TAILR (Nursing-Sensitive Events and Their Association With Individual Nurse Staffing Levels) Project: Protocol for an International Longitudinal Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Nursing-sensitive events (NSEs) are common, accounting for up to 77% of adverse events in hospitalized patients (eg, fall-related harm, pressure ulcers, and health care-associated infections). NSEs lead to adverse patient outcomes and impose an economic burden on hospitals due to increased medical costs through a prolonged hospital stay and additional medical procedures. To reduce NSEs and ensure high-quality nursing care, appropriate nurse staffing levels are needed. Although the link between nurse staffing and NSEs has been described in many studies, appropriate nurse staffing levels are lacking. Existing studies describe constant staffing exposure at the unit or hospital level without assessing patient-level exposure to nurse staffing during the hospital stay. Few studies have assessed nurse staffing and patient outcomes using a single-center longitudinal design, with limited generalizability. There is a need for multicenter longitudinal studies with improved potential for generalizing the association between individual nurse staffing levels and NSEs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed (1) to determine the prevalence, preventability, type, and severity of NSEs; (2) to describe individual patient-level nurse staffing exposure across hospitals; (3) to assess the effect of nurse staffing on NSEs in patients; and (4) to identify thresholds of safe nurse staffing levels and test them against NSEs in hospitalized patients. METHODS: This international multicenter study uses a longitudinal and observational research design; it involves 4 countries (Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, and Iran), with participation from 14 hospitals and 61 medical, surgery, and mixed units. The 16-week observation period will collect NSEs using systematic retrospective record reviews. A total of 3680 patient admissions will be reviewed, with 60 randomly selected admissions per unit. To be included, patients must have been hospitalized for at least 48 hours. Nurse staffing data (ie, the number of nurses and their education level) will be collected daily for each shift to assess the association between NSEs and individual nurse staffing levels. Additionally, hospital data (ie, type, teaching status, and ownership) and unit data (ie, service line and number of beds) will be collected. RESULTS: As of January 2024, the verification process for the plausibility and comprehensibility of patients' and nurse staffing data is underway across all 4 countries. Data analyses are planned to be completed by spring 2024, with the first results expected to be published in late 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide comprehensive information on NSEs, including their prevalence, preventability, type, and severity, across countries. Moreover, it seeks to enhance understanding of NSE mechanisms and the potential impact of nurse staffing on these events. We will evaluate within- and between-hospital variability to identify productive strategies to ensure safe nurse staffing levels, thereby reducing NSEs in hospitalized patients. The TAILR (Nursing-Sensitive Events and Their Association With Individual Nurse Staffing Levels) study will focus on the optimization of scarce staffing resources. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56262.

Timing of adverse events in patients undergoing acute and elective hip arthroplasty surgery: a multicentre cohort study using the Global Trigger Tool.

OBJECTIVE: To explore timing in relation to all types of adverse events (AEs), severity and preventability for patients undergoing acute and elective hip arthroplasty. DESIGN: A multicentre cohort study using retrospective record review with Global Trigger Tool methodology in combination with data from several registers. SETTING: 24 hospitals in 4 major regions of Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥18 years, undergoing acute or elective total or hemiarthroplasty of the hip, were eligible for inclusion. Reviews of weighted samples of 1998 randomly selected patient records were carried out using Global Trigger Tool methodology. The patients were followed for readmissions up to 90 days postoperatively throughout the whole country. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 667 acute and 1331 elective patients. Most AEs occurred perioperatively and postoperatively (n=2093, 99.1%) and after discharge (n=1142, 54.1%). The median time from the day of surgery to the occurrence of AE was 8 days. The median days for different AE types ranged from 0 to 24.5 for acute and 0 to 71 for elective patients and peaked during different time periods. 40.2% of the AEs, both major and minor, occurred within postoperative days 0-5 and 86.9% of the AEs occurred within 30 days. Most of the AEs were deemed to be of major severity (n=1370, 65.5%) or preventable (n=1591, 76%). CONCLUSIONS: A wide variability was found regarding the timing of different AEs with the majority occurring within 30 days. The timing and preventability varied regarding the severity. Most of the AEs were deemed to be preventable and/or of major severity. To increase patient safety for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty surgery, a better understanding of the multifaceted nature of the timing of AEs in relation to the occurrence of differing AEs is needed.

