Strategies that facilitate the delivery of exceptionally good patient care in general practice: a qualitative study with patients and primary care professionals.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, proactive strengths-based approaches to improving quality of care have been advocated. The positive deviance approach seeks to identify and learn from those who perform exceptionally well. Central to this approach is the identification of the specific strategies, behaviours, tools and contextual strategies used by those positive deviants to perform exceptionally well. This study aimed to: identify and collate the specific strategies, behaviours, processes and tools used to support the delivery of exceptionally good care in general practice; and to abstract the identified strategies into an existing framework pertaining to excellence in general practice; the Identifying and Disseminating the Exceptional to Achieve Learning (IDEAL) framework. METHODS: This study comprised a secondary analysis of data collected during semi-structured interviews with 33 purposively sampled patients, general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers. Discussions explored the key factors and strategies that support the delivery of exceptional care across five levels of the primary care system; the patient, provider, team, practice, and external environment. For analysis, a summative content analysis approach was undertaken whereby data were inductively analysed and summated to identify the key strategies used to achieve the delivery of exceptionally good general practice care, which were subsequently abstracted as a new level of the IDEAL framework. RESULTS: In total, 222 individual factors contributing to exceptional care delivery were collated and abstracted into the framework. These included specific behaviours (e.g., patients providing useful feedback and personal history to the provider), structures (e.g., using technology effectively to support care delivery (e.g., electronic referrals & prescriptions)), processes (e.g., being proactive in managing patient flow and investigating consistently delayed wait times), and contextual factors (e.g., valuing and respecting contributions of every team member). CONCLUSION: The addition of concrete and contextual strategies to the IDEAL framework has enhanced its practicality and usefulness for supporting improvement in general practices. Now, a multi-level systems approach is needed to embed these strategies and create an environment where excellence is supported. The refined framework should be developed into a learning tool to support teams in general practice to measure, reflect and improve care within their practice.

Identifying Factors that Support the Delivery of Exceptional Care in General Practice and Development of the IDEAL Framework: A Qualitative Study.

The positive deviance approach seeks to identify and learn from those that perform exceptionally well. Positive deviance as an approach to quality improvement is gaining traction in general practice. This study aimed to explore and compare stakeholders' perceptions of the factors that support the delivery of exceptional care in general practice and to refine a previously developed theoretical framework of factors associated with positively deviant care in general practice: the Identifying and Disseminating the Exceptional to Achieve Learning (IDEAL) framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 33 purposively sampled patients, general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers in Irish general practice. Subsequently, a directed content analysis approach was employed to deductively analyse interview data using the IDEAL framework, and newly emerging factors were inductively analysed and abstracted into the framework. Several distinct strategies (e.g. patient activation and team collaboration), structures (e.g. facilities and staffing), and contextual factors (e.g. communication and rapport, and culture) were found to support the delivery of exceptional care, and differences in perceptions, values, and expectations emerged between patients and practice staff. Interview data largely supported the pre-determined factors posited by the IDEAL framework, and new factors were abstracted into the framework (e.g. facilities and infrastructure). Stakeholder engagement regarding the factors supporting exceptional care in general practice supported and extended the IDEAL framework, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of how exceptional care is delivered in general practice. The refined framework will support researchers, policymakers, and teams looking to support, measure, and achieve exceptionally good patient care in general practice.

Using In Situ Simulation to Identify Latent Safety Threats in Emergency Medicine: A Systematic Review.

SUMMARY STATEMENT: This review aimed to explore existing literature on the use of in situ simulation to identify latent safety threats in emergency medicine. Studies were required to take place in a clinically active emergency department and have either a primary or secondary aim of identifying latent safety threats. A total of 2921 articles were retrieved through database searches and a total of 15 were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria.Latent safety threats were detected by a variety of methods including documentation during debrief/discussion (66%), during the simulation itself (33%), participant surveys (20%), and video analysis (20%). Using a multimodality approach with input from observers and participants from different professional backgrounds yielded the highest number of threats per simulation case (43 per case). Equipment was the most commonly reported threat (83%), followed by teamwork/communication (67%). Some studies did not report on mitigation of identified risks; formal processes should be implemented for the management of latent safety threats identified by in situ simulation. Future research should focus on translational outcomes to further strengthen the position of in situ simulation in emergency medicine.

