Closing the Gap and Raising the Bar: Assessing Board Competency in Quality and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Despite recognition of the important role that governance and executive leaders play in ensuring patient safety and quality, little research has examined leaders' involvement in these areas beyond surveys that assess higher-level knowledge and understanding of patient and workforce safety concepts. METHODS: A survey was sent to a convenience sample of board members and CEOs, as well as unpaired safety and quality leaders (SQLs). The survey included approximately 36 questions asking board members and other non-CEO executives their knowledge, understanding, and board activities related to safety and quality, and SQLs their perceptions of their own boards' knowledge, understanding, and activities related to safety and quality. An analysis of the responses of each of the three groups was conducted to assess baseline ratings, as well as to examine similarities and differences. RESULTS: Overall, similar patterns of self-reported knowledge, understanding, and activities related to safety and quality were evident between the board and CEO groups across virtually all areas examined in this survey, although groups were unpaired. Differences of varying degree were found at the level of individual survey items between board members' and CEOs' responses. SQL ratings were generally lower than the ratings of both board members and CEOs. CONCLUSION: This survey reveals specific areas of focus for improving governance and leadership practices at board meetings, as well as several areas where knowledge and understanding of safety and quality were variable. Further research and consensus would be beneficial to identify best practices for board education and governance activities to drive quality and safety.

Excellence and evidence in staffing: a data-driven model for excellence in staffing (2nd edition).

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, 2010) and the Institute of Medicine's (IOM, 2011) Future of Nursing report have prompted changes in the U.S. health care system. This has also stimulated a new direction of thinking for the profession of nursing. New payment and priority structures, where value is placed ahead of volume in care, will start to define our health system in new and unknown ways for years. One thing we all know for sure: we cannot afford the same inefficient models and systems of care of yesterday any longer. The Data-Driven Model for Excellence in Staffing was created as the organizing framework to lead the development of best practices for nurse staffing across the continuum through research and innovation. Regardless of the setting, nurses must integrate multiple concepts with the value of professional nursing to create new care and staffing models. Traditional models demonstrate that nurses are a commodity. If the profession is to make any significant changes in nurse staffing, it is through the articulation of the value of our professional practice within the overall health care environment. This position paper is organized around the concepts from the Data-Driven Model for Excellence in Staffing. The main concepts are: Core Concept 1: Users and Patients of Health Care, Core Concept 2: Providers of Health Care, Core Concept 3: Environment of Care, Core Concept 4: Delivery of Care, Core Concept 5: Quality, Safety, and Outcomes of Care. This position paper provides a comprehensive view of those concepts and components, why those concepts and components are important in this new era of nurse staffing, and a 3-year challenge that will push the nursing profession forward in all settings across the care continuum. There are decades of research supporting various changes to nurse staffing. Yet little has been done to move that research into practice and operations. While the primary goal of this position paper is to generate research and innovative thinking about nurse staffing across all health care settings, a second goal is to stimulate additional publications. This includes a goal of at least 20 articles in Nursing Economic$ on best practices in staffing and care models from across the continuum over the next 3 years.

Associations Between Organizational Communication and Patients' Experience of Prolonged Emotional Impact Following Medical Errors.

