What is the effectiveness of reporting systems in promoting learning in healthcare?

Patient safety in healthcare remains a top priority. Learning from safety events is vital to move towards safer systems. As a result, reporting systems are recognised as the cornerstone of safety, especially in high-risk industries. However, in healthcare, the benefits of reporting systems in promoting learning remain contentious. Though the strengths of these systems, such as promoting a safety culture and providing information from near misses are noted, there are problems that mean learning is missed. Understanding the factors that both enable and act as barriers to learning from reporting is also important to consider. This review, considers the effectiveness of reporting systems in contributing to learning in healthcare.

Safety incident reporting and barriers (SIRaB) study: Strategies and approaches for investigating patient safety events in a hospital set-up.

BACKGROUND: Unsafe patient events not only entail a clinical impact but also lead to economic burden in terms of prolonged hospitalization or unintended harm and delay in care delivery. Monitoring and time-bound investigation of patient safety events (PSEs) is of paramount importance in a healthcare set-up. OBJECTIVES: To explore the safety incident reporting behaviour and the barriers in a hospital set-up. METHODS: The study had two sections: (a) Retrospective assessment of all safety incidents in the past 1 year, and (b) Understanding the barriers of safety reporting by interviewing the major stakeholders in patient safety reporting framework. Further root cause analysis and failure mode effect analysis were performed for the situation observed. Results were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Of the total of 106 PSEs reported voluntarily to the system, the highest reporting functional group was that of nurses (40.57%), followed by physicians (18.87%) and pharmacists (17.92%). Among the various factors identified as barriers in safety incident reporting, fear of litigation was the most observed component. The most commonly observed event was those pertaining to medication management, followed by diagnostic delay. Glitches in healthcare delivery accounted for 8.73% of the total reported PSEs, followed by 5.72% of events occurring due to inter-stakeholder communication errors. 4.22% of the PSEs were attributed to organizational managerial dysfunctionalities. Majority of medication-related PSE has moderate risk prioritization gradation. CONCLUSION: Effective training and sensitization regarding the need to report the patient unsafe incidents or near misses to the healthcare system can help avert many untoward experiences. The notion of 'No Blame No Shame' should be well inculcated within the minds of each hospital unit such that even if an error occurs, its prompt reporting does not get harmed.

Racial disparities in breast cancer risk factors and risk management.

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are well described across the spectrum of screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Breast cancer mortality is markedly elevated for Non-Hispanic Black women compared with other racial and ethnic groups, with multifactorial causes. Here, we aim to reduce this burden by identifying disparities in breast cancer risk factors, risk assessment, and risk management before breast cancer is diagnosed. We describe a reproductive profile and modifiable risk factors specific to the development of triple-negative breast cancer. We also propose that screening strategies should be both risk- and race-based, given the prevalence of early-onset triple-negative breast cancer in young Black women. We emphasize the importance of early risk assessment and identification of patients at hereditary and familial risk and discuss indications for a high-risk referral. We discuss the subtleties following genetic testing and highlight "uncertain" genetic testing results and risk estimation challenges in women who test negative. We trace aspects of the obesity epidemic in the Black community to infant feeding patterns and emphasize healthy eating and activity. Finally, we discuss building an environment of trust to foster adherence to recommendations, follow-up care, and participation in clinical trials. Addressing relevant social determinants of health; educating patients and clinicians on factors impacting disparities in outcomes; and encouraging participation in targeted, culturally sensitive research are essential to best serve all communities.

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.

[17 years of the critical incident reporting and learning system "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" for primary care: Analysis of reports]. / 17 Jahre hausärztliches Fehlerberichts- und Lernsystem "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" ­ Analyse des Berichtsbestandes.

