Oncology nurses' beliefs and attitudes towards the double-check of chemotherapy medications: a cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Double-checking medications is a widely used strategy to enhance safe medication administration in oncology, but there is little evidence to support its effectiveness. The proliferated use of double-checking may be explained by positive attitudes towards checking among nurses. This study investigated oncology nurses' beliefs towards double-checking medication, its relation to beliefs about safety and the influence of nurses' level of experience and proximity to clinical care. METHODS: This was a survey of all oncology nurses in three Swiss hospitals. The questionnaire contained 41 items on 6 domains. Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors linked to strong beliefs in the effectiveness of double-checking. RESULTS: Overall, 274 (70%) out of 389 nurses responded (91% female, mean age 37 (standard deviation = 10)). Nurses reported very strong beliefs in the effectiveness and utility of double-checking. They were also confident about their own performance in double-checking. Nurses widely believed that double checking produced safety (e.g., 86% believed errors of individuals could be intercepted with double-checks). In contrast, some limitations of double-checking were also recognized, e.g., 33% of nurses reported that double checking caused frequent interruptions and 28% reported that double-checking was done superficially in their unit. Regression analysis revealed that beliefs in effectiveness of double-checking were mainly associated with beliefs in safety production (p < 0.001). Nurses with experience in barcode scanning held less strong beliefs in effectiveness of double-checking (p = 0.006). In contrast to our expectations, there were no differences in beliefs between any professional sub-groups. CONCLUSION: The widespread and strong believe in the effectiveness of double-checking is linked to beliefs about safety production and co-exists with acknowledgement of the major disadvantages of double-checking by humans. These results are important factors to consider when any existing procedures are adapted or new checking procedures are implemented.

The impact of medical errors on Swiss anaesthesiologists: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians involved in medical errors can experience significant distress. This study aims to examine (1) how medical errors impact anaesthesiologists in key work and life domains; (2) anaesthesiologists' attitudes regarding support after errors; (3) and which anaesthesiologists are most affected by errors. METHODS: This study is a mailed cross-sectional survey completed by 281 of the 542 clinically active anaesthesiologists (52% response rate) working at Switzerland's five university hospitals between July 2012 and April 2013. RESULTS: Respondents reported that errors had negatively affected anxiety about future errors (51%), confidence in their ability as a doctor (45%), ability to sleep (36%), job satisfaction (32%), and professional reputation (9%). Respondents' lives were more likely to be affected as error severity increased. Ninety per cent of respondents disagreed that hospitals adequately support them in coping with the stress associated with medical errors. Nearly all of the respondents (92%) reported being interested in psychological counselling after a serious error, but many identified barriers to seeking counselling. However, there were significant differences between departments regarding error-related stress levels and attitudes about error-related support. Respondents were more likely to experience certain distress if they were female, older, had previously been involved in a serious error, and were dissatisfied with their last error disclosure. CONCLUSION: Medical errors, even minor errors and near misses, can have a serious effect on clinicians. Health-care organisations need to do more to support clinicians in coping with the stress associated with medical errors.

Frequency of and predictors for withholding patient safety concerns among oncology staff: a survey study.

Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and to improve a culture of safety. This study investigated the prevalence of non-speaking up despite concerns for safety and aimed to identify predictors for withholding voice among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in oncology. A self-administered questionnaire assessed safety concerns, speaking up beliefs and behaviours among nurses and doctors from nine oncology departments. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictors for withholding safety concerns. A total of 1013 HCPs returned the completed survey (response rate 65%). Safety concerns were common among responders. Fifty-four per cent reported to recognise their colleagues making potentially harmful errors at least sometimes. A majority of responders reported at least some episodes of withholding concerns about patient safety. Thirty-seven per cent said they remained silent at least once when they had information that might have helped prevent an incident. Respondents believed that a high level of interpersonal, communication and coping skills are necessary to speak up about patient safety issues at their workplace. Higher levels of perceived advocacy for patient safety and psychological safety significantly decreased the frequency of withholding voice. Remaining silent about safety concerns is a common phenomenon in oncology. Improved strategies are needed to support staff in effective communication and make cancer care safer.

