Importance of Quality of Medical Record: Differences in Patient Safety Incident Inquiry Results According to Assessment for Quality of Medical Record.

BACKGROUND: Medical record review is the gold standard method of identifying adverse events. However, the quality of medical records is a critical factor that can affect the accuracy of adverse event detection. Few studies have examined the impact of medical record quality on the identification of adverse events. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we analyze whether there were differences in screening criteria and characteristics of adverse events according to the quality of medical records evaluated in the patient safety incident inquiry in Korea. METHODS: Patient safety incident inquiry was conducted in 2019 on 7500 patients in Korea to evaluate their screening criteria, adverse events, and preventability. Furthermore, medical records quality judged by reviewers was evaluated on a 4-point scale. The χ 2 test was used to examine differences in patient safety incident inquiry results according to medical record quality. RESULTS: Cases with inadequate medical records had higher rates of identified screening criteria than those with adequate records (88.8% versus 55.7%). Medical records judged inadequate had a higher rate of confirmed adverse events than those judged adequate. "Drugs, fluids, and blood-related events," "diagnosis-related events," and "patient care-related events" were more frequently identified in cases with inadequate medical records. There was no statistically significant difference in the preventability of adverse events according to the medical record quality. CONCLUSIONS: Lower medical record quality was associated with higher rates of identified screening criteria and confirmed adverse events. Patient safety incident inquiry should specify medical record quality evaluation questions more accurately to more clearly estimate the impact of medical record quality.

Probabilistic modelling techniques in dietary exposure assessment: application on the risk assessment of cadmium for Austrian adults.

Probabilistic exposure and risk assessment of chemical hazards in the diet have increasingly gained ground in recent years as a pragmatic approach for the approximation of reality. This work presents the outcomes of a project which aimed at applying probabilistic techniques for basic modelling of chronic dietary exposure to food contaminants following EFSA guidance. These techniques, based on Monte Carlo Risk Assessment (MCRA) software and on the programming language R, were employed for the risk assessment of cadmium for Austrian adults, enabling the validation and the critical comparison of the two approaches. Harmonisation and optimisation of procedures, refinement of exposure assessment skills and confidence in the results were the main benefits. Data amount and validity were identified as critical parameters, influencing the precision of the results. Cadmium was selected as a case study due to its toxicological properties, its ubiquitous presence in food and the availability of Austrian occurrence data. Similar exposure and risk estimates were generated through MCRA and R in alternative optimistic and pessimistic exposure scenarios, suggesting low levels of concern, except for vegetarians, whose upper tail exposures are close to the established Tolerable Weekly Intake. However, as occurrence data gaps have been identified as the major element of uncertainty, the estimated exposure and risk levels are characterised as underestimated. Grains and grain-based products, potatoes and leafy vegetables are the main contributors to the intake. The results will contribute to risk management and to a future refinement of the assessment.

Patient safety incidents in radiology: frequency and distribution of incident types.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety incidents may be a valuable source of information to learn from and to prevent future errors. PURPOSE: To determine the distribution of patient safety incident types in radiology according to the International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS), and to comprehensively review those incidents that were either harmful or serious in terms of risk of patient harm and reoccurrence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The most recent five-year database (2014-2019) of a radiology incident reporting system was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 480 patient safety incidents were included. Top three ICPS incident types were clinical administration (119/480, 24.8%), resources/organizational management (112/480, 23.3%), and clinical process/procedure (91/480, 19.0%). Harm severities were none in 457 (95.2%) cases, mild in 14 (2.9%), moderate in 4 (0.8%), severe in 3 (0.6%), and unknown in one case. Subsequent Prevention Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis (PRISMA) reviews were performed in 4 (0.8%) cases. The three patient safety incidents that caused severe harm (of which one underwent PRISMA review) involved resources/organizational management (n = 1), clinical process/procedure (n = 1), and medication/IV fluids (n = 1). Three other cases (with no harm in two cases and moderate harm in one case) that underwent PRISMA review involved resources/organizational management (n = 2) and medical device/equipment/property (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Radiology-related patient safety incidents predominantly occur in three ICPS domains (clinical administration, resources/organizational management, and clinical process/procedure). Harmful/serious incidents are relatively rare. The standardly and transparently reported findings from this study may be used for healthcare quality improvement, benchmarking purposes, and as a primer for future studies.