BACKGROUND: The topic of patient safety has been a subject of much discussion since the end of the last millennium. Ensuring patient safety is a central challenge in health care. An important tool to raise awareness for and learn from adverse events and thus promote patient safety are error-reporting and learning systems (Critical Incident Reporting System = CIRS). METHODS: More than 17 years after its establishment, the CIRS "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" (JFZ) for German primary care has undergone a revision in terms of content and technology. The revised web-based system can be used for reporting as well as for classifying and analyzing incident reports. During this process, a descriptive analysis of the current report inventory was carried out, with a focus on serious medication errors. This included all 781 valid incident reports received between September 2004 and December 2021. RESULTS: In 576 of the 781 reports (73.8%), the GP practice was directly involved in the critical incident. Among error types, process errors predominated (79.8% of the classifications, 99.1% of the reports) compared with knowledge and skills errors (20.2% of the classifications, 39.7% of the reports). Communication errors (63.0%) were the most common contributing factor to critical incidents, followed by flaws in tasks and measures (39.7%). Serious and permanent patient harm was rarely reported (8.3% of the reports), whereas temporary patient harm was more common (40.3% of the reports). Incident reports about medication errors with at least serious patient harm included, in particular, substances that affected blood clotting, corticosteroids, and opiates. DISCUSSION: Our results complement the rates that are reported internationally for error types, patient harm, and contributing factors. Serious but preventable adverse events, so-called never events, are frequently associated with the medication process in both JFZ reports and the literature. CONCLUSION: Critical incident reporting systems cannot provide accurate information about the frequency of errors in health care, but they can offer important insights into, for example, serious medication errors. Therefore, they offer both employees and healthcare institutions an opportunity for individual and institutional learning.

Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents at a tertiary hospital in South Africa during the COVID-19 period (2018-2021)- A retrospective review.

The healthcare sector in South Africa has seen a rise in medical errors and negligence adversely affecting healthcare delivery. This study aimed to determine the nature and magnitude of Patient Safety Incidents at a tertiary hospital between April 2018 to March 2021 (the COVID-19 era). A retrospective review of Patient Safety Incidents forms and clinical records of inpatients above 12 years with a reported incident were included. The overall incidence of patient safety incidents was 4.40 PSIs per 10 000 patient-days. The majority of PSIs were harmful incidents (An incident that results in harm to a patient that is related to medical management, in contrast to disease complications or underlying disease) at 72.50% [145/200], followed by no harm incidents at 18.00% [36/200] and 9.50% [19/200] near-miss incidents. The five highest incident types were clinical process/procedure [83/200; 41.50%], behaviour [49/200; 24.50%], falls [28/200; 14%], complications [20/200; 10%], and pressure sores [11/200; 5.50%]. Incidents occurred more frequently within the week (83.50%) and during day shift (67.50%). Overall, the study showed low PSI reporting rates which is an inherent challenge with voluntary reporting. Notably, there has been an increasing trend in reporting. The results reflect a reporting culture more inclined to bring awareness to incidents that have negative outcomes.

Safety in radiation oncology (SAFRON): Learning about incident causes and safety barriers in external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Safety in Radiation Oncology (SAFRON) is a reporting and learning system on radiotherapy and radionuclide therapy incidents and near misses. The primary aim of this paper is to examine whether any discernible patterns exist in the causes of reported incidents and safety barriers within the SAFRON system concerning external beam radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study focuses on external beam radiotherapy incidents, reviewing 1685 reports since the inception of SAFRON until December 2021. Reports that did not identify causes of incidents and safety barriers were excluded from the final study population. RESULTS: Simple two-dimensional radiotherapy or electron beam therapy were represented by 97 reports, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy by 39 reports, modulated arc therapy by 12 reports, intensity modulated radiation therapy by 11 reports, stereotactic radiosurgery by 4 reports, and radiotherapy with protons or other particles by 1 report, while for 92 of them, no information on treatment method had been provided. Most of the reported incidents were minor incidents and were discovered by the radiation therapist. Inadequate direction/information in staff communication was the most frequently reported cause of incident, and regular independent chart check was the most common safety barrier. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the majority of incidents were reported by radiation therapists, and the majority of these incidents were classified as minor. Communication problems and failure to follow standards/procedures/practices were the most frequent causes of incidents. Furthermore, regular independent chart checking was the most frequently identified safety barrier.

Thematic reviews of patient safety incidents as a tool for systems thinking: a quality improvement report.