Barriers and facilitators to chemotherapy patients' engagement in medical error prevention.

BACKGROUND: Medical errors are a serious threat to chemotherapy patients. Patients can make contributions to safety but little is known about the acceptability of error-preventing behaviors and its predictors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study among chemotherapy patients treated at the oncology/hematology unit of a regional hospital was conducted. Patients were presented vignettes of errors and unsafe acts and responded to measures of attitudes, behavioral control, norms, barriers, and anticipated reaction. RESULTS: A total of 479 patients completed the survey (52% response rate). Patients reported a high level of anticipated activity but intentions to engage for safety varied considerably between the hypothetical scenarios (range: 57%-96%, χ(2) P < 0.001). Health, knowledge and staff time pressure were perceived as most important barriers. Instrumental [odds ratio (OR) = 1.3, P = 0.046] and experiential attitudes (OR = 1.4, P < 0.001), expectations attributed to clinical staff (OR = 1.2, P = 0.024) and behavioral control (OR = 1.8, P < 0.001) were predictors for patients' behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are affirmative toward engaging for safety but perceive considerable barriers. Intentions to engage in error prevention vary by clinical context and are strongly influenced by attitudes, normative and control beliefs. To successfully involve patients in medical error, prevention clinicians need to address their patients' beliefs and reduce barriers through education.

Medication errors in chemotherapy: incidence, types and involvement of patients in prevention. A review of the literature.

Medication errors in chemotherapy occur frequently and have a high potential to cause considerable harm. The objective of this article is to review the literature of medication errors in chemotherapy, their incidences and characteristics, and to report on the growing evidence on involvement of patients in error prevention. Among all medication errors and adverse drug events, administration errors are common. Current developments in oncology, namely, increased outpatient treatment at ambulatory infusion units and the diffusion of oral chemotherapy to the outpatient setting, are likely to increase hazards since the process of preparing and administering the drug is often delegated to patients or their caregivers. While professional activities to error incidence reduction are effective and important, it has been increasingly acknowledged that patients often observe errors in the administration of drugs and can thus be a valuable resource in error prevention. However, patients need appropriate information, motivation and encouragement to act as 'vigilant partners'. Examples of simple strategies to involve patients in their safety are presented. Evidence indicates that high self-efficacy and perceived effectiveness of the specific preventive actions increase likelihood of participation in error prevention. Clinicians play a crucial role in supporting and enabling the chemotherapy patient in approaching errors.

[An empirical analysis of patients' preference of setting for outpatient arthroscopic surgery]. / Ambulantes Operieren: Praxis oder Krankenhaus? Eine empirische Analyse von Bevölkerungspräferenzen für die Wahl des Behandlungssettings.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate patient preferences of setting for outpatient surgery--office-based, hospital-based, or inpatient care environment--and the factors relevant to their decision. METHODS: Preferences were elicited from a sample of the general population (n=1,134) with a discrete choice model, an efficient technique for estimating utility. Participants chose their preferred mode among different outpatient scenarios for hypothetical arthroscopic surgery. RESULTS: The subjects were open to alternative options of care delivery and based their decisions on particular attributes, "specialization," "staff continuity," and "waiting time" having the largest effect on choices. A slight preference for hospital-based outpatient surgery was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that patients' choice of providers is open and based on specific attributes of treatment delivery and institution and not the setting per se.

Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Double-checking is widely recommended as an essential method to prevent medication errors. However, prior research has shown that the concept of double-checking is not clearly defined, and that little is known about actual practice in oncology, for example, what kind of checking procedures are applied. OBJECTIVE: To study the practice of different double-checking procedures in chemotherapy administration and to explore nurses' experiences, for example, how often they actually find errors using a certain procedure. General evaluations regarding double-checking, for example, frequency of interruptions during and caused by a check, or what is regarded as its essential feature was assessed. METHODS: In a cross-sectional survey, qualified nurses working in oncology departments of 3 hospitals were asked to rate 5 different scenarios of double-checking procedures regarding dimensions such as frequency of use in practice and appropriateness to prevent medication errors; they were also asked general questions about double-checking. RESULTS: Overall, 274 nurses (70% response rate) participated in the survey. The procedure of jointly double-checking (read-read back) was most commonly used (69% of respondents) and rated as very appropriate to prevent medication errors. Jointly checking medication was seen as the essential characteristic of double-checking-more frequently than 'carrying out checks independently' (54% vs 24%). Most nurses (78%) found the frequency of double-checking in their department appropriate. Being interrupted in one's own current activity for supporting a double-check was reported to occur frequently. Regression analysis revealed a strong preference towards checks that are currently implemented at the responders' workplace. CONCLUSIONS: Double-checking is well regarded by oncology nurses as a procedure to help prevent errors, with jointly checking being used most frequently. Our results show that the notion of independent checking needs to be transferred more actively into clinical practice. The high frequency of reported interruptions during and caused by double-checks is of concern.

Women's experiences with low-risk singleton in-hospital delivery in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess maternal and neonatal clinical short-term outcomes and women's experiences with singleton low-risk in-hospital deliveries in a routine care setting. METHODS: In 13 community hospitals in the Cantons of Zurich (10), St. Gallen (2) and Schwyz (1), participating in the "Canton of Zurich Outcomes Project", trained hospital staff recorded clinical outcome data. Patients completed a questionnaire at the end of the hospital stay. Over two measurement cycles, 3395 eligible women entered the study and 2079 (61%) returned the questionnaire. RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent of women had spontaneous and 11% had assisted vaginal deliveries, 12% delivered by emergency, and 10% by elective Caesarean section. The episiotomy rate in vaginal deliveries was 46% (95% CI 44-48%). Ten percent of neonates had umbilical cord artery pH < or =7.15 (95% CI 9-11%) and Apgar scores at five minutes were < or = 7 in 3% (95% CI 2.5-3.6%). Reporting negative experiences with hospital care and an insufficient state of knowledge at discharge were strongly associated with mode of delivery. The top three issues new mothers were most likely to report about feeling little or not informed about were postpartum pelvic floor exercises (22%), management of vaginal bleedings (12%), and alternatives of infant feeding (10%). CONCLUSION: In a setting of routine care poor short-term outcomes were rare in women giving birth in hospitals, and neonates and most mothers were discharged with a level of information that at least ensured a smooth transition to follow-up maternal care. Poor clinical results and patient-reported negative experiences concentrate in few individuals. Restrictive approaches that reduce the frequency of instrumental vaginal delivery, and routine episiotomy remain an important objective for quality improvement.

'Saying it without words': a qualitative study of oncology staff's experiences with speaking up about safety concerns.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of oncology staff with communicating safety concerns and to examine situational factors and motivations surrounding the decision whether and how to speak up using semistructured interviews. SETTING: 7 oncology departments of six hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Diverse sample of 32 experienced oncology healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Nurses and doctors commonly experience situations which raise their concerns and require questioning, clarifying and correcting. Participants often used non-verbal communication to signal safety concerns. Speaking-up behaviour was strongly related to a clinical safety issue. Most episodes of 'silence' were connected to hygiene, isolation and invasive procedures. In contrast, there seemed to exist a strong culture to communicate questions, doubts and concerns relating to medication. Nearly all interviewees were concerned with 'how' to say it and in particular those of lower hierarchical status reflected on deliberate 'voicing tactics'. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a widely accepted culture to discuss any concerns relating to medication safety while other issues are more difficult to voice. Clinicians devote considerable efforts to evaluate the situation and sensitively decide whether and how to speak up. Our results can serve as a starting point to develop a shared understanding of risks and appropriate communication of safety concerns among staff in oncology.