Safety practices and opportunities for improvement in brachytherapy: A patient safety practices survey of the American Brachytherapy Society membership.

PURPOSE: Safe delivery of brachytherapy and establishing a safety culture are critical in high-quality brachytherapy. The American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) Quality and Safety Committee surveyed members regarding brachytherapy services offered, safety practices during treatment, quality assurance procedures, and needs to develop safety and training materials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 22-item survey was sent to ABS membership in early 2019 to physicians, physicists, therapists, nurses, and administrators. Participation was voluntary. Responses were summarized with descriptive statistics and relative frequency distributions. RESULTS: There were 103 unique responses. Approximately one in three was attending physicians and one in three attending physicists. Most were in practice >10 years. A total of 94% and 50% performed gynecologic and prostate brachytherapy, respectively. Ninety-one percent performed two-identification patient verification before treatment. Eighty-six percent performed a time-out. Ninety-five percent had an incident reporting or learning system, but only 71% regularly reviewed incidents. Half reviewed safety practices within the last year. Twenty percent reported they were somewhat or not satisfied with department safety culture, but 92% of respondents were interested in improving safety culture. Most reported time, communication, and staffing as barriers to improving safety. Most respondents desired safety-oriented webinars, self-assessment modules, learning modules, or checklists endorsed by the ABS to improve safety practice. CONCLUSIONS: Most but not all practices use standards and quality assurance procedures in line with society recommendations. There is a need to heighten safety culture at many departments and to shift resources (e.g., time or staffing) to improve safety practice. There is a desire for society guidance to improve brachytherapy safety practices. This is the first survey to assess safety practice patterns among a national sample of radiation oncologists with expertise in brachytherapy.

Lessons learned: using adverse incident reports to investigate the characteristics and causes of prescribing errors.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing errors are a principal cause of preventable harm in healthcare. This study aims to establish a systematic approach to analysing prescribing-related adverse incident reports, in order to elucidate the characteristics and contributing factors of common prescribing errors and target multifaceted quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: All prescribing-related adverse incident reports submitted across one NHS board over 12 months were selected. Incidents involving commonly implicated drugs (involved in ≥10 incidents) underwent analysis to establish likely underlying causes using Reason's Model of Accident Causation. RESULTS: 330 prescribing-related adverse incident reports were identified. Commonly implicated drugs were insulin (10% of incidents), gentamicin (7%), co-amoxiclav (5%) and amoxicillin (5%). The most prevalent error types were prescribing amoxicillin when contraindicated due to allergy (5%); prescribing co-amoxiclav when contraindicated due to allergy (5%); prescribing the incorrect type of insulin (3%); and omitting to prescribe insulin (3%). Error-producing factors were identified in 86% of incidents involving commonly implicated drugs. 53% of incidents involved error-producing factors related to the working environment; 38% involved factors related to the healthcare team; and 37% involved factors related to the prescriber. DISCUSSION: This study establishes that systematic analysis of adverse incident reports can efficiently identify the characteristics and contributing factors of common prescribing errors, in a manner useful for targeting quality improvement. Furthermore, this study produced a number of salient findings. First, a narrow range of drugs were implicated in the majority of incidents. Second, a small number of error types were highly recurrent. Lastly, a range of contributing factors were evident, with those related to the working environment contributing to the majority of prescribing errors analysed.

Quality Assessment of Intraoperative Adverse Event Reporting During 29 227 Robotic Partial Nephrectomies: A Systematic Review and Cumulative Analysis.

The definition of intraoperative adverse events (IAEs) still lacks standardization, hampering the assessment of surgical performance in this regard. Over the years, efforts to address this issue have been carried out to improve the reporting of outcomes. In 2019, the European Association of Urology (EAU) proposed a standardized reporting tool for IAEs in urology. The objective of the present study is to distill systematically published data on IAEs in patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for renal masses to answer three key questions (KQs). (KQ1) Which system is used to report the IAEs? (KQ2) What is the frequency of IAEs? (KQ3) What types of IAEs are reported? A comprehensive systematic review of all English-language publications on RPN was carried out. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to evaluate PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2019). Quality of reporting and grading complications were assessed according to the EAU recommendations. Globally, 59 (35.3%) and 108 (64.7%) studies reported zero and one or more IAEs, respectively. Overall, 761 (2.6%) patients reported at least one IAE. Intraoperative bleeding is reported as the most common IAE (58%). Our analysis showed no improvement in reporting and grading of IAEs over time. PATIENT SUMMARY: Up to now, an agreement regarding the definition and reporting of intraoperative adverse events (IAEs) in the literature has not been achieved. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reporting of IAEs in patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) after a systematic review of the literature. More rigorous reporting of IAEs during RPN is needed to measure their impact on patients' perioperative care.