Identifying neonatal adverse events in preterm and term infants using a paediatric trigger tool.

AIM: To explore the incidence and characteristics of inpatient neonatal adverse events in a Swedish setting. METHODS: A retrospective record review, using a trigger tool, performed by registered nurses and a neonatologist, at a University Hospital. The identified adverse events were categorised by, for example, preventability, severity and time of occurrence. RESULTS: A random selection of 150 admissions representing 3531 patient days were reviewed (mean [SD] birthweight 2620 [1120]g). Three hundred and sixty adverse events were identified in 78 (52.0%) infants, and 305 (84.7%) of these were assessed as being preventable. The overall adverse event rate was 240 per 100 admissions and 102.0 per 1000 patient days. Preterm infants had a higher rate than term infants (353 versus 79 per 100 admissions, p = 0.001); however, with regard to the length of stay, the rates were similar. Most adverse events were temporary and less severe (n = 338/360, 93.9%) and the most common type involved harm to skin, tissue or blood vessels (n = 163/360, 45.3%). Forty percent (n = 145) of adverse events occurred within the first week of admission. CONCLUSION: Adverse events were common in neonatal care, and many occurred during the first days of treatment. Characterisation of adverse events may provide focus areas for improvements in patient safety.

Training and support for the role of facilitator in implementation of innovations in health and community care: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Implementing and sustaining innovations in clinical practice, such as evidence-based practices, programmes, and policies, is frequently described as challenging. Facilitation as a strategy for supporting implementation requires a facilitator, i.e. an individual with a designated role to support the implementation process. A growing number of studies report that facilitation can help tackle the challenges in implementation efforts. To optimise the potential contribution of facilitation as a strategy to improve the implementation of new practices, there is a need to enhance understanding about what training and support is required for individuals in the facilitator role. The objective of this scoping review is to map how facilitators have been trained for, and supported in, the facilitator role in implementation studies in health and community care. Specifically, the review aims to examine what is reported on training and support of facilitators in terms of learning outcomes, content, dose, mode of delivery, learning activities, and qualifications of the trainers and how the facilitators perceive training and support. METHODS: This scoping review will follow the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review checklist. We will include articles in which (a) facilitation is deployed as an implementation strategy, with identified facilitator roles targeting staff and managers, to support the implementation of specified innovations in health or community care, and (b) training and/or support of facilitators is reported. We will exclude articles where facilitation is directed to education or training in specific clinical procedures or if facilitation supports the implementation of general quality improvement systems. All types of peer-reviewed studies and study protocols published in English will be included. A systematic search will be performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (embase.com), Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL (Ebsco). DISCUSSION: The proposed scoping review will provide a systematic mapping of the literature on the training and support of implementation facilitators and contribute useful knowledge within the field of implementation science to inform future facilitation initiatives. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Registered at Open Science Framework (registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M6NPQ ).

The patient's experience of participation when admitted for elective surgical procedures: an interview study.

PURPOSE: To describe the patient's experience of participation in their care when admitted for elective surgical procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A purposive sample of 14 patients who had undergone elective surgery was included in semi-structured individual interviews at a university hospital. The data was analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: One theme was identified: Creating a meaningful relationship to enable participation in the care, based on three categories; Abilities, willingness, and a lack of experience affect participation, A professional approach with an open communication and individualized information, and The importance of structural factors. CONCLUSIONS: To meet the patient's individual needs and wishes regarding participation, meaningful relationships need to be created between patient and healthcare personnel. The results also indicate that the patients have insufficient knowledge about their role regarding participation. To improve patient participation, its meaning needs to be clarified individually to the patient, emphasizing the importance to be active involved in his or her own care.

Exploring nursing-sensitive events in home healthcare: A national multicenter cohort study using a trigger tool.

