Videos of simulated after action reviews: a training resource to support social and inclusive learning from patient safety events.

Innovation in the education and training of healthcare staff is required to support complementary approaches to learning from patient safety and everyday events in healthcare. Debriefing is a commonly used learning tool in healthcare education but not in clinical practice. Little is known about how to implement debriefing as an approach to safety learning across a health system. After action review (AAR) is a debriefing approach designed to help groups come to a shared mental model about what happened, why it happened and to identify learning and improvement. This paper describes a digital-based implementation strategy adapted to the Irish healthcare system to promote AAR uptake. The digital strategy aims to assist implementation of national level incident management policies and was collaboratively developed by the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences and the National Quality and Patient Safety Directorate of the Health Service Executive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a well-established in-person AAR training programme was disrupted and this led to the development of a series of open access videos on AAR facilitation skills (which accompany the online version of this paper). These provide: (1) an introduction to the AAR facilitation process; (2) a simulation of a facilitated formal AAR; (3) techniques for handling challenging situations that may arise in an AAR and a (4) reflection on the benefits of the AAR process. These have the potential to be used widely to support learning from patient safety and everyday events including excellent care.

Effect of after action review on safety culture and second victim experience and its implementation in an Irish hospital: A mixed methods study protocol.

BACKGROUND: After Action Review is a form of facilitated team learning and review of events. The methodology originated in the United States Army and forms part of the Incident Management Framework in the Irish Health Services. After Action Review has been hypothesized to improve safety culture and the effect of patient safety events on staff (second victim experience) in health care settings. Yet little direct evidence exists to support this and its implementation has not been studied. AIM: To investigate the effect of After Action Review on safety culture and second victim experience and to examine After Action Review implementation in a hospital setting. METHODS: A mixed methods study will be conducted at an Irish hospital. To assess the effect on safety culture and second victim experience, hospital staff will complete surveys before and twelve months after the introduction of After Action Review to the hospital (Hospital Survey on Safety Culture 2.0 and Second Victim Experience and Support Tool). Approximately one in twelve staff will be trained as After Action Review Facilitators using a simulation based training programme. Six months after the After Action Review training, focus groups will be conducted with a stratified random sample of the trained facilitators. These will explore enablers and barriers to implementation using the Theoretical Domains Framework. At twelve months, information will be collected from the trained facilitators and the hospital to establish the quality and resource implications of implementing After Action Review. DISCUSSION: The results of the study will directly inform local hospital decision-making and national and international approaches to incorporating After Action Review in hospitals and other healthcare settings.

Provision of continence pads by the continence services in Great Britain: fair all round?

PURPOSE: The UK Department of Health guidelines for continence services recommended that maintenance products should be available to anyone in quantities appropriate to the individuals' needs and to children above the age of 4 years. Despite this, there is much anecdotal evidence of rationing products. The aim of this study was to examine to what extent services limited pad supplies and what criteria were in operation to govern the supply. METHODS: A questionnaire exploring the current practice in conferring eligibility and prescribing and providing continence products was developed and distributed to all continence services in Great Britain, using a database of services. Data were analyzed from all returned questionnaires to all continence services on the Continence Foundation database and were also extracted from the 2006 National Audit of Continence Care for Older People. RESULTS: Few continence services employed clear and detailed criteria for issuing continence pads and, when present, written criteria used arbitrary cutoffs for measuring incontinence severity. Rationing was widespread, and the most common adult pad allowance was 4 per day. In addition, 59% of continence services provided pads to children below the recommended age of 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Distribution of continence pads was based upon arbitrary criteria. We recommend the development of a single assessment tool with clear criteria for provision of continence products throughout the United Kingdom. We also recommend that criteria limiting the number of continence pads supplied on a daily basis are transparent and explicit.