BACKGROUND: The emotional impact of medical errors on patients may be long-lasting. Factors associated with prolonged emotional impacts are poorly understood. METHODS: The authors conducted a subanalysis of a 2017 survey (response rate 36.8% [2,536/6,891]) of US adults to assess emotional impact of medical error. Patients reporting a medical error were included if the error occurred ≥ 1 year prior. Duration of emotional impact was categorized into no/short-term impact (impact lasting < 1 month), prolonged impact (> 1 month), and especially prolonged impact (> 1 year). Based on their reported experience with communication about the error, patients' experience was categorized as consistent with national disclosure guidelines, contrary to guidelines, mixed, or neither. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between patient factors, event characteristics, and organizational communication with prolonged emotional impact (> 1 month, > 1 year). RESULTS: Of all survey respondents, 17.8% (451/2,536) reported an error occurring ≥ 1 year prior. Of these, 51.2% (231/451) reported prolonged/especially prolonged emotional impact (30.8% prolonged, 20.4% especially prolonged). Factors associated with prolonged emotional impact included female gender (adjusted odds ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval 1.5-2.9]); low socioeconomic status (SES; 1.7 [1.1-2.7]); physical impact (7.3 [4.3-12.3]); no organizational disclosure and no patient/family error reporting (1.5 [1.03-2.3]); communication contrary to guidelines (4.0 [2.1-7.5]); and mixed communication (2.2 [1.3-3.7]). The same factors were significantly associated with especially prolonged emotional impact (female, 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; low SES, 2.2 [1.3-3.6]; physical impact, 6.8 [3.8-12.5]; no disclosure/reporting, 1.9 [1.2-3.2]; communication contrary to guidelines, 4.6 [2.2-9.4]; mixed communication, 2.1 [1.1-3.9]). CONCLUSION: Prolonged emotional impact affected more than half of Americans self-reporting a medical error. Organizational failure to communicate according to disclosure guidelines after patient-perceived errors may exacerbate harm, particularly for patients at risk of health care disparities.

Diagnostic error experiences of patients and families with limited English-language health literacy or disadvantaged socioeconomic position in a cross-sectional US population-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Language barrier, reduced self-advocacy, lower health literacy or biased care may hinder the diagnostic process. Data on how patients/families with limited English-language health literacy (LEHL) or disadvantaged socioeconomic position (dSEP) experience diagnostic errors are sparse. METHOD: We compared patient-reported diagnostic errors, contributing factors and impacts between respondents with LEHL or dSEP and their counterparts in the 2017 Institute for Healthcare Improvement US population-based survey, using contingency analysis and multivariable logistic regression models for the analyses. RESULTS: 596 respondents reported a diagnostic error; among these, 381 reported LEHL or dSEP. After adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity and physical health, individuals with LEHL/dSEP were more likely than their counterparts to report unique contributing factors: "(No) qualified translator or healthcare provider that spoke (the patient's) language" (OR and 95% CI 4.4 (1.3 to 14.9)); "not understanding the follow-up plan" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.1)); "too many providers… but no clear leader" (1.8 (1.2 to 2.7)); "not able to keep follow-up appointments" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.2)); "not being able to pay for necessary medical care" (2.5 (1.4 to 4.4)) and "out-of-date or incorrect medical records" (2.6 (1.4 to 4.8)). Participants with LEHL/dSEP were more likely to report long-term emotional, financial and relational impacts, compared with their counterparts. Subgroup analysis (LEHL-only and dSEP-only participants) showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with LEHL or dSEP identified unique and actionable contributing factors to diagnostic errors. Interpreter access should be viewed as a diagnostic safety imperative, social determinants affecting care access/affordability should be routinely addressed as part of the diagnostic process and patients/families should be encouraged to access and update their medical records. The frequent and disproportionate long-term impacts from self-reported diagnostic error among LEHL/dSEP patients/families raises urgency for greater prevention and supportive efforts.

How Safe are Outpatient Electronic Health Records? An Evaluation of Medication-Related Decision Support using the Ambulatory Electronic Health Record Evaluation Tool.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the Ambulatory Electronic Health Record (EHR) Evaluation Tool is to provide outpatient clinics with an assessment that they can use to measure the ability of the EHR system to detect and prevent common prescriber errors. The tool consists of a medication safety test and a medication reconciliation module. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to perform a broad evaluation of outpatient medication-related decision support using the Ambulatory EHR Evaluation Tool. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study with 10 outpatient clinics using the Ambulatory EHR Evaluation Tool. For the medication safety test, clinics were provided test patients and associated medication test orders to enter in their EHR, where they recorded any advice or information they received. Once finished, clinics received an overall percentage score of unsafe orders detected and individual order category scores. For the medication reconciliation module, clinics were asked to electronically reconcile two medication lists, where modifications were made by adding and removing medications and changing the dosage of select medications. RESULTS: For the medication safety test, the mean overall score was 57%, with the highest score being 70%, and the lowest score being 40%. Clinics performed well in the drug allergy (100%), drug dose daily (85%), and inappropriate medication combinations (74%) order categories. Order categories with the lowest performance were drug laboratory (10%) and drug monitoring (3%). Most clinics (90%) scored a 0% in at least one order category. For the medication reconciliation module, only one clinic (10%) could reconcile medication lists electronically; however, there was no clinical decision support available that checked for drug interactions. CONCLUSION: We evaluated a sample of ambulatory practices around their medication-related decision support and found that advanced capabilities within these systems have yet to be widely implemented. The tool was practical to use and identified substantial opportunities for improvement in outpatient medication safety.