Ensuring organisations learn from patient safety incidents is a key aim for healthcare organisations. The role that human factors and systems thinking can have to enable organisations learn from incidents is well acknowledged. A systems approach can help organisations focus less on individual fallibility and more on setting up resilient and safe systems. Investigation of incidents has previously been rooted in reductionist methodologies, for example, seeking to find the 'root cause' to individual incidents. While healthcare has embraced, in some contexts, the option for system-based methodologies-for example, SEIPS and Accimaps-these methodologies and frameworks still operate from a single incident perspective. It has long been acknowledged that healthcare organisations should focus on near misses and low harms with the same emphasis as incidents resulting in high harm. However, logistically, investigating all incidents in the same way is difficult. This paper puts forward an argument for themed reviews of patient safety incidents and provides an illustrative template for theming incidents using a human factors classification tool. This allows groups of incidents relating to the same portfolio, for example, medication errors, falls, pressure ulcer, diagnostic error, to be analysed at the same time and result in recommendations based on a larger sample size of incidents and based on a systems approach. This paper will present extracts of the themed review template trialled and argues that thematic reviews, in this context, allowed for a better understanding of the system of safety around the mismanagement of the deteriorating patient.

Gestión de riesgos aplicado al diseño de un nuevo proceso productivo de un inmunoterapéutico del Centro de Ingeniería Genética y Biotecnología / Risk management applied to the design of a new production process for an immunotherapeutic from the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology

El estudio expone las acciones dirigidas a la reducción de los riesgos en el diseño de un nuevo proceso de producción del ingrediente farmacéutico activo de un inmunoterapéutico producido en el Centro de Ingeniería Genética y Biotecnología. El análisis modal de fallas y efectos fue conducido por un equipo multidisciplinario del referido centro. La administración de riesgos a la calidad se aplicó a la tecnología de obtención de una proteína recombinante con uso diagnóstico que se proponía transferir a la Dirección de Desarrollo Tecnológico. El riesgo en el diseño de un nuevo proceso de producción evaluó las fallas de mayor influencia en el bajo recobrado y el incumplimiento de las especificaciones de calidad del inmunoterapéutico. Las causas potenciales de estos fallas fueron: la insuficiente cantidad de viales de los bancos de células, el medio de cultivo complejo con componentes de origen bovino, la incorrecta manipulación de las muestras por los operarios, el uso de equipamiento no adecuado, los parámetros de operación (agitación, pH y conductividad) fuera de límites de especificación con efecto sobre la pureza por el alto porcentaje de contaminantes del hospedero; así como, un medio filtrante inadecuado unido a una incorrecta preparación del sistema de filtración redundantes en un producto no estéril. Las acciones llevaron a modificaciones en la tecnología propuesta por la Dirección de Investigaciones Biomédicas que permitió el diseño de un nuevo proceso productivo para un biofarmacéutico destinado al tratamiento de enfermedades virales crónicas(AU)

The study aimed at reducing risks in the design of a new production process for the active pharmaceutical ingredient of an immunotherapeutic produced at the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. The failure mode and effects analysis were conducted by a multidisciplinary team from the center. Quality risk management was applied to the technology for obtaining a recombinant protein for diagnostic use that was proposed to be transferred to Technological Development Division. The risk analyses evaluated the greatest influence on low recovery and non-compliance with the immunotherapeutic quality specifications. The potential causes of the failures were: the insufficient number of vials in cell banks, the complex culture medium with components of bovine origin, the samples handling errors by the operators, the use of inappropriate equipment, the parameters of operation (agitation, pH and conductivity) outside specification limits affecting purity due to the high percentage of contaminants from the host; as well as, the inadequate filtering medium together with an incorrect preparation of the redundant filtration system in a non-sterile product. The actions could modify the technology proposed by Biomedical Research Division that allowed the design of a new production process of a biopharmaceutical product for the treatment of chronic viral diseases(AU)

Improving incident reporting among physicians at south health campus hospital.