A scoping review of patient safety research carried out in the Republic of Ireland.

Maintaining the highest levels of patient safety is a priority of healthcare organisations. However, although considerable resources are invested in improving safety, patients still suffer avoidable harm. The aims of this study are: (1) to examine the extent, range, and nature of patient safety research activities carried out in the Republic of Ireland (RoI); (2) make recommendations for future research; and (3) consider how these recommendations align with the Health Service Executive's (HSE) patient safety strategy. A five-stage scoping review methodology was used to synthesise the published research literature on patient safety carried out in the RoI: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) chart the data; and (5) collate, summarise, and report the results. Electronic searches were conducted across five electronic databases. A total of 31 papers met the inclusion criteria. Of the 24 papers concerned with measuring and monitoring safety, 12 (50%) assessed past harm, 4 (16.7%) the reliability of safety systems, 4 (16.7%) sensitivity to operations, 9 (37.5%) anticipation and preparedness, and 2 (8.3%) integration and learning. Of the six intervention papers, three (50%) were concerned with education and training, two (33.3%) with simplification and standardisation, and one (16.7%) with checklists. One paper was concerned with identifying potential safety interventions. There is a modest, but growing, body of patient safety research conducted in the RoI. It is hoped that this review will provide direction to researchers, healthcare practitioners, and health service managers, in how to build upon existing research in order to improve patient safety.

A systematic review of the use of positive deviance approaches in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Positive Deviance (PD) approach focuses on identifying and learning from those who demonstrate exceptional performance despite facing similar resource constraints to others. Recently, it has been embraced to improve the quality of patient care in a variety of healthcare domains. PD may offer one means of enacting effective quality improvement in primary care. OBJECTIVE(S): This review aimed to synthesize the extant research on applications of the PD approach in primary care. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched; MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Web of Science. Studies reporting original data on applications of the PD approach, as described by the PD framework, in primary care were included, and data extracted. Thematic analysis was used to classify positively deviant factors and to develop a conceptual framework. Methodological quality was appraised using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS). RESULTS: In total, 27 studies were included in the review. Studies most frequently addressed Stages 1 and 2 of the PD framework, and targeted 5 core features of primary care; effectiveness, chronic disease management, preventative care, prescribing behaviour, and health promotion. In total, 268 factors characteristic of exceptional care were identified and synthesized into a framework of 37 themes across 7 system levels. CONCLUSION: Several useful factors associated with exceptional care were described in the literature. The proposed framework has implications for understanding and disseminating best care practice in primary care. Further refinement of the framework is required before its widespread recommendation.

The positive deviance approach is focused on identifying people/organizations performing particularly well, in spite of having similar challenges and resources to others, and learning about how they work so well. Recently, this approach has been used in healthcare to learn about how to improve the quality and safety of care for patients. This review aims to explore how the positive deviance approach has been used in primary care settings and to summarize the findings from this research. Overall, 27 studies were included in the review. We found that studies typically focused on identifying positive deviants (i.e. those performing particularly well) and finding out what helps them do that, without looking to see if these same practices work elsewhere or teaching others about them. The positive deviance approach was used to improve several different parts of primary care including; care effectiveness, management of chronic diseases, preventative care, prescribing, and health promotion. Several success strategies were identified from the studies' findings and were organized into a framework describing what practices contribute to particularly good performance in primary care. This framework will be useful for those looking to improve quality of care in primary care.

