Defining Patient Safety Events in Inpatient Psychiatry.

OBJECTIVES: The past 20 years have seen the emergence of a national movement to improve hospital-based healthcare safety in the United States. However, much of the foundational work and subsequent research have neglected inpatient psychiatry. The aim of this article was to advance a comprehensive approach for conceptualizing patient safety in inpatient psychiatry as framed by an application of the Institute of Medicine patient safety framework. METHODS: This article develops a framework for characterizing patient safety in hospital-based mental health care. We discuss some of the conceptual and methodological issues related to defining what constitutes a patient safety event in inpatient psychiatry and then enumerate a comprehensive set of definitions of the types of safety events that occur in this setting. RESULTS: Patient safety events in inpatient psychiatry are broadly categorized as adverse events and medical errors. Adverse events are composed of adverse drug events and nondrug adverse events, including self-harm or injury to self, assault, sexual contact, patient falls, and other injuries. Medical errors include medication errors and nonmedication errors, such as elopement and contraband. We have developed clear definitions that would be appropriate for use in epidemiological studies of inpatient mental health treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatry has not been an integral part of the national safety movement. As a first step toward breaching this chasm, we have considered how psychiatric events fit into the safety framework adopted across much of medicine. Patient safety should become a key part of inpatient psychiatry's mission and pursued rigorously as the subject of research and intervention efforts.

Safety of Psychiatric Inpatients at the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: Although reducing adverse events and medical errors has become a central focus of the U.S. health care system over the past two decades both within and outside the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospital systems, patients treated in psychiatric units of acute care general hospitals have been excluded from major research in this field. METHODS: The study included a random sample of 40 psychiatric units from medical centers in the national VHA system. Standardized abstraction tools were used to assess the electronic health records from 8,005 hospitalizations. Medical record administrators screened the records for the presence of ten specific types of patient safety events, which, when present, were evaluated by physician reviewers to assess whether the event was the result of an error, whether it caused harm, and whether it was preventable. RESULTS: Approximately one in five patients experienced a patient safety event. The most frequently occurring events were medication errors (which include delayed and missed doses) (17.2%), followed by adverse drug events (4.1%), falls (2.8%), and assault (1.0%). Most patient safety events (94.9%) resulted in little harm or no harm, and more than half (56.6%) of the events were deemed preventable. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient safety events in VHA psychiatric inpatient units were relatively common, a great majority of these events resulted in little or no patient harm. Nevertheless, many were preventable, and the study provides data with which to target future initiatives that may improve the safety of this vulnerable patient population.

Adverse events in veterans affairs inpatient psychiatric units: Staff perspectives on contributing and protective factors.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to identify risk factors and protective factors in hospital-based mental health settings in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), with the goal of informing interventions to improve care of persons with serious mental illness. METHODS: Twenty key informants from a stratified sample of 7 VHA inpatient psychiatric units were interviewed to gain their insights on causes of patient safety events and the factors that constrain or facilitate patient safety efforts. RESULTS: Respondents identified threats to patient safety at the system-, provider-, and patient-levels. Protective factors that, when in place, made patient safety events less likely to occur included: promoting a culture of safety; advocating for patient-centeredness; and engaging administrators and organizational leadership to champion these changes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the impact of systems-level policies and procedures on safety in inpatient mental health care. Engaging all stakeholders, including patients, in patient safety efforts and establishing a culture of safety will help improve the quality of inpatient psychiatric care. Successful implementation of changes require the knowledge of local experts most closely involved in patient care, as well as support and buy-in from organizational leadership.

Impact of a work-focused intervention on the productivity and symptoms of employees with depression.

OBJECTIVE: To test a new program's effectiveness in reducing depression's work burden. METHODS: A brief telephonic program to improve work functioning was tested in an early-stage randomized controlled trial involving 79 Maine State Government employees who were screened in for depression and at-work limitations (treatment group = 59; usual care group = 27). Group differences in baseline to follow-up change scores on the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), WLQ Absence Module, and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression severity scale were tested with analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Although there were no baseline group differences (P ≥ 0.05), by follow-up, the treatment group had significantly better scores on every outcome and differences in the longitudinal changes were all statistically significant (P = 0.0.27 to 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The new program was superior to usual care. The estimated productivity cost savings is $6041.70 per participant annually.