Reports of adverse events and near-misses provide the opportunity to learn about latent (systems) errors. However, voluntary incident reporting systems are underused by physicians. While reports submitted by nursing staff relate to common hazards such as medication administration or falls, physicians have broader exposure to patients' entire hospital journey. Reports by physicians have the potential to uncover more serious errors that could span multiple departments and layers of personnel. Organisational safety culture thrives when all staff are represented and feel empowered to share safety concerns.At the South Health Campus (SHC) Hospital in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, the baseline proportion of physician-submitted reports within our site's Reporting and Learning System (RLS) from July 2013 to December 2016 was 1.12%. We implemented an intervention to double the proportion of physician-submitted RLS reports, using quality improvement methods.Focus groups identified lack of experience with the RLS system, lack of feedback or closure after an RLS submission, and apprehensions about disclosing the incident to the affected patient as barriers to physician submission. Accordingly, the intervention involved direct responses from physician leadership to each physician-submitted RLS report, multimedia demonstrations of efficient RLS submission to physician groups and medical learners, and linkage to materials on safe disclosures. Effectiveness was assessed using a controlled before-and-after design, comparing SHC with the rest of Calgary and with the rest of Alberta.Following the intervention, the proportion of RLS reports that were physician submitted increased to 2.65% (OR 2.42 [95% CI 1.96 to 3.02], p<0.001), sustained over the following 4 years. While an increase was observed for the rest of Calgary, it was smaller (OR 1.27 [1.15 to 1.40], p<0.001). A decrease in the odds of physician submission was observed for the rest of Alberta. Differences between sites were significant (p<0.001).Overall, we found that physician-submitted incident reports can be increased and sustained over time if submitters receive personalised feedback by a physician safety leader. At our site, reports submitted by physicians have been valuable in uncovering complex systems issues that may not have been readily apparent.

A Longitudinal Evaluation of Computed Tomography Radiation Incidents Within a Multisite NHS Trust.

OBJECTIVES: This single-center review explores trends in computed tomography "radiation incidents" and suggests strategies for improvement. METHOD: A retrospective mixed-methods approach was used in this longitudinal evaluation of radiation incidents within a multisite NHS Trust in northern England. DATIX was interrogated at the Trust level to identify all records linked to radiation incident in computed tomography departments between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. RESULTS: During the 4-year review period, 159,596 exams were performed at the Trust and a total of 133 incidents were recorded. This comprised 42.1% (n = 56) of radiation incidents, 43.6% (n = 58) of near-miss incidents, and 14.3% (n = 19) of repeat scans due to extravasation of contrast. The reported radiation incident rate was 0.08%. These data suggest an approximation of 1 incident per thousand cases. Most incidents were investigated using a "system approach," and the reports highlighted the relevant action that had been taken to try and prevent recurrence of the incident. Qualitative data collected from the root cause analysis minutes demonstrated themes related to the contributory factors, incident analysis performed, and overall learning. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomography departments need to focus on a system approach instead of the "person approach" to identify areas where efficiencies can be implemented. Staff should feel open to discuss system inefficiencies that they experience and may highlight problems the management is unaware of. The reporting of all types of incidents, including near misses, should be encouraged, to foster an open culture and to expand learning.

The impact of COVID-19 on a high-volume incident learning system: A retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to assess how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted our incident learning system data and communicate the impact of a major exogenous event on radiation oncology clinical practice. METHODS: Trends in our electronic incident reporting system were analyzed to ascertain the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including any direct clinical changes. Incident reports submitted in the 18 months prior to the pandemic (September 14, 2018 to March 13, 2020) and reports submitted during the first 18 months of the pandemic (March 14, 2020 to September 13, 2021) were compared. The incident reports include several data elements that were evaluated for trends between the two time periods, and statistical analysis was performed to compare the proportions of reports. RESULTS: In the 18 months prior to COVID-19, 192 reports were submitted per 1000 planning tasks (n = 832 total). In the first 18 months of the pandemic, 147 reports per 1000 planning tasks were submitted (n = 601 total), a decrease of 23.4%. Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant changes among the data elements between the pre- and during COVID-19 time periods. An analysis of the free-text narratives in the reports found that phrases related to pretreatment imaging were common before COVID-19 but not during. Conversely, phrases related to intravenous contrast, consent for computed tomography, and adaptive radiotherapy became common during COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The data elements captured by our incident learning system were stable after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with no statistically significant findings after correction for multiple comparisons. A trend toward fewer reports submitted for low-risk issues was observed. The methods used in the work can be generalized to events with a large-scale impact on the clinic or to monitor an incident learning system to drive future improvement activities.

Assessing initial plan check efficacy using TG 275 failure modes and incident reporting.