BACKGROUND: The provision of home healthcare is increasing in response to the growing aging population with the need for chronic disease management in their homes. Safety work differs from hospital care. The incidence of adverse events in home healthcare is sparsely studied but is estimated to occur in-one third of patients, and most are deemed preventable. Although nursing care is crucial for risk assessment and preventive work in the home environment, the role of registered nurses in the prevention of no-harm incidents and adverse events has not received sufficient scientific attention. OBJECTIVES: To explore nursing-sensitive events in patients receiving home healthcare. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A Swedish national multicenter study based on a structured record review of 600 randomly chosen healthcare records from 10 organizations in different regions of the country. METHODS: Ten trained teams, each including physician(s) and registered nurses, undertook a review based on the Global Trigger Tool method. The review covered a maximum of 90 days from admission to home healthcare. First, each record was screened for the presence of 38 predefined triggers. In the second step, every potential event was assessed according to preventability, types of events, severity, time of occurrence, consequences of the event, and potential contributing causes. RESULTS: In total, 699 events were identified in the study. Of these, 495 (74.0%) were classified as nursing-sensitive (227 no-harm incidents and 268 adverse events) and affected 267 (44.5%) patients, with a mean of 1.9 events per patient. The majority (n = 367, 73.1%) were considered preventable. The most prominent types of nursing-sensitive event were falls (n = 138, 27.9%), pressure ulcers (n = 62, 12.5%), healthcare-associated infections (n = 58, 11.7%) and medication management (n = 50, 10.1%). Concerning severity, 45.9% were classified as no-harm incidents and another 36.6% resulted in temporary harm that required extra healthcare resources: 226 hospital days, 66 physician visits in outpatient care, and 99 in home healthcare. All severity types occurred from day 1, except death, which included only one patient. The most frequent contributing factors were deficiencies in nursing care, treatment & diagnosis, with the subgroups nursing care, observation, treatment & follow-up, followed by deficiencies in the organization. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing-sensitive events in home healthcare are common, often preventable, and occur from the start of the care period. This study contributes to increased knowledge of patient safety shortcomings and points to the important role that registered nurses play in patient safety work.

Incidence and characteristics of adverse events in paediatric inpatient care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) cause suffering for hospitalised children, a fragile patient group where the delivery of adequate timely care is of great importance. OBJECTIVE: To report the incidence and characteristics of AEs, in paediatric inpatient care, as detected with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), the Trigger Tool (TT) or the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) method. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 2021, without language restrictions. Studies using manual record review were included if paediatric data were reported separately. We excluded studies reporting: AEs for a specific disease/diagnosis/treatment/procedure, or deceased patients; study protocols with no AE outcomes; conference abstracts, editorials and systematic reviews; clinical incident reports as the primary data source; and studies focusing on specific AEs only. Methodological risk of bias was assessed using a tool based on the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of admissions with ≥1 AEs. All statistical analyses were stratified by record review methodology (GTT/TT or HMPS) and by type of population. Meta-analyses, applying random-effects models, were carried out. The variability of the pooled estimates was characterised by 95% prediction intervals (PIs). RESULTS: We included 32 studies from 44 publications, conducted in 15 countries totalling 33 873 paediatric admissions. The total number of AEs identified was 8577. The most common types of AEs were nosocomial infections (range, 6.8%-59.6%) for the general care population and pulmonary-related (10.5%-36.7%) for intensive care. The reported incidence rates were highly heterogeneous. The PIs for the primary outcome were 3.8%-53.8% and 6.9%-91.6% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population). The equivalent PI was 0.3%-33.7% for HMPS studies (general care). The PIs for preventable AEs were 7.4%-96.2% and 4.5%-98.9% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population) and 10.4%-91.8% for HMPS studies (general care). The quality assessment indicated several methodological concerns regarding the included studies. CONCLUSION: The reported incidence of AEs is highly variable in paediatric inpatient care research, and it is not possible to estimate a reliable single rate. Poor reporting standards and methodological differences hinder the comparison of study results.

