Patients' and doctors' views and experiences of the patient safety trajectory of breast cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Successful breast cancer outcomes can be jeopardised by adverse events. Understanding and integrating patients' and doctors' perspectives into care trajectories could improve patient safety. This study assessed their views on, and experiences of, medical error and patient safety. METHODS: A cross-sectional, quantitative 20-40 item questionnaire for patients attending Cork University Hospital Cancer Centre and breast cancer doctors in the Republic of Ireland was developed. Domains included demographics, medical error experience, patient safety opinions and concerns. RESULTS: 184 patients and 116 doctors completed the survey. Of the doctors, 41.4% felt patient safety had deteriorated over the previous five years and 54.3% felt patient safety measures were inadequate compared to 13.0% and 27.7% of patients respectively. Of the 30 patients who experienced medical errors/negligence claims, 18 reported permanent or long-term physical and emotional effects. Forty-two of 48 (87.5%) doctors who experienced medical errors/negligence claims reported emotional health impacts. Almost half of doctors involved in negligence claims considered early retirement. Forty-four patients and 154 doctors didn't experience errors but reported their patient safety concerns. Doctors were more concerned about communication and administrative errors, staffing and organisational factors compared to patients. Multiple barriers to error reporting were highlighted. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to assess patients' and doctors' patient safety views and medical error/negligence claims experiences in breast cancer care in Ireland. Experience of medical error/negligence claims had long-lasting implications for both groups. Doctors were concerned about a multitude of errors and causative factors. Failure to embed these findings is a missed opportunity to improve safety.

An International Perspective on Definitions and Terminology Used to Describe Serious Reportable Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Patients are unintentionally, yet frequently, harmed in situations that are deemed preventable. Incident reporting systems help prevent harm, yet there is considerable variability in how patient safety incidents are reported. This may lead to inconsistent or unnecessary patterns of incident reporting and failures to identify serious patient safety incidents. This systematic review aims to describe international approaches in relation to defining serious reportable patient safety incidents. METHODS: Multiple electronic and gray literature databases were searched for articles published between 2009 and 2019. Empirical studies, reviews, national reports, and policies were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted because of study heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 50 articles were included. There was wide variation in the terminology used to represent serious reportable patient safety incidents. Several countries defined a specific subset of incidents, which are considered sufficiently serious, yet preventable if appropriate safety measures are taken. Terms such as "never events," "serious reportable events," or "always review and report" were used. The following dimensions were identified to define a serious reportable patient safety incident: (1) incidents being largely preventable; (2) having the potential for significant learning; (3) causing serious harm or have the potential to cause serious harm; (4) being identifiable, measurable, and feasible for inclusion in an incident reporting system; and (5) running the risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in terminology and reporting systems between countries might contribute to missed opportunities for learning. International standardized definitions and blame-free reporting systems would enable comparison and international learning to enhance patient safety.

The human side of cancer biobanking.

The future success of translational research is critically dependent on the procurement and availability of high-quality tissue specimens linked to accurate histopathologic and clinical information about the individual banked specimen. The international community has awakened to this critical need only recently. Three major roadblocks have hindered the success of previous biobank consortiums: (1) Ethical issues surrounding patient consent and ownership of intellectual property, (2) Failure to properly preserve the molecular content of the tissue, and failure to reliably document clinical data linked to the specimen, and (3) Management issues: inadequate funding, competition for use of the tissue, inadequate personnel and facilities, and absence of dedicated database software. This chapter reviews these critical roadblocks and discusses international efforts to provide strategies to implement high-quality biobanks.