Application of a Human Factors Systems Approach to Healthcare Control Centres for Managing Patient Flow: A Scoping Review.

Over the past decade, healthcare systems have started to establish control centres to manage patient flow, with a view to removing delays and increasing the quality of care. Such centres-here dubbed Healthcare Capacity Command/Coordination Centres (HCCCs)-are a challenge to design and operate. Broad-ranging surveys of HCCCs have been lacking, and design for their human users is only starting to be addressed. In this review we identified 73 papers describing different kinds of HCCCs, classifying them according to whether they describe virtual or physical control centres, the kinds of situations they handle, and the different levels of Rasmussen's [1] risk management framework that they integrate. Most of the papers (71%) describe physical HCCCs established as control centres, whereas 29% of the papers describe virtual HCCCs staffed by stakeholders in separate locations. Principal functions of the HCCCs described are categorised as business as usual (BAU) (48%), surge management (15%), emergency response (18%), and mass casualty management (19%). The organisation layers that the HCCCs incorporate are classified according to the risk management framework; HCCCs managing BAU involve lower levels of the framework, whereas HCCCs handling the more emergent functions involve all levels. Major challenges confronting HCCCs include the dissemination of information about healthcare system status, and the management of perspectives and goals from different parts of the healthcare system. HCCCs that take the form of physical control centres are just starting to be analysed using human factors principles that will make staff more effective and productive at managing patient flow.

Understanding and managing the risk of "head impact" from in-hospital falls: A cross-sectional analysis of data from 166 public hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a leading cause of preventable harm in the hospitalized elderly, and head impacts (HIs) can be a precursor to serious injury. The aim of this study was to examine if the risk of fall-related HI can be explained by incident characteristics. METHODS: All reported falls across public hospital facilities in the state of Queensland, Australia, over a 2-year period were analyzed using univariate and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: In all, 650 instances of HI were reported across 24 218 falls. Falls due to fainting were associated with elevated HI odds (odds ratio [OR] = 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30, 3.08). Similarly, falls while walking (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.20, 1.81) and falls during certain time periods, namely, from 11:00 pm to midnight (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.24, 2.59) and between 5:00 am and 6:00 am (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.01, 2.22) were linked to increased HI odds. Falls among males were associated with lowered odds of HI (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.64, 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm links between characteristics of inpatient falls and the likelihood of HI, and these data can assist risk managers to better target fall prevention strategies. Assisted mobility in high-risk patients and improved environmental lighting are advanced as foci for future research.

Feasibility of a stepped wedge cluster RCT and concurrent observational sub-study to evaluate the effects of modified ward night lighting on inpatient fall rates and sleep quality: a protocol for a pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Falls among hospitalised patients impose a considerable burden on health systems globally and prevention is a priority. Some patient-level interventions have been effective in reducing falls, but others have not. An alternative and promising approach to reducing inpatient falls is through the modification of the hospital physical environment and the night lighting of hospital wards is a leading candidate for investigation. In this pilot trial, we will determine the feasibility of conducting a main trial to evaluate the effects of modified night lighting on inpatient ward level fall rates. We will test also the feasibility of collecting novel forms of patient level data through a concurrent observational sub-study. METHODS/DESIGN: A stepped wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in six inpatient wards over 14 months in a metropolitan teaching hospital in Brisbane (Australia). The intervention will consist of supplementary night lighting installed across all patient rooms within study wards. The planned placement of luminaires, configurations and spectral characteristics are based on prior published research and pre-trial testing and modification. We will collect data on rates of falls on study wards (falls per 1000 patient days), the proportion of patients who fall once or more, and average length of stay. We will recruit two patients per ward per month to a concurrent observational sub-study aimed at understanding potential impacts on a range of patient sleep and mobility behaviour. The effect on the environment will be monitored with sensors to detect variation in light levels and night-time room activity. We will also collect data on possible patient-level confounders including demographics, pre-admission sleep quality, reported vision, hearing impairment and functional status. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic pilot trial will assess the feasibility of conducting a main trial to investigate the effects of modified night lighting on inpatient fall rates using several new methods previously untested in the context of environmental modifications and patient safety. Pilot data collected through both parts of the trial will be utilised to inform sample size calculations, trial design and final data collection methods for a subsequent main trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12614000615684 (cluster RCT) and ACTRN12614000616673 (observational sub-study). Date Registered: 10 June 2014 (both studies). Protocol version: 1.2 (Dated: 01 June 2014) Anticipated completion: September 2015 Role of Trial Sponsor: The named sponsor for this investigator-initiated trial was the Director of the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (RBWH) Safety and Quality Unit (Therese Lee, Phone: +61 7 3646 8111). The principal investigators, SC and MA, are employed by the RBWH Safety and Quality Unit. The trial sponsor has no involvement in any aspects of study design, conduct or decision to submit the report for publication. AM and MD are employed by other departments in the same organisation.

Point prevalence of suboptimal footwear features among ambulant older hospital patients: implications for fall prevention.

