Evaluating a co-designed care bundle to improve patient safety at discharge from adult and adolescent mental health services (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH): protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients being discharged from inpatient mental wards often describe safety risks in terms of inadequate information sharing and involvement in discharge decisions. Through stakeholder engagement, we co-designed, developed and adapted two versions of a care bundle intervention, the SAFER Mental Health care bundle for adult and youth inpatient mental health settings (SAFER-MH and SAFER-YMH, respectively), that look to address these concerns through the introduction of new or improved processes of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two uncontrolled before-and-after feasibility studies, where all participants will receive the intervention. We will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-MH in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged 18 years or older who are being discharged and the feasibility and acceptability of the SAFER-YMH intervention in inpatient mental health settings in patients aged between 14 and 18 years who are being discharged. The baseline period and intervention periods are both 6 weeks. SAFER-MH will be implemented in three wards and SAFER-YMH in one or two wards, ideally across different trusts within England. We will use quantitative (eg, questionnaires, completion forms) and qualitative (eg, interviews, process evaluation) methods to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the two versions of the intervention. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients/wards should be included. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee and Surrey Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/SW/0096 and 22/LO/0404). Research findings will be disseminated with participating sites and shared in various ways to engage different audiences. We will present findings at international and national conferences, and publish in open-access, peer-reviewed journals.

Visual impairment and medication safety: a protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals with a visual impairment in the UK was estimated a few years ago to be around 1.8 million. People can be visually impaired from birth, childhood, early adulthood or later in life. Those with visual impairment are subject to health inequities and increased risk for patient safety incidents in comparison to the general population. They are also known to be at an increased risk of experiencing medication errors compared to those without visual impairment. In view of this, this review aims to understand the issues of medication safety for VI people. METHODS/DESIGN: Four electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. Our search strategy will include search combinations of two key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies. They will include studies that relate to both medication safety and visual impairment. Two reviewers (SG and LR) will screen all the titles and abstracts. SG, LR, RM, SCS and PL will perform study selection and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected will include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), medication safety incident type and characteristics. DISCUSSION: The review will summarise the literature relating to medication safety and visual impairment.

Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in safety has shown positive effects in preventing or reducing adverse events and potential safety risks. Capturing and utilising patient-reported safety incident data can be used for service learning and improvement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterise the nature of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of two cross sectional studies. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients from Australian and English primary care settings. MEASURES: Patients' self-reported experiences of safety incidents were captured using the validated Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety questionnaire. Qualitative responses to survey items were analysed and categorised using the Primary Care Patient Safety Classification System. The frequency and type of safety incidents, contributory factors, and patient and system level outcomes are presented. RESULTS: A total of 1329 patients (n=490, England; n=839, Australia) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 5.3% (n=69) of patients reported a safety incident over the preceding 12 months. The most common incident types were administration incidents (n=27, 31%) (mainly delays in accessing a physician) and incidents involving diagnosis and assessment (n=16, 18.4%). Organisation of care accounted for 27.6% (n=29) of the contributory factors identified in the safety incidents. Staff factors (n=13, 12.4%) was the second most commonly reported contributory factor. Where an outcome could be determined, patient inconvenience (n=24, 28.6%) and clinical harm (n=21, 25%) (psychological distress and unpleasant experience) were the most frequent. CONCLUSIONS: The nature and outcomes of patient-reported incidents differ markedly from those identified in studies of staff-reported incidents. The findings from this study emphasise the importance of capturing patient-reported safety incidents in the primary care setting. The patient perspective can complement existing sources of safety intelligence with the potential for service improvement.

Patient safety in marginalised groups: a narrative scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Marginalised groups ('populations outside of mainstream society') experience severe health inequities, as well as increased risk of experiencing patient safety incidents. To date however no review exists to identify, map and analyse the literature in this area in order to understand 1) which marginalised groups have been studied in terms of patient safety research, 2) what the particular patient safety issues are for such groups and 3) what contributes to or is associated with these safety issues arising. METHODS: Scoping review. Systematic searches were performed across six electronic databases in September 2019. The time frame for searches of the respective databases was from the year 2000 until present day. RESULTS: The searches yielded 3346 articles, and 67 articles were included. Patient safety issues were identified for fourteen different marginalised patient groups across all studies, with 69% (n = 46) of the studies focused on four patient groups: ethnic minority groups, frail elderly populations, care home residents and low socio-economic status. Twelve separate patient safety issues were classified. Just over half of the studies focused on three issues represented in the patient safety literature, and in order of frequency were: medication safety, adverse outcomes and near misses. In total, 157 individual contributing or associated factors were identified and mapped to one of seven different factor types from the Framework of Contributory Factors Influencing Clinical Practice within the London Protocol. Patient safety issues were mostly multifactorial in origin including patient factors, health provider factors and health care system factors. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights that marginalised patient groups are vulnerable to experiencing a variety patient safety issues and points to a number of gaps. The findings indicate the need for further research to understand the intersectional nature of marginalisation and the multi-dimensional nature of patient safety issues, for groups that have been under-researched, including those with mental health problems, communication and cognitive impairments. Such understanding provides a basis for working collaboratively to co-design training, services and/or interventions designed to remove or at the very least minimise these increased risks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable for a scoping review.