Paying the piper: investing in infrastructure for patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Although the best allocation of resources is unknown, there is general agreement that improvements in safety require an organization-level safety culture, in which leadership humbly acknowledges safety shortcomings and allocates resources at the patient care and unit levels to identify and mitigate risks. Since 2001, the Johns Hopkins Hospital has increased its investment in human capital at the patient care, unit/team, and organization levels to improve patient safety. PATIENT CARE LEVEL: An inadequate infrastructure, both technical and human, has prompted health care organizations to rely on nurses to help implement new safety programs and to enforce new policies because hospital leaders often have limited ability to disseminate or enforce such changes with the medical staff. UNIT OR TEAM LEVEL: At the team or nursing unit level, there is little or no infrastructure to develop, implement, and monitor safety projects. There is limited unit-level support for safety projects, and the resources that are allocated come from overtaxed department budgets. ORGANIZATION LEVEL: HOSPITAL LEVEL AND HEALTH SYSTEM: Infrastructure is needed to design, implement, and evaluate the following domains of work-measuring progress in patient safety, translating evidence into practice, identifying and mitigating hazards, improving culture and communication, and identifying an infrastructure in the organization for patient safety efforts. REFLECTIONS: Fulfilling a commitment to safe and high-quality care will not be possible without significant investment in patient safety infrastructure. Health care organizations will need to determine the cost-benefit ratio of various investments in patient safety. Yet, predicating safety efforts on the mistaken belief in a short-term return on investments will stall patient safety efforts.

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.

The Creation of a Biocontainment Unit at a Tertiary Care Hospital. The Johns Hopkins Medicine Experience.

In response to the 2014-2015 Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa, Johns Hopkins Medicine created a biocontainment unit to care for patients infected with Ebola virus and other high-consequence pathogens. The unit team examined published literature and guidelines, visited two existing U.S. biocontainment units, and contacted national and international experts to inform the design of the physical structure and patient care activities of the unit. The resulting four-bed unit allows for unidirectional flow of providers and materials and has ample space for donning and doffing personal protective equipment. The air-handling system allows treatment of diseases spread by contact, droplet, or airborne routes of transmission. An onsite laboratory and an autoclave waste management system minimize the transport of infectious materials out of the unit. The unit is staffed by self-selected nurses, providers, and support staff with pediatric and adult capabilities. A telecommunications system allows other providers and family members to interact with patients and staff remotely. A full-time nurse educator is responsible for staff training, including quarterly exercises and competency assessment in the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment. The creation of the Johns Hopkins Biocontainment Unit required the highest level of multidisciplinary collaboration. When not used for clinical care and training, the unit will be a site for research and innovation in highly infectious diseases. The lessons learned from the design process can inform a new research agenda focused on the care of patients in a biocontainment environment.

Human immunodeficiency virus disclosure and patient confidentiality in orthopaedic procedures.

A thirty-two-year-old man with hemophilia whose chief complaint was knee pain was referred by his hematologist for consideration of a total knee arthroplasty. On his initial visit, the patient was seen and evaluated with his pregnant wife and their infant child present in the examination room at his request. During the review of systems and past medical history, the treating surgeon inquired into the status of his human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral load and CD4 count. At that point, the patient denied ever testing positive for HIV. Later, in a private discussion, the patient confirmed his HIV-positive status. He admitted that his wife was unaware of his history, and he stated that he did not wish her to know. The surgeon explained to the patient that his HIV history posed a major health risk to his wife and children and encouraged him to discuss it with her. The surgeon sought the advice of the institution's legal counsel. It was explained that, according to state law, the surgeon was not obliged to, but could, inform the patient's wife of the situation. At the next visit, the surgeon again asked the patient to discuss the situation with his spouse. The patient agreed to do so. To confirm that the information had been conveyed, the surgeon asked the patient to return with his wife to discuss the patient's HIV status and the informed consent pertinent to total knee arthroplasty. When the patient did not return, the surgeon notified the referring hematologist of the situation.