Objective The aim of the present study was to establish the point prevalence of 'suboptimal' features in footwear reported to have been used by older hospital patients when ambulating, and to explore underpinning factors for their choice of footwear. Method A cross-sectional investigation was undertaken on 95 of 149 eligible in-patients across 22 high fall-risk wards in a large metropolitan hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Results Over 70% of participants experienced an unplanned admission. Although most participants had access to some form of footwear in hospital (92%), nearly all reported ambulating in footwear with 'suboptimal' features (99%). Examples included slippers (27%), backless slippers (16%) or bare feet (27%). For patients who ambulated in bare feet, only one-third reported 'lack of access to footwear' as the primary cause, with others citing foot wounds, pain, oedema and personal choice as the main reason for bare foot ambulation. Conclusions Admitted patients frequently use footwear with 'suboptimal' features for ambulation in hospital. While some footwear options (for example well-fitting slippers) could be suited for limited in-hospital ambulation, others are clearly hazardous and might cause falls. Since footwear choices are influenced by multiple factors in this population, footwear education strategies alone may be insufficient to address the problem of hazardous footwear in at-risk patients. Footwear requirements may be more effectively addressed within a multidisciplinary team approach encompassing foot health, mobility and safety. What is known about the topic? Accidental falls while ambulating are an important health and safety concern for older people. Because certain footwear characteristics have been negatively linked to posture and balance, and specific footwear types linked to falls among seniors, the use of footwear with fewer suboptimal characteristics is generally recommended as a means of reducing the risk of falling. While footwear usage and choices have been explored in older people in the community and in residential care settings, there is little comparable data on acutely unwell older hospital patients. What does this paper add? This paper provides prevalence data on the use of footwear with suboptimal characteristics among ambulant older hospital patients, and identifies concurrent factors that may be relevant to patient footwear choices. What are the implications for practitioners? Pain, foot pathology and a desire to retain independence are important concerns for hospitalised patients and are likely to influence their choice of footwear used to ambulate with. Pragmatic team-based approaches that remain sensitive to key patient concerns may be more successful in optimising patient footwear usage than footwear education strategies alone.

Predictors of fracture from falls reported in hospital and residential care facilities: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Fall-related fractures are associated with substantial human and economic costs. An improved understanding of the predictors of fall-related fractures in healthcare settings would be useful in developing future interventions. The objective of this study was to identify such predictors by exploring associations between fall-related factors and fracture outcomes through logistic regression analysis of routinely collected fall incident data. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: 197 public healthcare facilities in Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: We included data from incident reports completed after falls among admitted adult hospital patients (n=24 218 falls, 229 fractures) and aged-care residents (n=8980 falls, 74 fractures) between January 2007 and November 2009. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The outcomes of interest were fall-related predictors of fracture. RESULTS: Hospital patients who reported to have been screened for their risk of falling at admission were less likely to fracture after a fall (OR: 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.89) than those who had not been screened. Further, falls from standing (OR: 2.08, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.55) and falls while walking (OR: 1.86, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.62) were associated with higher fracture odds than falls during other activities. In line with these results, falls while reaching in standing (OR: 3.51, 95% CI 1.44 to 8.56) and falls while walking (OR: 2.11, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.58) were also predictive of fracture in the adjusted residential care model. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that screening of hospital patients for their risk of falling may contribute towards the prevention of fall-related injury. Falls from upright postures appear to be more likely to result in fractures than other falls in healthcare settings. Further prospective research is warranted.

Are non-slip socks really 'non-slip'? An analysis of slip resistance.

BACKGROUND: Non-slip socks have been suggested as a means of preventing accidental falls due to slips. This study compared the relative slip resistance of commercially available non-slip socks with other foot conditions, namely bare feet, compression stockings and conventional socks, in order to determine any traction benefit. METHODS: Phase one involved slip resistance testing of two commercially available non-slip socks and one compression-stocking sample through an independent blinded materials testing laboratory using a Wet Pendulum Test.Phase two of the study involved in-situ testing among healthy adult subjects (n = 3). Subjects stood unsupported on a variable angle, inclined platform topped with hospital grade vinyl, in a range of foot conditions (bare feet, non-slip socks, conventional socks and compression stockings). Inclination was increased incrementally for each condition until slippage of any magnitude was detected. The platform angle was monitored using a spatial orientation tracking sensor and slippage point was recorded on video. RESULTS: Phase one results generated through Wet Pendulum Test suggested that non-slip socks did not offer better traction than compression stockings. However, in phase two, slippage in compression stockings was detected at the lowest angles across all participants. Amongst the foot conditions tested, barefoot conditions produced the highest slip angles for all participants indicating that this foot condition provided the highest slip resistance. CONCLUSION: It is evident that bare feet provide better slip resistance than non-slip socks and therefore might represent a safer foot condition. This study did not explore whether traction provided by bare feet was comparable to 'optimal' footwear such as shoes. However, previous studies have associated barefoot mobilisation with increased falls. Therefore, it is suggested that all patients continue to be encouraged to mobilise in appropriate, well-fitting shoes whilst in hospital. Limitations of this study in relation to the testing method, participant group and sample size are discussed.