Practice, perceived barriers and motivating factors to medical-incident reporting: a cross-section survey of health care providers at Mbarara regional referral hospital, southwestern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Medical-incident reporting (MIR) ensures patient safety and delivery of quality of care by minimizing unintentional harm among health care providers. We explored medical-incident reporting practices, perceived barriers and motivating factors among health care providers at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital (MRRH). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study on 158 health provider at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital (MRRH), Western Uganda. Data was gathered using a structured questionnaire and analyzed with SPSS. The chi-square was used to determine factors associated with MIR at MRRH. RESULTS: The results showed that there was no formal incident reporting structure. However the medical-incidences identified were: medication errors (89.9%), diagnostic errors (71.5%), surgical errors (52.5%) and preventive error (47.7%). The motivating factors of MIR were: establishment of a good communication system, instituting corrective action on the reported incidents and reinforcing health workers knowledge on MIR (p-value 0.004); presence of effective organizational systems like: written guidelines, practices of open door policy, no blame approach, and team work were significantly associated with MIR (p-value 0.000). On the other hand, perceived barriers to MIR were: lack of knowledge on incidents and their reporting, non-existence of an incident reporting team and fear of being punished (p- value 0.669). CONCLUSION: Medical Incident Reporting at MRRH was sub-optimal. Therefore setting up an incident management team and conducting routine training MIR among health care workers will increase patient safety.

Risk Estimates Supporting the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines.

The 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for the management of cervical cancer screening abnormalities recommend 1 of 6 clinical actions (treatment, optional treatment or colposcopy/biopsy, colposcopy/biopsy, 1-year surveillance, 3-year surveillance, 5-year return to regular screening) based on the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, or cancer (CIN 3+) for the many different combinations of current and recent past screening results. This article supports the main guidelines presentation by presenting and explaining the risk estimates that supported the guidelines. METHODS: From 2003 to 2017 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), 1.5 million individuals aged 25 to 65 years were screened with human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology cotesting scheduled every 3 years. We estimated immediate and 5-year risks of CIN 3+ for combinations of current test results paired with history of screening test and colposcopy/biopsy results. RESULTS: Risk tables are presented for different clinical scenarios. Examples of important results are highlighted; for example, the risk posed by most current abnormalities is greatly reduced if the prior screening round was HPV-negative. The immediate and 5-year risks of CIN 3+ used to decide clinical management are shown. CONCLUSIONS: The new risk-based guidelines present recommendations for the management of abnormal screening test and histology results; the key risk estimates supporting guidelines are presented in this article. Comprehensive risk estimates are freely available online at https://CervixCa.nlm.nih.gov/RiskTables.

Reporting of Cardiovascular Events in Clinical Trials Supporting FDA Approval of Contemporary Cancer Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has become an increasingly common limitation to effective anticancer therapy. Yet, whether CVD events were consistently reported in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, consistency, and nature of CVD event reporting in cancer drug trials. METHODS: From the Drugs@FDA, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, and publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews, all reported CVD events across latter-phase (II and III) trials supporting FDA approval of anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018 were evaluated. The primary outcome was the report of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or CVD death, irrespective of treatment arm. The secondary outcome was report of any CVD event. Pooled reported annualized incidence rates of MACE in those without baseline CVD were compared with reported large contemporary population rates using relative risks. Population risk differences for MACE were estimated. Differences in drug efficacy using pooled binary endpoint hazard ratios on the basis of the presence or absence of reported CVD were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, there were 189 trials, evaluating 123 drugs, enrolling 97,365 participants (58.5 ± 5 years, 46.0% female, 72.5% on biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies) with 148,138 person-years of follow-up. Over a median follow-up of 30 months, 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 myocardial infarction, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths; 792 in the intervention vs. 356 in the control arm; p < 0.01) were reported from the 62.4% of trials noting any CVD. The overall weighted-average incidence was 542 events per 100,000 person-years (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm), compared with 1,408 among similar-aged non-cancer trial subjects (relative risk: 0.38; p < 0.01), translating into a risk difference of 866. There was no association between reporting CVD events and drug efficacy (hazard ratio: 0.68 vs. 0.67; p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Among pivotal clinical trials linked to contemporary FDA-approved cancer drugs, reported CVD event rates trail expected population rates.

