Reducing and Sustaining Duplicate Medical Record Creation by Usability Testing and System Redesign.

OBJECTIVES: Duplicate medical record creation is a common and consequential health care systems error often caused by poor search system usability and inappropriate user training. METHODS: We conducted two phases of scenario-based usability testing with patient registrars working in areas at risk of generating duplicate medical records. Phase 1 evaluated the existing search system, which led to system redesigns. Phase 2 tested the redesigned system to mitigate potential errors before health system-wide implementation. To evaluate system effectiveness, we compared the monthly potential duplicate medical record rates for preimplementation and postimplementation months. RESULTS: The existing system could not effectively handle a misspelling, which led to failed search and duplicate medical record creation. Using the existing system, 96% of registrars found commonly spelled patient names whereas only 69% successfully found complicated names. Registrars lacked knowledge and usage of a phonetic matching function to assist in misspelling. The new system consistently captured the correct patient regardless of misspelling, but search returned more potential matches, resulting in, on average, 4 seconds longer to select common names. Potential monthly duplicate medical record rate reduced by 38%, from 4% to 2.3% after implementation of the new system, and has sustained at an average of 2.5% for 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Usability testing was an effective method to reveal problems and aid system redesign to deliver a more user friendly system, hence reducing the potential for medical record duplication. Greater standards for usability would ensure that these improvements can be realized before rather than after exposing patients to risks.

Learning From Lawsuits: Using Malpractice Claims Data to Develop Care Transitions Planning Tools.

OBJECTIVES: Our understanding of care transitions from hospital to home is incomplete. Malpractice claims are an important and underused data source to understand such transitions. We used malpractice claims data to (1) evaluate safety risks during care transitions and (2) help develop care transitions planning tools and pilot test their ability to evaluate care transitions from the hospital to home. METHODS: Closed malpractice claims were analyzed for 230 adult patients discharged from 4 hospital sites. Stakeholders participated in 2 structured focus groups to review concerns. This led to the development of 2 care transitions planning tools-one for patients/caregivers and one for frontline care providers. Both were tested for feasibility on 53 patient discharges. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis yielded 33 risk factors corresponding to hospital work system elements, care transitions processes, and care outcomes. Providers reported that the tool was easy to use and did not adversely affect workflow. Patients reported that the tool was acceptable in terms of length and response burden. Patients were often still waiting for information at the time they applied the tool. CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice claims provided insights that enriched our understanding of suboptimal care transitions and guided the development of care transitions planning tools. Pilot testing suggested that the tools would be feasible for use with minor adjustment. The malpractice data can complement other approaches to characterize systems failures threatening patient safety.

A framework for operationalizing risk: A practical approach to patient safety.

The importance of patient safety has grown tremendously; however, there are insufficient resources dedicated to its practical application. We provide an overview of the framework for addressing patient safety within the Johns Hopkins Health System, which approaches patient safety in the context of risk at the patient, provider, unit, and system levels. We present practical examples of how this approach is applied and highlight the resources needed as well as describe how it fits within the broader quality management infrastructure in the health system on its journey toward high reliability.

Latent risk assessment tool for health care leaders.

Efforts to improve quality of care and patient safety have concentrated on provider practice and frontline care processes. Little attention has focused on understanding the role that leadership decisions play in creating risk within a health care system. The framework and tool described in this article builds on Reason's construct of latent organizational failure, by assessing the latent risks of leadership decisions, and identifying appropriate mitigation strategies before the implementation of a change. Stakeholders who will be involved in or impacted by the change are engaged in the assessment to more thoroughly explore both technical and cultural risks.

Improving Health Care Quality and Patient Safety Through Peer-to-Peer Assessment: Demonstration Project in Two Academic Medical Centers.

Despite decades of investment in patient safety, unintentional patient harm remains a major challenge in the health care industry. Peer-to-peer assessment in the nuclear industry has been shown to reduce harm. The study team's goal was to pilot and assess the feasibility of this approach in health care. The team developed tools and piloted a peer-to-peer assessment at 2 academic hospitals: Massachusetts General Hospital and Johns Hopkins Hospital. The assessment evaluated both the institutions' organizational approach to quality and safety as well as their approach to reducing 2 specific areas of patient harm. Site visits were completed and consisted of semistructured interviews with institutional leaders and clinical staff as well as direct patient observations using audit tools. Reports with recommendations were well received and each institution has developed improvement plans. The study team believes that peer-to-peer assessment in health care has promise and warrants consideration for wider adoption.

A Model for the Departmental Quality Management Infrastructure Within an Academic Health System.