Plan checks are important components of a robust quality assurance (QA) program. Recently, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) published two reports concerning plan and chart checking, Task Group (TG) 275 and Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 11.A. The purpose of the current study was to crosswalk initial plan check failure modes revealed in TG 275 against our institutional QA program and local incident reporting data. Ten physicists reviewed 46 high-risk failure modes reported in Table S1.A.i of the TG 275 report. The committee identified steps in our planning process which sufficiently checked each failure mode. Failure modes that were not covered were noted for follow-up. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed the narratives of 1599 locally-reported incidents in our Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (ROILS) database and categorized each into the high-risk TG 275 failure modes. We found that over half of the 46 high-risk failure modes, six of which were top-ten failure modes, were covered in part by daily contouring peer-review rounds, upstream of the traditional initial plan check. Five failure modes were not adequately covered, three of which concerned pregnancy, pacemakers, and prior dose. Of the 1599 incidents analyzed, 710 were germane to the initial plan check, 23.4% of which concerned missing pregnancy attestations. Most, however, were caught prior to CT simulation (98.8%). Physics review and initial plan check were the least efficacious checks, with error detection rates of 31.8% and 31.3%, respectively, for some failure modes. Our QA process that includes daily contouring rounds resulted in increased upstream error detection. This work has led to several initiatives in the department, including increased automation and enhancement of several policies and procedures. With TG 275 and MPPG 11.A as a guide, we strongly recommend that departments consider an internal chart checking policy and procedure review.

Safety culture and incident learning systems in radiation oncology: Staff perceptions across Australia and New Zealand.

INTRODUCTION: Radiation therapy has a highly complex pathway and uses detailed quality assurance protocols and incident learning systems (ILSs) to mitigate risk; however, errors can still occur. The safety culture (SC) in a department influences its commitment and effectiveness in maintaining patient safety. METHODS: Perceptions of SC and knowledge and understanding of ILSs and their use were evaluated for radiation oncology staff across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). A validated healthcare survey tool (the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture) was used, with additional specialty-focussed supporting questions. A total of 220 radiation oncologists, radiation therapists and radiation oncology medical physicists participated. RESULTS: An overall positive SC was indicated, with strength in teamwork (83.7%), supervisor/manager/leader support (83.3%) and reporting events (77.1%). The weakest areas related to communication about error (63.9%), hospital-level management support (60.5%) and handovers and information exchange (58.0%). Barriers to ILS use included 'it takes too long' and that many respondents must use multiple reporting systems, including mandatory hospital-level systems. These are generally not optimal for specific radiation oncology needs. Varied understanding was indicated of what and when to report. CONCLUSION: The findings report the ANZ perspective on ILS and SC, highlighting weaknesses, barriers and areas for further investigation. Differences observed in some areas suggest that a unified state, national or bi-national ILS specific to radiation oncology might eliminate multiple reporting systems and reduce reporting time. It could also provide more consistent and robust approaches to incident reporting, information sharing and analysis.

Quality/risk management system in radiotherapy: Changes afoot.

The French sanitary and regulatory context in which radiotherapy centres are comprised is evolving. Risk and quality management systems are currently adapting to these evolutions. The French nuclear safety agency (ASN) decision of July 1st 2008 on quality assurance obligations in radiotherapy has reached 10 years of age, and the French high authority of health (HAS) certification system 20 years now. Mandatory tools needed for the improvement of quality and safety in healthcare are now well known. From now on, the focus of healthcare policies is oriented towards evaluation of efficiency of these new organisations designed following ASN and HAS nationwide guidelines.

The codification of hazard and its impact on the hazard versus risk controversy.

The long running controversy about the relative merits of hazard-based versus risk-based approaches has been investigated. There are three levels of hazard codification: level 1 divides chemicals into dichotomous bands of hazardous and non-hazardous; level 2 divides chemicals into bands of hazard based on severity and/or potency; and level 3 places each chemical on a continuum of hazard based on severity and/or potency. Any system which imposes compartments onto a continuum will give rise to issues at the boundaries, especially with only two compartments. Level 1 schemes are only justifiable if there is no variation in severity, or potency or if there is no threshold. This is the assumption implicit in GHS/EU classification for carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and mutagenicity. However, this assumption has been challenged. Codification level 2 hazard assessments offer a range of choices and reduce the built-in conflict inherent in the level 1 process. Level 3 assessments allow a full range of choices between the extremes and reduce the built-in conflict even more. The underlying reason for the controversy between hazard and risk is the use of level 1 hazard codification schemes in situations where there are ranges of severity and potency which require the use of level 2 or level 3 hazard codification. There is not a major difference between level 2 and level 3 codification, and they can both be used to select appropriate risk management options. Existing level 1 codification schemes should be reviewed and developed into level 2 schemes where appropriate.