Developing the Safer Dx Checklist of Ten Safety Recommendations for Health Care Organizations to Address Diagnostic Errors.

BACKGROUND: Most health care organizations (HCOs) find diagnostic errors hard to address. The research team developed a checklist (the Safer Dx Checklist) of 10 high-priority safety practices HCOs can use to conduct a proactive risk assessment to address diagnostic error. METHODS: First, the team identified potential practices based on reviews of recent literature, reports by national and international organizations, and interviews with quality/safety leaders. Then a Delphi panel was conducted, followed by an online expert panel, to prioritize 10 practices. The prioritization process considered impact on safety and feasibility of practice implementation within a one- to three-year time frame. Finally, cognitive walkthroughs were conducted for a face-validity check with end users. The team also conducted content analysis in each step to look for themes that influenced prioritization or checklist implementation. RESULTS: A total of 71 practices for prioritization were identified through the Delphi panel of 28 experts; 65% of participants reached consensus on 28 practices. A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts helped prioritize and refine the top 10 practices, which were then developed into a checklist paired with implementation guidance. Practices included themes related to creating organizational and leadership accountability for improving diagnosis, including patients in diagnostic safety work, and developing and implementing organizational infrastructure for measurement and improvement activities. Qualitative analysis revealed insights for implementation. End users at three different HCOs helped refine implementation guidance for the checklist. CONCLUSION: The researchers identified 10 safety practices to help organizations conduct a proactive, systematic assessment of risks to timely and accurate diagnosis. The Safer Dx Checklist can enable HCOs to begin implementing strategies to address diagnostic error.

Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care.

BACKGROUND: Patients and families are important contributors to the diagnostic team, but their perspectives are not reflected in current diagnostic measures. Patients/families can identify some breakdowns in the diagnostic process beyond the clinician's view. We aimed to develop a framework with patients/families to help organisations identify and categorise patient-reported diagnostic process-related breakdowns (PRDBs) to inform organisational learning. METHOD: A multi-stakeholder advisory group including patients, families, clinicians, and experts in diagnostic error, patient engagement and safety, and user-centred design, co-developed a framework for PRDBs in ambulatory care. We tested the framework using standard qualitative analysis methods with two physicians and one patient coder, analysing 2165 patient-reported ambulatory errors in two large surveys representing 25 425 US respondents. We tested intercoder reliability of breakdown categorisation using the Gwet's AC1 and Cohen's kappa statistic. We considered agreement coefficients 0.61-0.8=good agreement and 0.81-1.00=excellent agreement. RESULTS: The framework describes 7 patient-reported breakdown categories (with 40 subcategories), 19 patient-identified contributing factors and 11 potential patient-reported impacts. Patients identified breakdowns in each step of the diagnostic process, including missing or inaccurate main concerns and symptoms; missing/outdated test results; and communication breakdowns such as not feeling heard or misalignment between patient and provider about symptoms, events, or their significance. The frequency of PRDBs was 6.4% in one dataset and 6.9% in the other. Intercoder reliability showed good-to-excellent reliability in each dataset: AC1 0.89 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.90) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); kappa 0.64 (95% CI 0.62, to 0.66) to 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The PRDB framework, developed in partnership with patients/families, can help organisations identify and reliably categorise PRDBs, including some that are invisible to clinicians; guide interventions to engage patients and families as diagnostic partners; and inform whole organisational learning.

Advancing sedation assessment to promote patient comfort.

As sedation assessment continues to evolve towards a more disciplined and standard part of clinical practice, the use of subjective sedation scales and objective sedation tools such as the BIS monitor continues to grow and show promise. The efforts of critical care nurses and their colleagues to better understand the value of these tools is integral to guiding their use and optimizing patient comfort.