As quality improvement and patient safety come to play a larger role in health care, academic medical centers and health systems are poised to take a leadership role in addressing these issues. Academic medical centers can leverage their large integrated footprint and have the ability to innovate in this field. However, a robust quality management infrastructure is needed to support these efforts. In this context, quality and safety are often described at the executive level and at the unit level. Yet, the role of individual departments, which are often the dominant functional unit within a hospital, in realizing health system quality and safety goals has not been addressed. Developing a departmental quality management infrastructure is challenging because departments are diverse in composition, size, resources, and needs.In this article, the authors describe the model of departmental quality management infrastructure that has been implemented at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. This model leverages the fractal approach, linking departments horizontally to support peer and organizational learning and connecting departments vertically to support accountability to the hospital, health system, and board of trustees. This model also provides both structure and flexibility to meet individual departmental needs, recognizing that independence and interdependence are needed for large academic medical centers. The authors describe the structure, function, and support system for this model as well as the practical and essential steps for its implementation. They also provide examples of its early success.

Defining the critical role of nurses in diagnostic error prevention: a conceptual framework and a call to action.

Nurses have always been involved in the diagnostic process, but there remains a pervasive view across physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals that medical diagnosis is solely a physician responsibility. There is an urgent need to adjust this view and for nurses to take part in leading efforts addressing diagnostic errors. The purpose of this article is to define a framework for nursing engagement in the diagnostic process that can serve as a catalyst for nurses to engage in eliminating preventable harms from diagnostic error. We offer a conceptual model to formalize and expand nurses' engagement in the diagnostic process through education, maximize effectiveness of interprofessional teamwork and communication through culture change, and leverage the nursing mission to empower patients to become active members of the diagnostic team. We describe the primary barriers, including culture, education, operations, and regulations, to nurses participating as full, equal members of the diagnostic team, and illustrate our approach to addressing these barriers. Nurses already play a major role in diagnosis and increasingly take ownership of this role, removing barriers will strengthen nurses' ability to be equal, integral diagnostic team members. This model should serve as a foundation for increasing the role of the nurse in the diagnostic process, and calling nurses to take action in leading efforts to reduce diagnostic error.

Implementing the RISE second victim support programme at the Johns Hopkins Hospital: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Second victims are healthcare workers who experience emotional distress following patient adverse events. Studies indicate the need to develop organisational support programmes for these workers. The RISE (Resilience In Stressful Events) programme was developed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital to provide this support. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of RISE and evaluate its initial feasibility and subsequent implementation. Programme phases included (1) developing the RISE programme, (2) recruiting and training peer responders, (3) pilot launch in the Department of Paediatrics and (4) hospital-wide implementation. METHODS: Mixed-methods study, including frequency counts of encounters, staff surveys and evaluations by RISE peer responders. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise demographic characteristics and proportions of responses to categorical, Likert and ordinal scales. Qualitative analysis and coding were used to analyse open-ended responses from questionnaires and focus groups. RESULTS: A baseline staff survey found that most staff had experienced an unanticipated adverse event, and most would prefer peer support. A total of 119 calls, involving ∼500 individuals, were received in the first 52 months. The majority of calls were from nurses, and very few were related to medical errors (4%). Peer responders reported that the encounters were successful in 88% of cases and 83.3% reported meeting the caller's needs. Low awareness of the programme was a barrier to hospital-wide expansion. However, over the 4 years, the rate of calls increased from ∼1-4 calls per month. The programme evolved to accommodate requests for group support. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital staff identified the need for a multidisciplinary peer support programme for second victims. Peer responders reported success in responding to calls, the majority of which were for adverse events rather than for medical errors. The low initial volume of calls emphasises the importance of promoting awareness of the value of emotional support and the availability of the programme.

Associations between safety culture and employee engagement over time: a retrospective analysis.

With the growth of the patient safety movement and development of methods to measure workforce health and success have come multiple modes of assessing healthcare worker opinions and attitudes about work and the workplace. Safety culture, a group-level measure of patient safety-related norms and behaviours, has been proposed to influence a variety of patient safety outcomes. Employee engagement, conceptualised as a positive, work-related mindset including feelings of vigour, dedication and absorption in one's work, has also demonstrated an association with a number of important worker outcomes in healthcare. To date, the relationship between responses to these two commonly used measures has been poorly characterised. Our study used secondary data analysis to assess the relationship between safety culture and employee engagement over time in a sample of >50 inpatient hospital units in a large US academic health system. With >2000 respondents in each of three time periods assessed, we found moderate to strong positive correlations (r=0.43-0.69) between employee engagement and four Safety Attitudes Questionnaire domains. Independent collection of these two assessments may have limited our analysis in that minimally different inclusion criteria resulted in some differences in the total respondents to the two instruments. Our findings, nevertheless, suggest a key area in which healthcare quality improvement efforts might be streamlined.

The Armstrong Institute: An Academic Institute for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement, Research, Training, and Practice.

