Understanding Patient and Clinician Reported Nonroutine Events in Ambulatory Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Nonroutine events (NREs, i.e., deviations from optimal care) can identify care process deficiencies and safety risks. Nonroutine events reported by clinicians have been shown to identify systems failures, but this methodology fails to capture the patient perspective. The objective of this prospective observational study is to understand the incidence and nature of patient- and clinician-reported NREs in ambulatory surgery. METHODS: We interviewed patients about NREs that occurred during their perioperative care using a structured interview tool before discharge and in a 7-day follow-up call. Concurrently, we interviewed the clinicians caring for these patients immediately postoperatively to collect NREs. We trained 2 experienced clinicians and 2 patients to assess and code each reported NRE for type, theme, severity, and likelihood of reoccurrence (i.e., likelihood that the same event would occur for another patient). RESULTS: One hundred one of 145 ambulatory surgery cases (70%) contained at least one NRE. Overall, 214 NREs were reported-88 by patients and 126 by clinicians. Cases containing clinician-reported NREs were associated with increased patient body mass index ( P = 0.023) and lower postcase patient ratings of being treated with respect ( P = 0.032). Cases containing patient-reported NREs were associated with longer case duration ( P = 0.040), higher postcase clinician frustration ratings ( P < 0.001), higher ratings of patient stress ( P = 0.019), and lower patient ratings of their quality of life ( P = 0.010), of the quality of clinician teamwork ( P = 0.010), being treated with respect ( P = 0.003), and being listened to carefully ( P = 0.012). Trained patient raters evaluated NRE severity significantly higher than did clinician raters ( P < 0.001), while clinicians rated recurrence likelihood significantly higher than patients for both clinician ( P = 0.032) and patient-reported NREs ( P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both patients and clinicians readily report events during clinical care that they believe deviate from optimal care expectations. These 2 primary stakeholders in safe, high-quality surgical care have different experiences and perspectives regarding NREs. The combination of patient- and clinician-reported NREs seems to be a promising patient-centered method of identifying healthcare system deficiencies and opportunities for improvement.

Defining Safety in the Nursing Home Setting: Implications for Future Research.

Currently, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Common Format for nursing homes (NHs) accommodates voluntary reporting for 4 adverse events: falls with injury, pressure ulcers, medication errors, and infections. In 2015, AHRQ funded a technical brief to describe the state of the science related to safety in the NH setting to inform a research agenda. Thirty-six recent systematic reviews evaluated NH safety-related interventions to address these 4 adverse events and reported mostly mixed evidence about effective approaches to ameliorate them. Furthermore, these 4 events are likely inadequate to capture safety issues that are unique to the NH setting and encompass other domains related to residents' quality of care and quality of life. Future research needs include expanding our definition of safety in the NH setting, which differs considerably from that of hospitals, to include contributing factors to adverse events as well as more resident-centered care measures. Second, future research should reflect more rigorous implementation science to include objective measures of care processes related to adverse events, intervention fidelity, and staffing resources for intervention implementation to inform broader uptake of efficacious interventions. Weaknesses in implementation contribute to the current inconclusive and mixed evidence base as well as remaining questions about what outcomes are even achievable in the NH setting, given the complexity of most resident populations. Also related to implementation, future research should determine the effects of specific staffing models on care processes related to safety outcomes. Last, future efforts should explore the potential for safety issues in other care settings for older adults, most notably dementia care within assisted living.

Operating room clinicians' ratings of workload: a vignette simulation study.