Mitigation of in-hospital risk of coronavirus disease 2019: Experience from a haematology-oncology and stem cell transplant setting.

Background: . Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) was first described in December 2019 and has evolved into an ongoing global pandemic. Cancer patients on chemotherapy are immunocompromised and are at the highest risk of Covid-19-related complications. We describe our experience with the management of haematology-oncology and stem cell transplant (SCT) patients receiving curative chemotherapy in a hospital with a high influx of Covid-19 patients. Methods: . We did a prospective observational study at a 99-bedded cancer centre of a tertiary care teaching hospital from April 2020 to September 2020. Preventive measures taken were categorized as follows: (i) staff: screening, mandatory use of personal protective equipment (PPE), risk stratification of potential exposure and testing and isolation as needed; (ii) patients: mandatory viral polymerase chain reaction testing, segregation of positive and untested patients and testing of family members; and (iii) environment: mandatory regular cleaning, visitor restriction, telemedicine services and reassignment of priority to clinic visits. Treatment of the underlying conditions was continued with added precautions. Results: . A total of 54 patients were included in the analysis, including 48 with haematological malignancies and 6 for stem cell therapy. Preventive measures were universally applied, and chemotherapy with a curative intent was initiated as per protocol. Three patients were detected to have Covid-19 infection before admission and one after the institution of chemotherapy. Nine patients died after the first cycle of chemotherapy, 2 due to severe Covid-19-related illness and 7 due to complications of chemotherapy or disease progression. Conclusions: . In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, treatment for haematological malignancies must continue while balancing the risk of Covid-19 infections. Our report emphasizes the effectiveness of measures such as hand hygiene, social isolation, patient segregation, use of masks and PPE and universal pre-treatment testing for Covid-19 in reducing the risk of infection in a high-risk clinical setting.

Characteristics and Prognosis of Hospitalized Patients at High Risk of Deterioration Identified by the Rapid Response System: a Multicenter Cohort Study.

We aimed to investigate the characteristics and prognosis of high risk hospitalized patients identified by the rapid response system (RRS). A multicentered retrospective cohort study was conducted from June 2019 to December 2020. The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) was used for RRS activation. The outcome was unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 24 hours after RRS activation. The 11,459 patients with RRS activations were included. We found distinct clinical characteristics in patients who underwent ICU admission. All NEWS parameters were associated with the risk of unexpected ICU admission except body temperature. Body mass index, pulmonary disease, and cancer are related to the decreased risk of unexpected ICU admission. In conclusion, there were differences in clinical characteristics among high risk patients, and those differences were associated with unexpected ICU admissions. Clinicians should consider factors relating to unexpected ICU admission in the management of high risk patients identified by RRS.

Prevalence of drug-drug interactions in sarcoma patients: key role of the pharmacist integration for toxicity risk management.

BACKGROUND: The risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI) has become a major issue in cancer patients. However, data in sarcoma patients are scarce. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and the factors associated with DDI with antitumor treatments, and to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist evaluation before anticancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive sarcoma patients starting chemotherapy (CT) or Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). A pharmacist performed medication reconciliation and established an early toxicity risk assessment. Potential DDI with antitumor drugs were identified using Micromedex electronic software. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-two soft-tissue and 80 bone sarcoma patients (103 males, median age 50 years,) were included before CT (86%) or TKI (14%). The median number of medications was 3; 34 patients (22% of patients with medication reconciliation) reported complementary medicine use. 37 potential DDI classified as major, were identified (12% of the 243 pre-therapeutic assessments). In multivariate analysis, TKI (p < 0.0001), proton pump inhibitor (p = 0.026) and antidepressant (p < 0.001) were identified as risk factors of DDI (p < 0.02). Only marital status (p = 0.003) was associated with complementary medicine use. A pharmacist performed 157 medication reconciliations and made 71 interventions among 59 patients (37%). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with pharmacist intervention were: complementary medicines (p = 0.004), drugs number (p = 0.005) and treatment with TKI (p = 0.0002) CONCLUSIONS: Clinical interventions on DDI are more frequently required among sarcoma patients treated with TKI than CT. Multidisciplinary risk assessment including a medication reconciliation by a pharmacist could be crucial to prevent DDI with TKI.