Evaluation of the culture of safety: survey of clinicians and managers in an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Despite the emphasis on patient safety in health care, few organizations have evaluated the extent to which safety is a strategic priority or their culture supports patient safety. In response to the Institute of Medicine's report and to an organizational commitment to patient safety, we conducted a systematic assessment of safety at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) and, from this, developed a strategic plan to improve safety. The specific aims of this study were to evaluate the extent to which the culture supports patient safety at JHH and the extent to which safety is a strategic priority. METHODS: During July and August 2001 we implemented two surveys in disparate populations to assess patient safety. The Safety Climate Scale (SCS) was administered to a sample of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other ICU staff. SCS assesses perceptions of a strong and proactive organizational commitment to patient safety. The second survey instrument, called Strategies for Leadership (SLS), evaluated the extent to which safety was a strategic priority for the organization. This survey was administered to clinical and administrative leaders. RESULTS: We received 395 completed SCS surveys from 82% of the departments and 86% of the nursing units. Staff perceived that supervisors had a greater commitment to safety than senior leaders. Nurses had higher scores than physicians for perceptions of safety. Twenty three completed SLS surveys were received from 77% of the JHH Patient Safety Committee members and 50% of the JHH Management Committee members. Management Committee responses were more positive than Patient Safety Committee, indicating that management perceived safety efforts to be further developed. Strategic planning received the lowest scores from both committees. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this is one of the first large scale efforts to measure institutional culture of safety and then design improvements in health care. The survey results suggest that strategic planning of patient safety needs enhancement. Several efforts to improve our culture of safety were initiated based on these results, which should lead to measurable improvements in patient safety.

Ensuring safety of patients receiving sedation for procedures: evaluation of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: In 1995 The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore convened an interdisciplinary task force to evaluate sedation practices, create a comprehensive set of sedation guidelines, and evaluate patient safety outcomes following guideline implementation. METHODOLOGY: Baseline data were collected on all procedures in which sedation was administered by a nonanesthesiologist for a 6-month period, using scanning technology to automate data entry. Sedation practices were reviewed, and four critical events were examined: unresponsiveness, obstructed airway, airway placement, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In 1998 data collection procedures were repeated to evaluate the impact of the guidelines on sedation practices and patient safety outcomes. RESULTS: In 1995 sedation practices varied, and one or more critical events occurred in 45 (1.4%) of 3,255 procedures. Steps taken included development and dissemination of a clinical sedation guideline, including monitoring criteria to guide nonanesthesiologists, and evaluation planning. In 1998 sedation practices were more consistent. One or more critical events occurred in 50 (1.6%) of 3,134 procedures, representing a small increase in critical events from 1995. More events of unresponsiveness were identified, and no event required CPR. Although not statistically significant, this trend suggests that critical events were being identified earlier, preventing patients from progressing to a more serious event requiring CPR. Steps taken included further refinement of clinical practice guidelines and establishment of ongoing monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of sedation practices is a complex and resource-intensive activity, requiring ongoing oversight and monitoring. Commitment from medical staff, nursing staff, and administration is essential to successful implementation of sedation guidelines.

Comparative cost effectiveness of gentamicin and tobramycin.

Gentamicin and tobramycin were compared for cost effectiveness in the treatment of adult patients with serious infections in a general medical service. We used data from a randomized double-blind trial in which the only observed difference between the clinical effects of these aminoglycosides was the incidence of nephrotoxicity (26% with gentamicin and 12% with tobramycin). According to 1984 cost data, the combined average drug and nephrotoxicity costs per patient were $127 for tobramycin and $72 for gentamicin. An extensive sensitivity analysis--varying frequency and cost of nephrotoxicity, dialysis requirements, aminoglycoside acquisition costs, and length of hospitalization--showed gentamicin to be more cost effective than tobramycin, unless hospitalization is prolonged by an average of at least 15 days for patients with severe nephrotoxicity or at least 3 days for all patients with moderate or severe nephrotoxicity.

Medication problems among outpatients. A study with emphasis on the elderly.

When patients ascribe adverse symptoms to their medications, the medical care process can be affected. To investigate how often medical outpatients link various adverse symptoms with their medications and to learn what actions they take in response, 299 randomly selected medical outpatients were interviewed. Thirty percent of the subjects identified at least one medication as causing an undesirable symptom. Subjects 65 years or older attributed a lower mean number of adverse symptoms to their medications than did younger subjects. Subjects rarely reported modifying their medication regimens due to adverse symptoms, a finding supported by multiple regression analysis. Approximately one in four subjects did not discuss their symptoms with their providers. These results have important implications for medical care in general, and for the elderly in particular.

Delirium with phenytoin and disulfiram administration.

The case of a 54-year-old man with delirium secondary to phenytoin and disulfiram administration is presented. The pharmacology, interaction, and resulting toxicity of these two drugs are explored. The patient made an uneventful recovery when the medications were withheld.