OBJECTIVES: Increased clinician workload is associated with medical errors and patient harm. The Quality and Workload Assessment Tool (QWAT) measures anticipated (pre-case) and perceived (post-case) clinical workload during actual surgical procedures using ratings of individual and team case difficulty from every operating room (OR) team member. The purpose of this study was to examine the QWAT ratings of OR clinicians who were not present in the OR but who read vignettes compiled from actual case documentation to assess interrater reliability and agreement with ratings made by clinicians involved in the actual cases. METHODS: Thirty-six OR clinicians (13 anesthesia providers, 11 surgeons, and 12 nurses) used the QWAT to rate 6 cases varying from easy to moderately difficult based on actual ratings made by clinicians involved with the cases. Cases were presented and rated in random order. Before rating anticipated individual and team difficulty, the raters read prepared clinical vignettes containing case synopses and much of the same written case information that was available to the actual clinicians before the onset of each case. Then, before rating perceived individual and team difficulty, they read part 2 of the vignette consisting of detailed role-specific intraoperative data regarding the anesthetic and surgical course, unusual events, and other relevant contextual factors. RESULTS: Surgeons had higher interrater reliability on the QWAT than did OR nurses or anesthesia providers. For the anticipated individual and team workload ratings, there were no statistically significant differences between the actual ratings and the ratings obtained from the vignettes. There were differences for the 3 provider types in perceived individual workload for the median difficulty cases and in the perceived team workload for the median and more difficult cases. CONCLUSIONS: The case difficulty items on the QWAT seem to be sufficiently reliable and valid to be used in other studies of anticipated and perceived clinical workload of surgeons. Perhaps because of the limitations of the clinical documentation shown to anesthesia providers and OR nurses in the current vignette study, more evidence needs to be gathered to demonstrate the criterion-related validity of the QWAT difficulty items for assessing the workload of nonsurgeon OR clinicians.

MyMediHealth - designing a next generation system for child-centered medication management.

BACKGROUND: The last mile of the medication use system requires tools to help patients comply with medication administration rules and monitor for side effects. Personal health records (PHR) and emerging user-adopted communication tools promise to change the landscape of medication management; however, no research has been done to demonstrate how these tools might be constructed to support children with special healthcare needs. The overarching goal of the MyMediHealth project was to investigate ways in which PHRs and supported applications can improve the safety and quality of medication delivery in this population. DESIGN APPROACH: This project employed user-centered design to identify requirements for a child-centered medication management system. We collected information through site visits, facilitated group discussions, and iterative design sessions with adult caregivers. Once design requirements were articulated and validated, we constructed an initial prototype medication scheduler, which was evaluated by 202 parents using scripted activities completed using an online interactive prototype. The results of this analysis informed the development of a working prototype. STATUS: We have completed a working prototype of a scheduling system, a text-message-based alert and reminder system, and a medication administration record based on web-entered patient data. IMPLICATIONS: Pilot testing of the working prototype by stakeholders yielded strong endorsement and helpful feedback for future modifications, which are now underway as a part of an expanded project to test this system in a real-world environment.

A facilitated survey instrument captures significantly more anesthesia events than does traditional voluntary event reporting.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of an active survey method for detecting anesthesia nonroutine events (NREs). An NRE is any aspect of clinical care perceived by clinicians or observers as a deviation from optimal care based on the context of the clinical situation. METHODS: A Comprehensive Open-ended Nonroutine Event Survey (CONES) was developed to elicit NREs. CONES, which consisted of multiple brief open-ended questions, was administered to anesthesia providers in the postanesthesia care unit. CONES data were compared with those from the same hospital's anesthesia quality assurance (QA) process, which relied on self-reporting of predefined adverse events. RESULTS: CONES interviews were conducted after 183 cases of varying patient, anesthesia, and surgical complexity. Fifty-five cases had at least one NRE (30.4% incidence). During the same 30-month period, the QA process captured 159 cases with 96.8% containing at least one NRE among the 8,303 anesthetic procedures conducted (1.9% overall incidence). The CONES data were more representative of the overall surgical population. There were significant differences in NRE incidence (P < 0.001), patient impact (74.5% vs. 96.2%; P < 0.001), and injury (23.6% vs. 60.3%) between CONES and QA data. Outcomes were more severe in the QA group (P < 0.001). Extrapolation of the CONES data suggested a significantly higher overall incidence of anesthesia-related patient injury (7.7% vs. only 1.0% with the QA method). CONCLUSIONS: An active surveillance tool using the NRE construct identified a large number of clinical cases with potential patient safety concerns. This approach may be a useful complement to more traditional QA methods of self-reporting.