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed: (1) to synthesize available evidence on AE incidence in acute care inpatient settings using Trigger Tool methodology; and (2) to explore whether study characteristics and study quality explain variations in reported AE incidence. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: To identify relevant studies, we queried PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and three journals in the patient safety field (last update search 25.05.2022). Eligible publications fulfilled the following criteria: adult inpatient samples; acute care hospital settings; Trigger Tool methodology; focus on specialty of internal medicine, surgery or oncology; published in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. Systematic reviews and studies addressing adverse drug events or exclusively deceased patients were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Our main outcome of interest was AEs per 100 admissions. We assessed nine study characteristics plus study quality as potential sources of variation using random regression models. We received no funding and did not register this review. RESULTS: Screening 6,685 publications yielded 54 eligible studies covering 194,470 admissions. The cumulative AE incidence was 30.0 per 100 admissions (95% CI 23.9-37.5; I2 = 99.7%) and between study heterogeneity was high with a prediction interval of 5.4-164.7. Overall studies' risk of bias and applicability-related concerns were rated as low. Eight out of nine methodological study characteristics did explain some variation of reported AE rates, such as patient age and type of hospital. Also, study quality did explain variation. CONCLUSION: Estimates of AE studies using trigger tool methodology vary while explaining variation is seriously hampered by the low standards of reporting such as the timeframe of AE detection. Specific reporting guidelines for studies using retrospective medical record review methodology are necessary to strengthen the current evidence base and to help explain between study variation.

Occurrence of No-Harm Incidents and Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients with Ischemic Stroke or TIA: A Cohort Study Using Trigger Tool Methodology.

Adverse events (AEs)-healthcare caused events leading to patient harm or even death-are common in healthcare. Although it is a frequently investigated topic, systematic knowledge on this phenomenon in stroke patients is limited. To determine cumulative incidence of no-harm incidents and AEs, including their severity and preventability, a cohort study using trigger tool methodology for retrospective record review was designed. The study was carried out in a stroke center at a university hospital in the German speaking part of Switzerland. Electronic records from 150 randomly selected patient admissions for transient ischemic attack (TIA) or ischemic stroke, with or without acute recanalization therapy, were used. In total, 170 events (108 AEs and 62 no-harm incidents) were identified, affecting 83 patients (55.3%; 95% CI 47 to 63.4), corresponding to an event rate of 113 events/100 admissions or 142 events/1000 patient days. The three most frequent AEs were ischemic strokes (n = 12, 7.1%), urinary tract infections (n = 11, 6.5%) and phlebitis (n = 10, 5.9%). The most frequent no-harm incidents were medication events (n = 37, 21.8%). Preventability ranged from 12.5% for allergic reactions to 100% for medication events and pressure ulcers. Most of the events found (142; 83.5%; 95% CI 76.9 to 88.6) occurred throughout the whole stroke care. The remaining 28 events (16.5%; 95% CI 11.4 to 23.1) were detected during stroke care but were related to care outside the stroke pathway. Trigger tool methodology allows detection of AEs and no-harm incidents, showing a frequent occurrence of both event types in stroke and TIA patients. Further investigations into events' relationships with organizational systems and processes will be needed, first to achieve a better understanding of these events' underlying mechanisms and risk factors, then to determine efforts needed to improve patient safety.

Mapping registered nurse anaesthetists' intraoperative work: tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes, and interactions: a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Safe anaesthesia care is a fundamental part of healthcare. In a previous study, registered nurse anaesthetists (RNAs) had the highest task frequency, with the largest amount of multitasking and interruptions among all professionals working in a surgical team. There is a lack of knowledge on how these factors are distributed during the intraoperative anaesthesia care process, and what implications they might have on safety and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To map the RNAs' work as done in practice, including tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes, and interactions, during all phases of the intraoperative anaesthesia work process. METHODS: Structured observations of RNAs (n=8) conducted during 30 procedures lasting a total of 73 hours in an operating department at a county hospital in Sweden, using the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing tool. RESULTS: High task intensity and multitasking were revealed during preparation for anaesthesia induction (79 tasks/hour, 61.9% of task time spent multitasking), anaesthesia induction (98 tasks/hour, 50.7%) and preparation for anaesthesia maintenance (86 tasks/hour, 80.2%). Frequent interruptions took place during preoperative preparation (4.7 /hour), anaesthesia induction (6.2 /hour) and preparation for anaesthesia maintenance (4.3 /hour). The interruptions were most often related to medication care (n=54, 19.8%), equipment issues (n=40, 14.7%) or the procedure itself (n=39, 14.3%). RNAs' work was conducted mostly independently (58.4%), but RNAs interacted with multiple professionals in and outside the operating room during anaesthesia. CONCLUSION: The tasks, multitasking, interruptions and their causes, and interactions during different phases illustrated the RNAs' work as done, as part of a complex adaptive system. Management of safety in the most intense phases-preparing for anaesthesia induction, induction and preparing for anaesthesia maintenance-should be investigated further. The complexity and adaptivity of the nature of RNAs' work should be taken into consideration in future management, development, research and education.