Barriers and strategies for improving communication between inpatient and outpatient mental health clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: To explore hospital leaders' perceptions of organisational factors as barriers and/or facilitators in improving inpatient-outpatient (IP-OP) communication. DESIGN: Semistructured in-person interviews. ANALYSIS: Constant comparative method of qualitative data. SETTING: Inpatient psychiatry units in 33 general medical/surgical and specialty psychiatric hospitals in California and Massachusetts (USA). PARTICIPANTS: Psychiatry chair/chief, service director or medical director. VARIABLES: Importance to leadership, resources, organisational structure and culture. RESULTS: A majority of hospital leaders rated the IP-OP communication objective as highly or moderately important. Hospitals with good IP-OP communication had structures in place to support communication or had changed/implemented new procedures to enhance communication, and anticipated clinicians would 'buy in' to the goal of improved communication. Hospitals reporting no improvement efforts were less likely to have structures supporting IP-OP communication, anticipated resistance among clinicians and reported a need for technological resources such as electronic health records, integrated IT and secure online communication. Most leaders reported a need for additional staff time and information, knowledge or data. CONCLUSIONS: For many hospitals, successfully improving communication will require overcoming organisational barriers such as cultures not conducive to change and lack of resources and infrastructure. Creating a culture that values communication at discharge may help improve outcomes following hospitalisation, but changes in healthcare delivery in the past few decades may necessitate new strategies or changes at the systems level to address barriers to effective communication.

The Stroke Practice Improvement Network: a quasiexperimental trial of a multifaceted intervention to improve quality.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to determine whether a tailored multifaceted intervention aimed at site-specific barriers is more effective than audit feedback alone for improving adherence to inhospital stroke performance measures (PMs): door to needle time of less than 1 hour for tissue plasminogen activator, dysphagia screening, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, and warfarin treatment for atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Hospitals were paired on baseline adherence to dysphagia screening and quality improvement infrastructure and randomized to receive audit feedback alone (n=7) versus audit feedback plus site-specific interventions (n=6). Data were collected on all admitted patients with stroke seen in the neurology department before and after a 6-month implementation period. The primary end point was the difference in postintervention adherence rates for each PM, except tissue plasminogen activator because of low sample size. RESULTS: Data were collected on 2071 preintervention patients and 1240 postintervention patients. Targeted site-specific interventions, such as standing orders and standardized dysphagia screens, were imperfectly implemented during the 6-month intervention period. For atrial fibrillation, the intervention group had an 11% higher postintervention adherence rate beyond that of the control group (98% v 87%, P < .005). No other statistically significant changes in PM adherence were observed. CONCLUSION: Implementation of site-specific interventions for quality improvement of specific measures in stroke was difficult to achieve in a 6-month time frame and led to improved adherence for only one of 3 PMs. Studies with a longer intervention period and more sites are required to determine whether tailored interventions can enhance stroke improvement.

Financial incentives and accountability for integrated medical care in Department of Veterans Affairs mental health programs.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the extent to which mental health leaders perceive their programs as being primarily accountable for monitoring general medical conditions among patients with serious mental illness, and it assessed associations with modifiable health system factors. METHODS: As part of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 2007 national Mental Health Program Survey, 108 mental health program directors were queried regarding program characteristics. Perceived accountability was defined as whether their providers, as opposed to external general medical providers, were primarily responsible for specific clinical tasks related to serious mental illness treatment or high-risk behaviors. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether financial incentives or other system factors were associated with accountability. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of programs reported primary accountability for monitoring diabetes and cardiovascular risk after prescription of second-generation antipsychotics, 10% for hepatitis C screening, and 17% for obesity screening and weight management. In addition, 18% and 27% of program leaders, respectively, received financial bonuses for high performance for screening for risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease and for alcohol misuse. Financial bonuses for diabetes and cardiovascular screening were associated with primary accountability for such screening (odds ratio=5.01, p<.05). Co-location of general medical providers was associated with greater accountability for high-risk behavior screening or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives to improve quality performance may promote accountability in monitoring diabetes and cardiovascular risk assessment within mental health programs. Integrated care strategies (co-location) might be needed to promote management of high-risk behaviors among patients with serious mental illness.