Incident reporting and level of MR safety education: A Danish national study.

INTRODUCTION: MR-safety remains a concern among MR professionals. We aimed to evaluate the extent of MR-related incidents using a national database and a questionnaire among MR professionals and to identify possible predictors for MR-related incidents. METHODS: MR-related incidents reported to a national database from 2015 to 2017 were scrutinized. A national online survey focussing on MR safety and education was performed. Quantitative analyses, descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used. RESULTS: The database included 196, 97 and 100 direct MR-related incidents in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. Regarding the questionnaire, 208 MR professionals responded. Within the last year, 33% had been involved in an MR-related incident that was reported in the national database. At some time in their working life, 53% had been involved in an MR-related incident that was reported, but 25% had been involved in an incident that was not reported. The responses to the questionnaire reflected far more incidents than those reported to the database for all categories. Sixty-one percent of respondents indicated that external personnel in the MR environment are a safety risk. External personnel in the MR environment were found to be a predictor for reported and unreported MR-related incidents with odds ratio (OR) = 2.07; p = 0.033 and OR = 5.17; p = 0.0005 respectively. CONCLUSION: There seems to be severe underreporting of MR-related incidents. External personnel in the MR-environment and scanning patients in anaesthesia were found to be predictors for both reported and unreported MR-related incidents. Regulations regarding the minimum required MR safety education of different groups of MR professionals and external personnel are recommended. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Enforcing MR safety education and highlighting the importance of MR safety within hospital organisations would contribute to better patient and personnel safety.

Descriptive Epidemiology of Safety Events at an Academic Medical Center.

Background: Adverse safety events in healthcare are of great concern, and despite an increasing focus on the prevention of error and harm mitigation, the epidemiology of safety events remains incomplete. Methods: We performed an analysis of all reported safety events in an academic medical center using a voluntary incident reporting surveillance system for patient safety. Safety events were classified as: serious (reached the patient and resulted in moderate to severe harm or death); precursor (reached the patient and resulted in minimal or no detectable harm); and near miss (did not reach the patient). Results: During a three-year period, there were 31,817 events reported. Most of the safety events were precursor safety events (reached the patient and resulted in minimal harm or no detectable harm), corresponding to 77.3%. Near misses accounted for 10.8%, and unsafe conditions for 11.8%. The number of reported serious safety events was low, accounting for only 0.1% of all safety events. Conclusions: The reports analysis of these events should lead to a better understanding of risks in patient care and ways to mitigate it.

Using the WHO International Classification of patient safety framework to identify incident characteristics and contributing factors for medical or surgical complication deaths.

This study aimed to operationalise and use the World Health Organisation's International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS) to identify incident characteristics and contributing factors of deaths involving complications of medical or surgical care in Australia. A sample of 500 coronial findings related to patient deaths following complications of surgical or medical care in Australia were reviewed using a modified-ICPS (mICPS). Over two-thirds (69.0%) of incidents occurred during treatment and 27.4% occurred in the operating theatre. Clinical process and procedures (55.9%), medication/IV fluids (11.2%) and healthcare-associated infection/complications (10.4%) were the most common incident types. Coroners made recommendations in 44.0% of deaths and organisations undertook preventive actions in 40.0% of deaths. This study demonstrated that the ICPS was able to be modified for practical use as a human factors taxonomy to identify sequences of incident types and contributing factors for patient deaths. Further testing of the mICPS is warranted.

Impact of an electronic health record transition on chemotherapy error reporting.

