The Safety of Outpatient Health Care : Review of Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable emphasis on delivering safe care, substantial patient harm occurs. Although most care occurs in the outpatient setting, knowledge of outpatient adverse events (AEs) remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To measure AEs in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective review of the electronic health record (EHR). SETTING: 11 outpatient sites in Massachusetts in 2018. PATIENTS: 3103 patients who received outpatient care. MEASUREMENTS: Using a trigger method, nurse reviewers identified possible AEs and physicians adjudicated them, ranked severity, and assessed preventability. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association of having at least 1 AE with age, sex, race, and primary insurance. Variation in AE rates was analyzed across sites. RESULTS: The 3103 patients (mean age, 52 years) were more often female (59.8%), White (75.1%), English speakers (90.8%), and privately insured (70.4%) and had a mean of 4 outpatient encounters in 2018. Overall, 7.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 9.3%) of patients had at least 1 AE (8.6 events per 100 patients annually). Adverse drug events were the most common AE (63.8%), followed by health care-associated infections (14.8%) and surgical or procedural events (14.2%). Severity was serious in 17.4% of AEs, life-threatening in 2.1%, and never fatal. Overall, 23.2% of AEs were preventable. Having at least 1 AE was less often associated with ages 18 to 44 years than with ages 65 to 84 years (standardized risk difference, -0.05 [CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) and more often associated with Black race than with Asian race (standardized risk difference, 0.09 [CI, 0.01 to 0.17]). Across study sites, 1.8% to 23.6% of patients had at least 1 AE and clinical category of AEs varied substantially. LIMITATION: Retrospective EHR review may miss AEs. CONCLUSION: Outpatient harm was relatively common and often serious. Adverse drug events were most frequent. Rates were higher among older adults. Interventions to curtail outpatient harm are urgently needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.

The Safety of Inpatient Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events. RESULTS: In a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).

"One size does not fit all" - lessons learned from a multiple-methods study of a resident wellness curriculum across sites and specialties.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition that wellness interventions should occur in context and acknowledge complex contributors to wellbeing, including individual needs, institutional and cultural barriers to wellbeing, as well as systems issues which propagate distress. The authors conducted a multiple-methods study exploring contributors to wellbeing for junior residents in diverse medical environments who participated in a brief resilience and stress-reduction curriculum, the Stress Management and Resiliency Training Program for Residents (SMART-R). METHODS: Using a waitlist-controlled design, the curriculum was implemented for post-graduate year (PGY)-1 or PGY-2 residents in seven residency programs across three sites. Every three months, residents completed surveys, including the Perceived Stress Scale-10, General Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, a mindfulness scale (CAMSR), and a depression screen (PHQ-2). Residents also answered free-text reflection questions about psychological wellbeing and health behaviors. RESULTS: The SMART-R intervention was not significantly associated with decreased perceived stress. Linear regression modeling showed that depression was positively correlated with reported stress levels, while male sex and self-efficacy were negatively correlated with stress. Qualitative analysis elucidated differences in these groups: Residents with lower self-efficacy, those with a positive depression screen, and/or female residents were more likely to describe experiencing lack of control over work. Residents with higher self-efficacy described more positive health behaviors. Residents with a positive depression screen were more self-critical, and more likely to describe negative personal life events. CONCLUSIONS: This curriculum did not significantly modify junior residents' stress. Certain subpopulations experienced greater stress than others (female residents, those with lower self-efficacy, and those with a positive depression screen). Qualitative findings from this study highlight universal stressful experiences early in residency, as well as important differences in experience of the learning environment among subgroups. Tailored wellness interventions that aim to support diverse resident sub-groups may be higher yield than a "one size fits all" approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02621801 , Registration date: December 4, 2015 - Retrospectively registered.

Psychiatry Resident Attitudes Toward Practice Habit Data.

OBJECTIVE: This descriptive study queries the attitudes of psychiatry residents regarding provision of practice habit data to trainees by residency programs, as required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Identifying trainee perspectives may assist program directors in tailoring practice habit data reporting to better engage residents and to increase resident-reported adherence to the ACGME requirement. METHODS: Residents at a large, hospital-based adult psychiatry training program completed an anonymous survey of attitudes regarding practice habit data, including perceptions of the residency program's current reporting, preferences toward mechanisms of delivering this data, and perceived relative utility of five hypothetical domains of practice habit data. RESULTS: Of 61 eligible residents, 52 (85%) completed surveys. Only 29 (56%) recalled receiving prior-year individual practice habit data, and only 10 (19%) recalled receiving team-based data. Seventy-five percent desired more practice habit data. Out of five hypothetical thematic domains for practice habit reporting, residents preferred patient-oriented domains as opposed to process-oriented domains. Resident concerns about dissemination of these data included confidentiality, effect on evaluations, and difficulty translating data to changes in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Residents generally desire increased dissemination of practice habit data that focuses on patient-oriented measures such as adherence to disease-specific guidelines and is both individual and team-based. Residency programs may benefit their trainees and improve resident-reported adherence to the ACGME requirement both by taking resident preferences into account and by addressing concerns about confidentiality when providing practice habit data.

So Tired: Predictive Utility of Baseline Sleep Screening in a Longitudinal Observational Survey Cohort of First-Year Residents.

BACKGROUND: Sleep impairment is highly prevalent among resident physicians and is associated with both adverse patient outcomes and poor resident mental and physical health. Risk factors for sleep problems during residency are less clear, and no screening model exists to identify residents at risk for sleep impairment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess change in resident sleep during training and to evaluate utility of baseline sleep screening in predicting future sleep impairment. DESIGN: This is a prospective observational repeated-measures survey study. PARTICIPANTS: The participants comprised PGY-1 residents across multiple specialties at Partners HealthCare hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: Main measures used for this study were demographic queries and two validated scales: the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), measuring sleep quality, and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), measuring excessive daytime sleepiness. KEY RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-one PGY-1 residents completed surveys at residency orientation, and 153 (54%) completed matched surveys 9 months later. Mean nightly sleep time decreased from 7.6 to 6.5 hours (p < 0.001). Mean PSQI score increased from 3.6 to 5.2 (p < 0.001), and mean ESS score increased from 7.2 to 10.4 (p < 0.001). The proportion of residents exceeding the scales' clinical cutoffs increased over time from 15 to 40% on the PSQI (p < 0.001) and from 26 to 59% on the ESS (p < 0.001). Baseline normal sleep was not protective: 68% of residents with normal scores on both scales at baseline exceeded the clinical cutoff on at least one scale at follow-up. Greater age and fewer children increased follow-up PSQI score (p < 0.001) but not ESS score. CONCLUSIONS: During PGY-1 training, residents experience worsening sleep duration, quality of sleep, and daytime sleepiness. Residents with baseline impaired sleep tend to remain impaired. Moreover, many residents with baseline normal sleep experience sleep deterioration over time. Sleep screening at residency orientation may identify some, but not all, residents who will experience sleep impairment during training.