When is antipsychotic polypharmacy supported by research evidence? Implications for QI.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent use of multiple standing antipsychotics (antipsychotic polypharmacy) is increasingly common among both inpatients and outpatients. Although this has often been cited as a potential quality-of-care problem, reviews of research evidence on antipsychotic polypharmacy have not distinguished between appropriate versus inappropriate use. METHODS: A MEDLINE search from 1966 to December 2007 was completed to identify studies comparing changes in symptoms, functioning, and/or side effects between patients treated with multiple antipsychotics and patients treated with a single antipsychotic. The studies were reviewed in two groups on the basis of whether prescribing was concordant with guideline recommendations for multiple-antipsychotic use. RESULTS: A review of the literature, including three randomized controlled trials, found no support for the use of antipsychotic polypharmacy in patients without an established history of treatment resistance to multiple trials of monotherapy. In patients with a history of treatment resistance to multiple monotherapy trials, limited data support antipsychotic polypharmacy, but positive outcomes were primarily found in studies of clozapine augmented with a second-generation antipsychotic. DISCUSSION: Research evidence is consistent with the goal of avoiding antipsychotic polypharmacy in patients who lack guideline-recommended indications for its use. The Joint Commission is implementing a core measure set for Hospital-Based Inpatient Psychiatric Services. Two of the measures address antipsychotic polypharmacy. The first measure assesses the overall rate. The second measure determines whether clinically appropriate justification has been documented supporting the use of more than one antipsychotic medication.

Development of evidence-based performance measures for bipolar disorder: overview of methodology.

The STAndards for BipoLar Excellence (STABLE) Project was organized in 2005 to improve quality of care for bipolar disorder by developing and testing a set of evidence-based clinical process performance measures related to identifying, assessing, managing, and coordinating care for bipolar disorder. This article first briefly reviews the literature on the science of performance measurement and the use of performance measures as a tool for quality improvement. It then presents a detailed overview of the methodology used to develop the STABLE performance measures. Steps included choosing a clinical area to be measured, selecting key aspects of care for measurement, designing specifications for the measures, developing a data collection strategy, testing the scientific strength (validity, reliability, feasibility) of the measures, and obtaining, analyzing, and reporting conformance findings for the measures. Five of the STABLE measures have been endorsed by the National Quality Forum as part of their Standardizing Ambulatory Care Performance Measures project: screening for bipolar mania/hypomania in patients diagnosed with depression, assessment for risk of suicide, assessment for substance use, screening for hyperglycemia when atypical antipsychotic agents are prescribed, and monitoring change in level of functioning in response to treatment. Additional STABLE measures will be submitted to appropriate national organizations in the future. It is hoped that these measures will be used in quality assessment activities and that the results will inform efforts to improve care for individuals with bipolar disorder.

Risk-adjusting outcomes of mental health and substance-related care: a review of the literature.

Risk adjustment is increasingly recognized as crucial to refining health care reimbursement and to comparing provider performance in terms of quality and outcomes of care. Risk adjustment for mental and substance use conditions has lagged behind other areas of medicine, but model development specific to these conditions has accelerated in recent years. After describing outcomes of mental health and substance-related care and associated risk factors, we review research studies on risk adjustment meeting the following criteria: (1) publication in a peer-reviewed journal between 1980 and 2002, (2) evaluation of one or more multivariate models used to risk-adjust comparisons of utilization, cost, or clinical outcomes of mental or substance use conditions across providers, and (3) quantitative assessment of the proportion of variance explained by patient characteristics in the model (e.g., R(2) or c-statistic). We identified 36 articles that included 72 models addressing utilization, 74 models of expenditures, and 15 models of clinical outcomes. Models based on diagnostic and sociodemographic information available from administrative data sets explained an average 6.7% of variance, whereas models using more detailed sources of data explained a more robust 22.8%. Results are appraised in the context of the mental health care system's needs for risk adjustment; we assess what has been accomplished, where gaps remain, and directions for future development.

Statistical benchmarks for process measures of quality of care for mental and substance use disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Benchmarks, representing the level of performance achieved by the best-performing providers, can be used to set achievable goals for improving care, but they have not heretofore been available for mental health care. This article describes the application of a method for developing statistical benchmarks for 12 process measures of quality of care for mental and substance use disorders. METHODS: Twelve quality measures--taken from a core measure set selected by a multistakeholder panel through a formal consensus process--were constructed from 1994-1995 administrative data on care received by Medicaid beneficiaries in six states. Conformance rates were calculated at the provider level and presented as means, 90th-percentile results, and statistical benchmarks. Sample sizes for each measure ranged from 356 to 4,494 providers and from 1,205 to 78,627 cases. Three measures involved antidepressant treatment, two involved antipsychotic treatment, and one involved mood stabilizers for bipolar disorder. Six other measures involved follow-up treatment visits. RESULTS: Benchmarks for provider-level performance ranged from 59.7 percent to 97.7 percent, markedly higher than the mean results, which ranged from 9.4 percent to 65.4 percent. Benchmark results varied widely-in contrast to results for these measures at the 90th percentile of providers and in contrast to performance standards that apply the same numerical goal across varied clinical processes. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical benchmarks can be applied to results from quality assessment of mental health care. Further research should examine whether incorporating benchmarks into quality improvement activities leads to better mental health care and substance-related care and improved outcomes.