Exploring omissions in nursing care using retrospective chart review: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Omissions in nursing care can compromise patient safety. To date, this phenomenon has been investigated almost exclusively via nurse surveys. However, such surveys restrict the range of activities which can be assessed for omissions, and patient level analysis. As an alternative, retrospective chart review methodology has been used successfully in other research fields, but not yet for omitted nursing care. OBJECTIVES: To describe characteristics and frequency of omitted nursing care using a retrospective chart review methodology. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational single center study in two German neurological inpatient units. A random sample of 100 patient admissions was used. METHODS: A structured chart review protocol to detect nursing omissions was developed and applied. The full range of expected nursing care activities were assessed regarding the importance of documenting them and whether they had been fully or partially omitted. Vital sign measurements were assessed regarding both the measurement target number and the number of measurements recorded. RESULTS: In total, 1885 activities-a mean of 19 per patient-were identified. Of the reviewed activities, 52% (n = 971) were fully or partially omitted. Patients experienced between one and 22 omitted nursing care activities during their hospital stay (8-84% of expected care activities). Ranging from 6% to 100% some activities were more commonly omitted than others during admission. The most frequently omitted nursing activity was giving emotional care (88%, n = 66); the least frequently omitted was teaching (10%, n = 29). Vital signs were recorded only 50% (n = 141) of the targeted number of times. CONCLUSIONS: Using a retrospective chart review protocol to identify omissions in nursing care allows the assessment of a broad range of nursing activities. Additionally, this is the first-time patient-level data on a broad range of activities have been analyzed. The newly developed chart review methodology can complement established survey methods and provide a new perspective on the phenomenon of omitted nursing care.

Validation of nursing documentation regarding in-hospital falls: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital fall incidents are common and sensitive to nursing care. It is therefore important to have easy access to valid patient data to evaluate and follow-up nursing care. The aim of the study was to validate the nursing documentation, using a specific term in the registered nurses´ (RNs´) discharge note, regarding inpatient falls according to the outcome of a digitalized data extraction tool and the discharge note itself. METHODS: At a teaching hospital, 31,571 episodes of care were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective cohort study. A stratified sampling including five groups was used, two with random sampling and three with total sampling. In total, 1232 episodes of care were reviewed in the electronic patient record using a study-specific protocol. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: In total, 590 episodes of care in the study cohort included 714 falls. When adjusted for the stratified sampling the cumulative incidence for the study population was 1.9%. The positive predictive value in total for the data extraction tool regarding the presence of any fall, in comparison with the record review, was 87.4%. Discrepancies found were, for example, that the RNs, at discharge, stated that the patient had fallen but no documented evidence of that could be detected during admission. It could also be the opposite, that the RNs correctly had documented that no fall had occurred, but the data extraction tool made an incorrect selection. When the latter had been withdrawn, the positive predictive value was 91.5%. Information about minor injuries due to the fall was less accurate. In the group where RNs had stated that the patient had fallen without injury, minor injuries had actually occurred in 28.3% of the episodes of care. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a specific term regarding fall in the RNs´ discharge note seems to be a valid and reliable data measurement and can be used continuously to evaluate and follow-up nursing care.

Measuring adverse events following hip arthroplasty surgery using administrative data without relying on ICD-codes.

