviewers rated the severity and preventability of AEs identified by interview and chart review among 788 surveyed patients who also consented to medical record review. RESULTS: Of the 2025 patients surveyed, 99.9% of patients reported positive responses to at least one of seven measures of participation. High participation (use of >4 activities) was strongly associated with patients' favorable ratings of the hospital quality of care (adjusted OR: 5.46, 95% CI: 4.15-7.19). Among the 788 patients with both patient survey and chart review data, there was an inverse relationship between participation and adverse events. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, patients with high participation were half as likely to have at least one adverse event during the admission (adjusted OR = 0.49, 0.31-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitalized patients participated in some aspects of their care. Participation was strongly associated with favorable judgments about hospital quality and reduced the risk of experiencing an adverse event.

Identifying women at risk of delayed breast cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Delays in breast cancer diagnosis contribute to increased morbidity and mortality. Factors related to the occurrence of delayed diagnosis have not been well studied. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 5,464 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer from 1999 through 2006 was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center in Boston. A delayed diagnosis was defined as an interval greater than 90 days between the patient's first breast-related problem that prompted seeking of medical care and the breast cancer diagnosis based on biopsy. RESULTS: 938 (17%) patients had a delayed breast cancer diagnosis. Non-white race or Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-1.90), living more than 26 miles from Boston (OR 1.46, 95% CI = 1.25-1.71), and initial presentation with a lump found by the patient herself (OR = 2.89, 95% CI = 2.36-3.55) or another breast symptom (OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 1.79-2.82) compared to an abnormal mammogram were significantly associated with a delay in diagnosis. In contrast, the odds of a delay were lower for women who were older than 18-39 years of age and for women living with two or more household members (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.59-0.87). The likelihood of experiencing a delayed breast cancer diagnosis increased markedly if a woman had multiple risk factors, with a nearly 12-fold increase among women with five or more risk factors (OR = 11.96, 95% CI = 6.32-22.61). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age, minority race, and self-identification of breast symptom affect the likelihood of delayed breast cancer diagnosis. Awareness of these issues could help focus efforts to develop algorithms that identify women at risk for a delay and build programs that facilitate their timely access to care.

Teamwork Among Medicine House Staff During Work Rounds: Development of a Direct Observation Tool.

OBJECTIVE: Teamwork is integral to effective health care but difficult to evaluate. Few tools have been tested outside of classroom or medical simulation settings. Accordingly, we aimed to develop and pilot test an easy-to-use direct observation instrument for measuring teamwork among medical house staff. METHODS: We performed direct observations of 18 inpatient medicine house staff teams at a teaching hospital using an instrument constructed from existing teamwork tools, expert panel review, and pilot testing. We examined differences across teams using the Kruskal-Wallis statistic. We examined interrater reliability with the κ statistic, domain scales using Cronbach α, and construct validity using correlation and multivariable regression analyses of quality and utilization metrics. Observers rated team performance before and after providing feedback to 12 of the 18 team leaders and assessed changes in team performance using paired two-tailed t tests. RESULTS: We found variation in team performance in the situation monitoring, mutual support, and communication domains. The instrument evidenced good interrater reliability among concurrent, independent observers (κ = 0.7, P < 0.001). It had satisfactory face validity based on expert panel review and the assessments of resident team leaders. Construct validity was supported by a positive correlation between team performance and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems physician communication score (r = 0.6, P = 0.03). Providing resident physicians with information about their teams' performance was associated with improved mean performance in follow-up observations (3.6-3.8/4.0, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Direct observation of teamwork behaviors by medicine house staff on ward rounds is feasible and feedback may improve performance.

Implementation of a Patient-Provider Agreement to Improve Healthcare Delivery for Patients With Substance Use Disorder in the Inpatient Setting.

OBJECTIVES: Inpatient healthcare delivery to people who use drugs is an opportunity to provide acute medical stabilization and offer treatment for underlying substance use disorder (SUD). The process of delivering quality healthcare to people with SUD can present challenges. METHODS: We convened a group of stakeholders to discuss challenges and opportunities for improving healthcare safety and employee satisfaction when providing inpatient care to people with SUD. RESULTS: We developed, implemented, and evaluated a "Pain and Addiction Agreement" tool, a document to guide discussions between providers and patients about expectations and policies for inpatient care. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we share our experience of working closely with stakeholders. We hope that our project can serve as a blueprint motivating other centers to pursue quality improvement initiatives to improve healthcare for people with SUD and support the people who take care of them in the hospital.