Quality indicators for international benchmarking of mental health care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify quality measures for international benchmarking of mental health care that assess important processes and outcomes of care, are scientifically sound, and are feasible to construct from preexisting data. DESIGN: An international expert panel employed a consensus development process to select important, sound, and feasible measures based on a framework that balances these priorities with the additional goal of assessing the breadth of mental health care across key dimensions. PARTICIPANTS: Six countries and one international organization nominated seven panelists consisting of mental health administrators, clinicians, and services researchers with expertise in quality of care, epidemiology, public health, and public policy. Measures. Measures with a final median score of at least 7.0 for both importance and soundness, and data availability rated as 'possible' or better in at least half of participating countries, were included in the final set. Measures with median scores

Aligning measurement-based quality improvement with implementation of evidence-based practices.

Two models for improving quality of care have been adopted by segments of the US mental healthcare system. Measurement-based quality improvement (MBQI) is routinely conducted by many provider organizations (including practices, hospitals and health plans), either at their own initiative or at the behest of payers and oversight organizations. Systematic implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) is being undertaken by several state mental health authorities and by other systems of care, working in collaboration with services researchers and stakeholders. Although they are distinct approaches, MBQI and EBP implementation (EBPI) overlap in their objectives and means. This article explores the degree to which these two approaches are aligned and whether further coordination between them could yield greater effectiveness or efficiency.

How and why community hospital clinicians document a positive screen for intimate partner violence: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This two-part study examines primary care clinicians' chart documentation and attitudes when confronted by a positive waiting room screen for intimate partner violence (IPV). METHODS: Patients at community hospital-affiliated health centers completed a screening questionnaire in waiting rooms that primary care providers (PCPs) were subsequently given at the time of the visit. We first reviewed the medical records of patients who screened positive for IPV, evaluating the presence and quality of documentation. Next we administered a survey to PCPs that measured their knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding IPV. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of charts contained some documentation of IPV, however only 10% contained both a referral and safety plan. PCPs were more likely to refer patients (p < .05) who screened positively for mood or anxiety disorders, disclosed that they feared for their safety or were economically disadvantaged. Those that feared for their safety or endorsed mood or anxiety disorders were more likely to have notation of a safety plan in their records. When surveyed, 81.6% of clinicians strongly agreed that it is their role to inquire about IPV, but only 68% expressed confidence in their ability to manage it. In contrast, 93% expressed confidence in managing depression. Sixty-seven percent identified time constraints as a barrier to care. Predictors of PCP confidence in treating patients who have experienced IPV (p < .05) included hours of recent training and clinical experience with IPV. CONCLUSION: Mandatory waiting room screening for IPV does not result in high levels of referral or safety planning by PCPs. Despite the implementation of a screening process, clinicians lack confidence and time to address IPV in their patient populations suggesting that alternative methods of training and supporting PCPs need to be developed.

Clinical improvement associated with conformance to HEDIS-based depression care.

BACKGROUND: Employers recently requested a valid metric of depression treatment quality. Such an indicator needs to measure the proportion of the population in need who receive high-quality care, and to predict clinical improvement. METHODS: We constructed an administrative database indicator derived from HEDIS criteria for antidepressant medication management, and tested it in 230 employed patients in five health plans. RESULTS: Indicator rates were 7.0% in the population in need. Conformance to indicator criteria in this population was associated with 23.0% improvement in depression severity over 1 year (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Administrative database indicators that predict clinical improvement are a very rare accomplishment. Existing depression indicators may need to be calculated for the population in need to provide a valid metric for employer purchasers.