INTRODUCTION: Measure and monitor adverse events (AEs) following hip arthroplasty is challenging. The aim of this study was to create a model for measuring AEs after hip arthroplasty using administrative data, such as length of stay and readmissions, with equal or better precision than an ICD-code based model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 1 998 patients operated with an acute or elective hip arthroplasty in a national multi-centre study. We collected AEs within 90 days following surgery with retrospective record review. Additional data came from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, the Swedish National Patient Register and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. We made a 2:1 split of the data into a training and a holdout set. We used the training set to train different machine learning models to predict if a patient had sustained an AE or not. After training and cross-validation we tested the best performing model on the holdout-set. We compared the results with an established ICD-code based measure for AEs. RESULTS: The best performing model was a logistic regression model with four natural age splines. The variables included in the model were as follows: length of stay at the orthopaedic department, discharge to acute care, age, number of readmissions and ED visits. The sensitivity and specificity for the new model was 23 and 90% for AE within 30 days, compared with 5 and 94% for the ICD-code based model. For AEs within 90 days the sensitivity and specificity were 31% and 89% compared with 16% and 92% for the ICD-code based model. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a prediction model for AEs following hip arthroplasty surgery, relying on administrative data without ICD-codes is more accurate than a model based on ICD-codes.

Managing complexity in the operating room: a group interview study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical work in the operating room (OR) is considered challenging as it is complex, dynamic, and often time- and resource-constrained. Important characteristics for successful management of complexity include adaptations and adaptive coordination when managing expected and unexpected events. However, there is a lack of explorative research addressing what makes things go well and how OR staff describe they do when responding to challenges and compensating for constraints. The aim of this study was therefore to explore how complexity is managed as expressed by operating room nurses, registered nurse anesthetists, and surgeons, and how these professionals adapt to create safe care in the OR. METHOD: Data for this qualitative explorative study were collected via group interviews with three professional groups of the OR-team, including operating room nurses, registered nurse anesthetists and operating and assisting surgeons in four group interview sessions, one for each profession except for ORNs for which two separate interviews were performed. The audio-taped transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by inductive qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The findings revealed three generic categories covering ways of creating safe care in the OR: preconditions and resources, planning and preparing for the expected and unexpected, and adapting to the unexpected. In each generic category, one sub-category emerged that was common to all three professions: coordinating and reaffirming information, creating a plan for the patient and undergoing mental preparation, and prioritizing and solving upcoming problems, respectively. CONCLUSION: Creating safe care in the OR should be understood as a process of planning and preparing in order to manage challenging and complex work processes. OR staff need preconditions and resources such as having experience and coordinating and reaffirming information, to make sense of different situations. This requires a mental model, which is created through planning and preparing in different ways. Some situations are repetitive and easier to plan for but planning for the unexpected requires anticipation from experience. The main results strengthen that abilities described in the theory of resilience are used by OR staff as a strategy to manage complexity in the OR.

The identification of adverse events in hip fracture patients using the Global Trigger Tool: A prospective observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fracture is common in the elderly and is associated with high comorbidity, mortality and complication rates. There has been an increase in the investigation of healthcare-related adverse events (AEs) in some patient groups but there is limited knowledge about hip fracture patients. The aim was to explore the incidence, preventability and nature of AEs in hip fracture patients. METHODS: One hundred and sixty three hip fracture patients participated. A record review was conducted of prospectively collected data using Global Trigger Tool methodology to identify AEs up to 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: Sixty two (38.0%) of 163 patients had at least one AE (range 1-7). One hundred and two AEs were identified and 62 (60.8%) were deemed preventable. Healthcare-associated infections e.g. pneumonia, urinary tract infections and pressure ulcers were common. AEs were more common in older patients and those with pre-existing health conditions. Fifty eight (56.9%) AEs caused temporary harm and 4 (3.9%) contributed to patient death. CONCLUSION: AEs are common in hip fracture patients and most are preventable. If the focus is on improving healthcare for these patients, we should be concentrating our efforts on reducing the number of these preventable AEs, with a particular emphasis on improving the care of older patients with pre-existing health conditions.