Academic medical centers (AMCs) could advance the science of health care delivery, improve patient safety and quality improvement, and enhance value, but many centers have fragmented efforts with little accountability. Johns Hopkins Medicine, the AMC under which the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Health System are organized, experienced similar challenges, with operational patient safety and quality leadership separate from safety and quality-related research efforts. To unite efforts and establish accountability, the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality was created in 2011.The authors describe the development, purpose, governance, function, and challenges of the institute to help other AMCs replicate it and accelerate safety and quality improvement. The purpose is to partner with patients, their loved ones, and all interested parties to end preventable harm, continuously improve patient outcomes and experience, and eliminate waste in health care. A governance structure was created, with care mapped into seven categories, to oversee the quality and safety of all patients treated at a Johns Hopkins Medicine entity. The governance has a Patient Safety and Quality Board Committee that sets strategic goals, and the institute communicates these goals throughout the health system and supports personnel in meeting these goals. The institute is organized into 13 functional councils reflecting their behaviors and purpose. The institute works daily to build the capacity of clinicians trained in safety and quality through established programs, advance improvement science, and implement and evaluate interventions to improve the quality of care and safety of patients.

The power of involving house staff in quality improvement: an interdisciplinary house staff-driven vaccination initiative.

Immunization for influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia were incorporated into The Joint Commission "global immunization" core measure January 1, 2012. The authors' hospital chose to adhere strictly to guidelines to avoid overvaccination. An immunization order set was created to aid appropriate ordering practices. In spite of this effort, compliance rates remained below the goal. The objective was to improve compliance with inpatient vaccination core measures to >96%. An educational slide set was created and distributed by the Housestaff Patient Safety and Quality Council (HPSQC). A competition was established among departments. Finally, the HPSQC partnered with quality improvement staff to improve communication and optimize concurrent review processes. The average compliance prior to the HPSQC vaccination initiative was 78% for pneumococcal pneumonia and 84% for influenza; average compliance in the months following the intervention was 96% and 97.5%, respectively. This project yielded significant improvement in compliance with vaccination core measures.

Republished: development and evaluation of a 3-day patient safety curriculum to advance knowledge, self-efficacy and system thinking among medical students.

PURPOSE: To develop a patient safety curriculum and evaluate its impact on medical students' safety knowledge, self-efficacy and system thinking. METHODS: This study reports on curriculum development and evaluation of a 3-day, clinically oriented patient safety intersession that was implemented at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in January 2011. Using simulation, skills demonstrations, small group exercises and case studies, this intersession focuses on improving students' teamwork and communication skills and system-based thinking while teaching on the causes of preventable harm and evidence-based strategies for harm prevention. One hundred and twenty students participated in this intersession as part of their required second year curriculum. A pre-post assessment of students' safety knowledge, self-efficacy in safety skills and system-based thinking was conducted. Student satisfaction data were also collected. RESULTS: Students' safety knowledge scores significantly improved (mean +19% points; 95% CI 17.0 to 21.6; p<0.01). Composite system thinking scores increased from a mean pre-intersession score of 60.1 to a post-intersession score of 67.6 (p<0.01). Students had statistically significant increases in self-efficacy for all taught communication and safety skills. Participant satisfaction with the intersession was high. CONCLUSIONS: The patient safety intersession resulted in increased knowledge, system-based thinking, and self-efficacy scores among students. Similar intersessions can be implemented at medical, nursing, pharmacy and other allied health schools separately or jointly as part of required school curricula. Further study of the long-term impact of such education on knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours of students is warranted.

Development and evaluation of a 3-day patient safety curriculum to advance knowledge, self-efficacy and system thinking among medical students.

PURPOSE: To develop a patient safety curriculum and evaluate its impact on medical students' safety knowledge, self-efficacy and system thinking. METHODS: This study reports on curriculum development and evaluation of a 3-day, clinically oriented patient safety intersession that was implemented at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in January 2011. Using simulation, skills demonstrations, small group exercises and case studies, this intersession focuses on improving students' teamwork and communication skills and system-based thinking while teaching on the causes of preventable harm and evidence-based strategies for harm prevention. One hundred and twenty students participated in this intersession as part of their required second year curriculum. A pre-post assessment of students' safety knowledge, self-efficacy in safety skills and system-based thinking was conducted. Student satisfaction data were also collected. RESULTS: Students' safety knowledge scores significantly improved (mean +19% points; 95% CI 17.0 to 21.6; p<0.01). Composite system thinking scores increased from a mean pre-intersession score of 60.1 to a post-intersession score of 67.6 (p<0.01). Students had statistically significant increases in self-efficacy for all taught communication and safety skills. Participant satisfaction with the intersession was high. CONCLUSIONS: The patient safety intersession resulted in increased knowledge, system-based thinking, and self-efficacy scores among students. Similar intersessions can be implemented at medical, nursing, pharmacy and other allied health schools separately or jointly as part of required school curricula. Further study of the long-term impact of such education on knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours of students is warranted.