Associations Between Organizational Communication and Patients' Experience of Prolonged Emotional Impact Following Medical Errors.

BACKGROUND: The emotional impact of medical errors on patients may be long-lasting. Factors associated with prolonged emotional impacts are poorly understood. METHODS: The authors conducted a subanalysis of a 2017 survey (response rate 36.8% [2,536/6,891]) of US adults to assess emotional impact of medical error. Patients reporting a medical error were included if the error occurred ≥ 1 year prior. Duration of emotional impact was categorized into no/short-term impact (impact lasting < 1 month), prolonged impact (> 1 month), and especially prolonged impact (> 1 year). Based on their reported experience with communication about the error, patients' experience was categorized as consistent with national disclosure guidelines, contrary to guidelines, mixed, or neither. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between patient factors, event characteristics, and organizational communication with prolonged emotional impact (> 1 month, > 1 year). RESULTS: Of all survey respondents, 17.8% (451/2,536) reported an error occurring ≥ 1 year prior. Of these, 51.2% (231/451) reported prolonged/especially prolonged emotional impact (30.8% prolonged, 20.4% especially prolonged). Factors associated with prolonged emotional impact included female gender (adjusted odds ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval 1.5-2.9]); low socioeconomic status (SES; 1.7 [1.1-2.7]); physical impact (7.3 [4.3-12.3]); no organizational disclosure and no patient/family error reporting (1.5 [1.03-2.3]); communication contrary to guidelines (4.0 [2.1-7.5]); and mixed communication (2.2 [1.3-3.7]). The same factors were significantly associated with especially prolonged emotional impact (female, 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; low SES, 2.2 [1.3-3.6]; physical impact, 6.8 [3.8-12.5]; no disclosure/reporting, 1.9 [1.2-3.2]; communication contrary to guidelines, 4.6 [2.2-9.4]; mixed communication, 2.1 [1.1-3.9]). CONCLUSION: Prolonged emotional impact affected more than half of Americans self-reporting a medical error. Organizational failure to communicate according to disclosure guidelines after patient-perceived errors may exacerbate harm, particularly for patients at risk of health care disparities.

Diagnostic error experiences of patients and families with limited English-language health literacy or disadvantaged socioeconomic position in a cross-sectional US population-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Language barrier, reduced self-advocacy, lower health literacy or biased care may hinder the diagnostic process. Data on how patients/families with limited English-language health literacy (LEHL) or disadvantaged socioeconomic position (dSEP) experience diagnostic errors are sparse. METHOD: We compared patient-reported diagnostic errors, contributing factors and impacts between respondents with LEHL or dSEP and their counterparts in the 2017 Institute for Healthcare Improvement US population-based survey, using contingency analysis and multivariable logistic regression models for the analyses. RESULTS: 596 respondents reported a diagnostic error; among these, 381 reported LEHL or dSEP. After adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity and physical health, individuals with LEHL/dSEP were more likely than their counterparts to report unique contributing factors: "(No) qualified translator or healthcare provider that spoke (the patient's) language" (OR and 95% CI 4.4 (1.3 to 14.9)); "not understanding the follow-up plan" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.1)); "too many providers… but no clear leader" (1.8 (1.2 to 2.7)); "not able to keep follow-up appointments" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.2)); "not being able to pay for necessary medical care" (2.5 (1.4 to 4.4)) and "out-of-date or incorrect medical records" (2.6 (1.4 to 4.8)). Participants with LEHL/dSEP were more likely to report long-term emotional, financial and relational impacts, compared with their counterparts. Subgroup analysis (LEHL-only and dSEP-only participants) showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with LEHL or dSEP identified unique and actionable contributing factors to diagnostic errors. Interpreter access should be viewed as a diagnostic safety imperative, social determinants affecting care access/affordability should be routinely addressed as part of the diagnostic process and patients/families should be encouraged to access and update their medical records. The frequent and disproportionate long-term impacts from self-reported diagnostic error among LEHL/dSEP patients/families raises urgency for greater prevention and supportive efforts.

Excellence and evidence in staffing: a data-driven model for excellence in staffing (2nd edition).

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, 2010) and the Institute of Medicine's (IOM, 2011) Future of Nursing report have prompted changes in the U.S. health care system. This has also stimulated a new direction of thinking for the profession of nursing. New payment and priority structures, where value is placed ahead of volume in care, will start to define our health system in new and unknown ways for years. One thing we all know for sure: we cannot afford the same inefficient models and systems of care of yesterday any longer. The Data-Driven Model for Excellence in Staffing was created as the organizing framework to lead the development of best practices for nurse staffing across the continuum through research and innovation. Regardless of the setting, nurses must integrate multiple concepts with the value of professional nursing to create new care and staffing models. Traditional models demonstrate that nurses are a commodity. If the profession is to make any significant changes in nurse staffing, it is through the articulation of the value of our professional practice within the overall health care environment. This position paper is organized around the concepts from the Data-Driven Model for Excellence in Staffing. The main concepts are: Core Concept 1: Users and Patients of Health Care, Core Concept 2: Providers of Health Care, Core Concept 3: Environment of Care, Core Concept 4: Delivery of Care, Core Concept 5: Quality, Safety, and Outcomes of Care. This position paper provides a comprehensive view of those concepts and components, why those concepts and components are important in this new era of nurse staffing, and a 3-year challenge that will push the nursing profession forward in all settings across the care continuum. There are decades of research supporting various changes to nurse staffing. Yet little has been done to move that research into practice and operations. While the primary goal of this position paper is to generate research and innovative thinking about nurse staffing across all health care settings, a second goal is to stimulate additional publications. This includes a goal of at least 20 articles in Nursing Economic$ on best practices in staffing and care models from across the continuum over the next 3 years.

Advancing sedation assessment to promote patient comfort.

As sedation assessment continues to evolve towards a more disciplined and standard part of clinical practice, the use of subjective sedation scales and objective sedation tools such as the BIS monitor continues to grow and show promise. The efforts of critical care nurses and their colleagues to better understand the value of these tools is integral to guiding their use and optimizing patient comfort.