Identifying no-harm incidents in home healthcare: a cohort study using trigger tool methodology.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety in home healthcare is largely unexplored. No-harm incidents may give valuable information about risk areas and system failures as a source for proactive patient safety work. We hypothesized that it would be feasible to retrospectively identify no-harm incidents and thus aimed to explore the cumulative incidence, preventability, types, and potential contributing causes of no-harm incidents that affected adult patients admitted to home healthcare. METHODS: A structured retrospective record review using a trigger tool designed for home healthcare. A random sample of 600 home healthcare records from ten different organizations across Sweden was reviewed. RESULTS: In the study, 40,735 days were reviewed. In all, 313 no-harm incidents affected 177 (29.5%) patients; of these, 198 (63.2%) no-harm incidents, in 127 (21.2%) patients, were considered preventable. The most common no-harm incident types were "fall without harm," "deficiencies in medication management," and "moderate pain." The type "deficiencies in medication management" was deemed to have a preventability rate twice as high as those of "fall without harm" and "moderate pain." The most common potential contributing cause was "deficiencies in nursing care and treatment, i.e., delayed, erroneous, omitted or incomplete treatment or care." CONCLUSION: This study suggests that it is feasible to identify no-harm incidents and potential contributing causes such as omission of care using record review with a trigger tool adapted to the context. No-harm incidents and potential contributing causes are valuable sources of knowledge for improving patient safety, as they highlight system failures and indicate risks before an adverse event reach the patient.

Drug Use and Type of Adverse Drug Events-Identified by a Trigger Tool in Different Units in a Swedish Pediatric Hospital.

PURPOSE: The objectives of our study were to determine drug use, type and incidence of all adverse event associated with drug or drug-related processes (Adverse Drug Events, ADE) among pediatric inpatients in relation to hospital unit and length of stay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 600 pediatric (0-18 years) admissions at a Swedish university hospital during one year were included and stratified in blocks to 150 neonatal, surgical/orthopedic, medicine and emergency-medicine unit admissions, respectively. Adverse events were identified from medical records using a pediatric trigger tool. All triggers identifying an adverse event related to drugs and drug-related devices were included. Data on drug use were extracted from the hospital drug-data warehouse. RESULTS: In total, 17794 daily drug orders were administrated to 486 (81.0% exposed) admissions. Parental nutrition, potassium salts and morphine constituted half of all high-risk drugs prescribed. Two-thirds of intravenous irritating drug doses consisted of vancomycin, esomeprazole and meropenem. In 129 (21.5%) admissions, at least one ADE was identified, out of which 21 ADE were classified as more severe (National Coordinating Council Medication Error Reporting Prevention-Index, NCCMERP≥F). The ADE incidence was 47.4 (95% confidence interval: 39.4-57.3) per 1000 admission days and varied by unit category. In neonatal units, 56.9 (49.5-65.4) ADEs/1000 admission days were detected, in surgery/orthopedic 54.2 (40.3-72.8), in medicine 44.1 (33.1-58.7), and in emergency-medicine 14.3 (7.7-26.7) ADEs/1000 admission days were found. The most common types of ADEs were identified by triggers that were not directly aiming at drugs including insufficiently treated pain (incidence peaking already in the first days), skin, tissue or vascular harm (peaking at the end of the first week) and hospital-acquired infections (peaking in later admission days). CONCLUSION: Adverse drug events are common in pediatric patients. The incidence of ADEs and type of ADE varies by hospital unit and length of hospital stay.

The influence of depression on patient-reported outcomes for hip-fracture patients 1 year after surgery: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in elderly hip-fracture patients and together with cognitive impairment is associated with increased risk of mortality. AIM: We aimed to examine the influence depression has on patient-reported outcome up to 1 year after acute hip fracture. METHODS: 162 hip-fracture patients participated in the prospective observational cohort study and were followed up at baseline, and 3 and 12 months using patient-reported outcome scores. Patients with cognitive impairment were excluded. Depression was defined as a score ≥ 8 on the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS D), having a diagnosis of depression or being treated with anti-depressant medication. Hip function was assessed using Harris Hip Score (HHS), EQ-5D was used to assess health status and Quality of life, and the Pain Numerical Rating Scale (PRNS) was used to assess pain levels. A linear regression model adjusted for group, age, sex, and ASA class was used to identify risk factors for functional outcome 12 months after fracture. RESULTS: 35 patients were included in the depression group versus 127 in the control group. No statistical differences were found in the demographic data (age, sex, ASA class, fracture type, operation method, living situation, activities of daily living ADL and clinical pathway) between the groups. In the regression model, we found no correlation between depression and the patient-reported outcome. CONCLUSION: In young elderly hip fracture patients without cognitive dysfunction, depression may not be of major importance for the rehabilitation of hip function in the short term.