Cost-utility analysis studies of depression management: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Depression is common, costly, treatable, and a major influence on quality of life. Cost-utility analysis combines costs with quantity and quality of life into a metric that is meaningful for studies of interventions or care strategies and is directly comparable to measures in other such studies. The objectives of this study were to identify published cost-utility analyses of depression screening, pharmacologic treatment, nonpharmacologic therapy, and care management; to summarize the results of these studies in an accessible format; to examine the analytic methods employed; and to identify areas in the depression literature that merit cost-utility analysis. METHOD: The authors selected articles regarding cost-utility analysis of depression management from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Characteristics of the publications, including study methods and analysis, were examined. Cost-utility ratios for interventions were arranged in a league table. RESULTS: Of the 539 cost-utility analyses in the registry, nine (1.7%) were of depression management. Methods for determining utilities and the source of the data varied. Markov models or cohort simulations were the most common analytic techniques. Pharmacologic interventions generally had lower costs per quality-adjusted life year than nonpharmacologic interventions. Psychotherapy alone, care management alone, and psychotherapy plus care management all had lower costs per quality-adjusted life year than usual care. Depression screening and treatment appeared to fall within the cost-utility ranges accepted for common nonpsychiatric medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on cost-utility analysis of depression management. High-quality cost-utility analysis should be considered for further research in depression management.

Achieving consensus across diverse stakeholders on quality measures for mental healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: Quality-improvement efforts are hindered by a lack of consensus on meaningful and feasible measures of care. The objective of this study was to develop a core set of quality measures for mental health and substance-related care that are meaningful to stakeholders, feasible to implement, and broadly representative of diverse dimensions of the mental health system. METHOD: A 12-member panel of stakeholders from national organizations evaluated 116 process measures in a 2-stage modified Delphi consensus development process. Drawing on a conceptual framework and literature review, panelists rated each measure on 7 domains using a 9-point scale (1 = best). Measures were then mapped to a framework of system dimensions to identify a core set with the highest ratings for system characteristics within each dimension. RESULTS: Twenty-eight measures were identified assessing treatment (12), access (2), assessment (2), continuity (4), coordination (2), prevention (1), and safety (5). Overall, mean ratings for meaningfulness were: clinical importance 2.29; perceived gap between actual and optimal care 2.59; association between improved performance and outcome 2.61. For feasibility, mean ratings were clarity of specifications 3.39; acceptability of data collection burden 4.77; and adequacy of case mix adjustment 4.20. The measures address a range of treatment modalities, clinical settings, diagnostic categories, vulnerable populations, and other dimensions of mental healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: A structured consensus process identified a core set of quality measures that are meaningful and feasible to multiple stakeholders, as well as broadly representative of the mental healthcare system. By yielding quantitative assessments of meaningfulness, feasibility and degree of consensus among stakeholders, these results can inform ongoing national efforts to adopt common quality measures for mental healthcare.

Do women who screen positive for mental disorders in primary care have lower mammography rates?

Disparities in mammography rates have been documented for underserved populations, yet no data are available for women with mental illness in primary care settings. We analyzed data on mammography rates for 526 women age 40-70 who were new patients and completed the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD). There were no significant differences in mammography rates among women who screened negative and positive for any mental illness (56% and 53%, respectively). Screening for mental disorders in primary care does not appear to identify women at risk for nonreceipt of mammography.

Guideline recommendations for treatment of schizophrenia: the impact of managed care.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid-managed care has been shown to reduce the number and length of psychiatric hospitalizations, but little is known about the clinical and social consequences of such managed care programs. The purpose of this study was to compare the treatment of schizophrenia for disabled Medicaid beneficiaries who were and were not enrolled in managed care. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients who sought care for a psychiatric crisis from June 7, 1997, to May 13, 1999. Patients were followed up for 6 months. Inpatient and outpatient mental health facilities in Massachusetts were studied. The participants included 420 adult Medicaid beneficiaries, aged 24 to 64 years, who were treated for schizophrenia; 784 eligible beneficiaries were originally contacted and invited to participate (53.6% response). A private managed behavioral health care organization administered the Medicaid mental health benefit for about half the patients in the study. The other half were enrolled in the dually insured fee-for-service Medicare/Medicaid plan. The main outcome measures were adherence to the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team treatment recommendations from inpatient and outpatient medical records, self-reported quality of interpersonal interactions between patient and clinician, self-reported care experiences and outcomes, and clinician-reported outcomes. RESULTS: There were no differences between the managed care plan and the unmanaged fee-for-service plan in adherence to the schizophrenia treatment guidelines. However, much outpatient care in both programs was inconsistent with treatment guidelines. Inpatient treatment was far more likely to conform to guidelines than outpatient treatment. Patient ratings of their care were positive and not different between plans. Clinical outcome and health-related quality of life were not different between plans. CONCLUSIONS: A major change in Massachusetts in the way mental health care is organized and financed had neither a negative nor a positive effect on care quality. However, adherence to nationally accepted guidelines for care was only modest, suggesting a need to improve the delivery of treatment to the most disabled highest-risk adults with schizophrenia.