How safe is prehospital care? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As compared to other domains of healthcare, little is known about patient safety incidents (PSIs) in prehospital care. The aims of our systematic review were to identify how the prevalence and level of harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care are assessed; the frequency of PSIs in prehospital care; and the harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care. METHOD: Searches were conducted of Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete and the grey literature. Reference lists of included studies and existing related reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies reporting data on number/frequency of PSIs and/or harm associated with PSIs were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from the studies and carried out a critical appraisal using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: Of the 22 included papers, 16 (73%) used data from record reviews, and 6 (27%) from incident reports. The frequency of PSIs in prehospital care was found to be a median of 5.9 per 100 records/transports/patients. A higher prevalence of PSIs was identified within studies that used record review data (9.9 per 100 records/transports/patients) as compared to incident reports (0.3 per records/transports/patients). Across the studies that reported harm, a median of 15.6% of PSIs were found to result in harm. Studies that utilized record review data reported that a median of 6.5% of the PSIs resulted in harm. For data from incident reporting systems, a median of 54.6% of incidents were associated with harm. The mean QATSDD score was 25.6 (SD = 4.1, range = 16-34). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review gives direction as to how to advance methods for identifying PSIs in prehospital care and assessing the extent to which patients are harmed.

Measurement and monitoring patient safety in prehospital care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital care is potentially hazardous with the possibility for patients to experience an adverse event. However, as compared to secondary care, little is known about how patient safety is managed in prehospital care settings. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review were to identify and classify the methods of measuring and monitoring patient safety that have been used in prehospital care using the five dimensions of the Measuring and Monitoring Safety (MMS) framework and use this classification to identify where there are safety 'blind spots' and make recommendations for how these deficits could be addressed. METHODS: Searches were conducted in January 2020, with no limit on publication year, using Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science and Academic Search. Reference lists of included studies and existing related reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies concerned with measuring and monitoring safety in prehospital care were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from studies and applied a quality appraisal tool (the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs). RESULTS: A total of 5301 studies were screened, with 52 included in the review. A total of 73% (38/52) of the studies assessed past harm, 25% (13/52) the reliability of safety critical processes, 1.9% (1/52) sensitivity to operations, 38.5% (20/52) anticipation and preparedness and 5.8% (3/52) integration and learning. A total of 67 methods for measuring and monitoring safety were used across the included studies. Of these methods, 38.8% (26/67) were surveys, 29.9% (20/67) were patient records reviews, 14.9% (10/67) were incident reporting systems, 11.9% (8/67) were interviews or focus groups and 4.5% (3/67) were checklists. CONCLUSIONS: There is no single method of measuring and monitoring safety in prehospital care. Arguably, most safety monitoring systems have evolved, rather than been designed. This leads to safety blind spots in which information is lacking, as well as to redundancy and duplication of effort. It is suggested that the findings from this systematic review, informed by the MMS framework, can provide a structure for critically thinking about how safety is being measured and monitored in prehospital care. This will support the design of a safety surveillance system that provides a comprehensive understanding of what is being done well, where improvements should be made and whether safety interventions have had the desired effect.

Diabetes distress instruments in adults with Type 1 diabetes: A systematic review using the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) checklist.

AIMS: To identify all extant instruments used to measure diabetes distress in adults with Type 1 diabetes and to evaluate the evidence for the measurement properties of these instruments. METHODS: Medline, Embase, CINAHL plus and PsycINFO were systematically searched from inception up until 12 March 2020 for all publications which evaluated the psychometric properties of diabetes distress measurement instruments. The quality of the methodology and the measurement properties in the identified studies were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. RESULTS: Seven out of the 7656 articles retrieved in the search were included in the final review. Four diabetes distress measurement instruments were identified, none of which displayed evidence for all measurement properties specified in the COSMIN guidelines. The Problem Areas in Diabetes-11 (PAID-11) demonstrated the best psychometric properties, displaying strong evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, hypothesis testing, responsiveness and criterion validity. The Problem Areas in Diabetes scale (PAID) was the most frequently investigated instrument, demonstrating good relevance and hypothesis testing across four studies; however, concerns remain over its factor structure. CONCLUSION: The PAID-11 appears to be the most psychometrically sound instrument for measuring diabetes distress in adults with Type 1 diabetes, displaying strong evidence for a range of measurement properties. However, as only one study evaluated this instrument and its content validity has yet to be assessed, further validation is warranted. Additional qualitative work is needed to assess the content validity of these instruments among individuals with Type 1 diabetes.

Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review.

CONTEXT: Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer-reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time-points across a 49-year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi-square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. RESULTS: A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.