Exploring the incidence and nature of nursing-sensitive orthopaedic adverse events: A multicenter cohort study using Global Trigger Tool.

BACKGROUND: For decades, patient safety has been recognized as a critical global healthcare issue. However, there is a gap of knowledge of all types of adverse events sensitive to nursing care within hospitals in general and within orthopaedic care specifically. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to explore the incidence and nature of nursing-sensitive adverse events following elective or acute hip arthroplasty at a national level. DESIGN: A retrospective multicenter cohort study. OUTCOME VARIABLES: Nursing-sensitive adverse events, preventability, severity and length of stay. METHODS: All patients, 18 years or older, who had undergone an elective (degenerative joint disease) or acute (fractures) hemi or total hip arthroplasty surgery at 24 hospitals were eligible for inclusion. Retrospective reviews of weighted samples of 1998 randomly selected patient records were carried out using the Swedish version of the Global Trigger Tool. The patients were followed for readmissions up to 90 days postoperatively throughout the whole country regardless of index hospital. RESULTS: A total of 1150 nursing-sensitive adverse events were identified in 728 (36.4%) of patient records, and 943 (82.0%) of the adverse events were judged preventable in the study cohort. The adjusted cumulative incidence regarding nursing-sensitive adverse events for the study population was 18.8%. The most common nursing-sensitive adverse event types were different kinds of healthcare-associated infections (40.9%) and pressure ulcers (16.5%). Significantly higher proportions of nursing-sensitive adverse events were found among female patients compared to male, p < 0.001, and patients with acute admissions compared to elective patients, p < 0.001. Almost half (48.5%) of the adverse events were temporary and of a less severe nature. On the other hand, 592 adverse events were estimated to have contributed to 3351 extra hospital days. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the magnitude of nursing-sensitive adverse events. We found that nursing-sensitive adverse events were common, in most cases deemed preventable and were associated with different kinds of adverse events and levels of severity in orthopaedic care. Registered nurses play a vital role within the interdisciplinary team as they are the largest group of healthcare professionals, work 24/7 and spend much time at the bedside with patients. Therefore, nursing leadership at all hospital levels must assume responsibility for patient safety and authorize bedside registered nurses to deliver high-quality and sustainable care to patients.

Only 8% of major preventable adverse events after hip arthroplasty are filed as claims: a Swedish multi-center cohort study on 1,998 patients.

Background and purpose - Hip arthroplasty is one of the most performed surgeries in Sweden, and the rate of adverse events (AEs) is fairly high. All patients in publicly financed healthcare in Sweden are insured by the Mutual Insurance Company of Swedish County Councils (Löf). We assessed the proportion of patients that sustained a major preventable AE and filed an AE claim to Löf.Patients and methods - We performed retrospective record review using the Global Trigger Tool to identify AEs in a Swedish multi-center cohort consisting of 1,998 patients with a total or hemi hip arthroplasty. We compared the major preventable AEs with all patient-reported claims to Löf from the same cohort and calculated the proportion of filed claims.Results - We found 1,066 major preventable AEs in 744 patients. Löf received 62 claims for these AEs, resulting in a claim proportion of 8%. 58 of the 62 claims were accepted by Löf and received compensation. The claim proportion was 13% for the elective patients and 0.3% for the acute patients. The most common AE for filing a claim was periprosthetic joint infection; of the 150 infections found 37 were claimed.Interpretation - The proportion of filed claims for major preventable AEs is very low, even for obvious and serious AEs such as periprosthetic joint infection.