BACKGROUND: Incident reporting systems allow for frontline employees to report errors and are a critical component of healthcare patient safety programs. Although incident reporting systems cannot quantify total errors, organizations can utilize incident reporting systems to help identify risks and trends to act upon. The objective of this article is to utilize incident reporting systems to evaluate trends in medication error reporting before and after implementation of a new electronic health record system. METHODS: A five-month pre- and post-analysis was completed in a cancer hospital following electronic health record conversion by reviewing medication errors reported via the institution's voluntary incident reporting systems. Error reports included medication error category, date error was reported/occurred, patient location at time of error, harm severity score, medication(s) involved, medication use system node error originated/discovered in, medication source, narrative summary, and contributing factors. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics within Office Excel. RESULTS: Oncology medication error reports submitted pre- and post-electronic health record were 68 vs. 57, respectively. During the pre- and post-electronic health record conversion, a majority of errors had a harm severity index of 0 or 1; 12 (18%) in pre-electronic health record and 3 (5%) in post-electronic health record were level 2, and one (1%) in pre-electronic health record vs. 0 in post-electronic health record were level 3. Reported medication errors originated most commonly during the prescribing, administration, and preparation/dispensing phase and were primarily identified in the administration phase of the medication use process. The most frequently reported error category was 'wrong dose' followed by 'other' and 'overdose' in the pre-electronic health record phase and 'missing dose/delayed delivery' and 'order incorrect' in the post-electronic health record phase. The most frequently reported medications included methotrexate, chemotherapy (unspecified), and cisplatin. CONCLUSION: Analyzing data from incident reporting system reports allowed our institution to understand different trends of reporting in the cancer hospital following electronic health record adoption. Utilization of incident reporting systems must be combined with proactive risk identification approaches to enable systems-focused improvements to improve patient safety.

Adverse events in Malaysia: Associations with nurse's ethnicity and experience, hospital size, accreditation, and teaching status.

PURPOSE: In Malaysia, private healthcare sector has become a major player in delivering healthcare services alongside the government healthcare sector. However, wide disparities in health outcomes have been recorded, and adverse events in these contexts have yet to be explored. The purpose of this study was to explore associations between nurse's ethnicity and experience, hospital size, accreditation, and teaching status with adverse events in Malaysian private hospitals. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 12 private hospitals in Malaysia. A total of 652 (response rate = 61.8%) nurses participated in the study. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaire on nurses' characteristic, adverse events and events reporting, and perceived patient safety. RESULTS: Patient and family complaints events were the most common adverse events in Malaysian private hospitals as result of increased cost of care (3.24 ± 0.95) and verbal miscommunication (3.52 ± 0.87). CONCLUSION: Hospital size, accreditation status, teaching status, and nurse ethnicity had a mixed effect on patient safety, perceived adverse events, and events reporting. Policy makers can benefit that errors are related to several human and system related factors. Several system reforms and multidisciplinary efforts were recommended for optimizing health, healthcare and preventing patient harm.

An improved patient safety reporting system increases reports of disruptive behavior in the perioperative setting.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety event reporting systems are a mainstay in non-punitive reporting of near misses and adverse events. We hypothesized that an upgraded reporting system that included the ability to report positive behaviors would increase behavioral reports in the perioperative environment. METHODS: We performed a retrospective assessment of prospectively collected reports from the Patient Safety Net (PSN) event reporting system (2/2010-2/2015) and the RL Solutions RL6 system (8/2015-4/2018). RESULTS: Under the PSN system, 0.8 behavioral events per quarter were submitted, compared to 7.4 behavioral events per quarter with the RL6 system. The average length of reports increased from 61 to 185 words. Reports were most often submitted by nursing staff (66%), and about attending physicians (36%). 22% of reports under the RL6 system were positive; 46% of these positive reports were about physicians. CONCLUSION: After implementation of an upgraded reporting system that includes an option for positive reporting, the number and length of reports increased. We believe that a robust reporting system has contributed to a culture of safety at our institution.

[Evaluation of effectiveness of corrective measures arising from incident notifications in a paediatric emergency department]. / Evaluación de la efectividad de acciones correctivas derivadas de la notificación de incidentes en urgencias pediátricas.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the effectiveness of corrective measures arising from the analysis of safety incident notifications in the Paediatric Emergency Unit. METHODS: A quasi-experimental, prospective, and single-centre study was carried out between 2015 and 2018. In the first phase, incidents notified throughout one year were analysed. Corrective measures were then implemented for 5 specific kinds of incidents. These incidents were finally compared to those notified within 12 months after the implementation of those measures. Results were expressed as relative risk and relative risk reduction. RESULTS: A total of 1587 safety incidents were notified (0.9% of patients treated) between January 2015 and December 2017. After implementation of corrective measures, there was a decrease in all kinds of incidents notifications analysed. The incidents related to patient identification were reduced by 60.9% (RR 0.39, 95% CI; 0.25-0.60), and those regarding communication between professionals were reduced by 74.5% (RR 0.25, 95% CI; 0.12-0.55). Incidents related to sedation and analgesic procedures totally disappeared. No significant reduction was found in incidents concerning the triage system, or in those related to rapid intravenous rehydration procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of improvement actions arising from the analysis of voluntary notification of incidents is an effective strategy to improve patient effective strategy to improve.

The American Society of Thoracic Surgery Score versus EuroSCORE I and EuroSCORE II in Israeli Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Recently, Israel established the first national-level adult cardiac surgery database, which was linked to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). OBJECTIVES: To validate and compare the STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM) to logistic EuroSCORE I (LESI) and EuroSCORE II (ESII) in Israeli patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 1279 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac surgeries with a calculable PROM. Data were prospectively entered into our database and used to calculate PROM, LESI, and ESII. Scores were normalized and correlated using linear regression and Pearson's test. To examine model calibration, we plotted the total observed versus expected mortality for each score and across five risk-score subgroups. Model discrimination was assessed by measuring the area under the receiver operating curves. RESULTS: The observed 30-day operative mortality was 1.95%. The median (IQ1; IQ3) PROM, LESI, and the ESII scores were 1.45% (0.69; 3.22), 4.54% (2.28; 9.27), and 1.88% (1.18; 3.54), respectively, with observed over expected ratios of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.42-0.93), 0.59 (95%CI 0.40-0.87), and 0.24 (95%CI 0.17-0.36), respectively, (STS vs. ESII P = 0.36, STS vs. LESI P = 0.0001). There was good correlation among all scores. All models overestimated mortality. Model discrimination was high and similar for all three scores. Model calibration of the STS, PROM, and ESII were more accurate than the LESI, particularly in higher risk subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: All scores overestimated mortality. In Israeli patients, the STS, PROM, and ESII risk-scores were more reliable metrics than LESI, particularly in higher risk patients.

Preventing Self-Harm in the Nonpsychiatric Health Care Setting.

The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System is a confidential, statewide Internet reporting system to which all Pennsylvania hospitals, outpatient-surgery facilities, birthing centers, and abortion facilities must file information on incidents and serious events.Safety Monitor is a column from Pennsylvania's Patient Safety Authority, the authority that informs nurses on issues that can affect patient safety and presents strategies they can easily integrate into practice. For more information on the authority, visit www.patientsafety.pa.gov. For the original article discussed in this column or for other articles on patient safety, click on "Journal and Resources" and then "Advisory Archive" in the navigation menu.

Needlestick and sharps injuries in orthopedic surgery residents and fellows.

OBJECTIVE: Needlestick and sharps injury (NSSI) is a common occupational hazard of orthopedic surgery training. The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence and surrounding circumstances of intraoperative NSSI in orthopedic surgery residents and fellows and to examine postexposure reporting. DESIGN: A 35-question cross-sectional survey. SETTING: The study was conducted by orthopedic surgery residents and faculty at a nonprofit regional hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was distributed to US allopathic orthopedic surgery residency and fellowship programs; 300 orthopedic surgery trainees participated in the survey. RESULTS: Of 223 trainees who had completed at least 1 year of residency, 172 (77.1%) sustained an NSSI during residency, and 57 of 63 trainees (90.5%) who had completed at least 4 years sustained an NSSI during residency. The most common causes of NSSI were solid needles, followed by solid pins or wires. The surgical activity most associated with NSSI was wound closure, followed by fracture fixation. The type of surgery most frequently associated with NSSI was orthopedic trauma, followed by hip and knee arthroplasty. Of 177 trainees who had sustained a prior NSSI, 99 (55.9%) failed to report all events to their institution's occupational health department. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of NSSI during residency training is high, with >90% of trainees in their fifth year or later of training having received an injury during their training, with a mean of >4 separate events. Most trainees with an NSSI did not report all of their events, which implies that changes are needed in the incident reporting process universally.