Monitoring Preventable Adverse Events and Near Misses: Number and Type Identified Differ Depending on Method Used.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate how many preventable adverse events (PAEs) and near misses are identified through the methods structured record review, Web-based incident reporting (IR), and daily safety briefings, and to distinguish the type of events identified by each method. METHODS: One year of retrospective data from 2017 were collected from one patient cohort in a 422-bed acute care hospital. Preventable adverse events and near misses were collected from the hospital's existing resources and presented descriptively as number per 1000 patient-days. RESULTS: The structured record review identified 19.9 PAEs; the IR system, 3.4 PAEs; and daily safety briefings, 5.4 PAEs per 1000 patient-days. The most common PAEs identified by the record review method were drug-related PAEs, pressure ulcers, and hospital-acquired infections. The most common PAEs identified by the IR system and daily safety briefings were fall injury and pressure ulcers, followed by skin/superficial vessel injuries for the IR system and hospital-acquired infections for the daily safety briefings. Incident reporting and daily safety briefings identified 7.8 and 31.9 near misses per 1000 patient-days, respectively. The most common near misses were related to how care is organized. CONCLUSIONS: The different methods identified different amounts and types of PAEs and near misses. The study supports that health care organizations should adopt multiple methods to get a comprehensive review of the number and type of events occurring in their setting. Daily safety briefings seem to be a particularly suitable method for assessing an organization's inherent security and may foster a nonpunitive culture.

Evaluation of the Green Cross Method Regarding Patient Safety Culture and Incidence Reporting.

OBJECTIVES: The Green Cross (GC) method is a visual method for health service staff to recognize risks and preventable adverse events (PAEs) on a daily basis. The aim was to compare patient safety culture and the number of reported PAEs in units using the GC method with units that do not. METHODS: This study has a retrospective cross-sectional design in the setting of psychiatric and somatic care departments in a Swedish hospital. In total, 1476 staff members from 62 different units participate in the study. RESULTS: Units who had implemented the GC method scored higher than non-GC units in overall quality. The dimensions Feedback and communication about error, Nonpunitive response to errors, Organizational learning-continuous improvement, Handoffs and transitions between units and shifts, and Teamwork within units scored significantly higher in GC units. More risks were reported in the incident reporting system in GC units than in non-GC units, but the number of PAEs was similar. Units with nursing staff who used the GC method scored higher on patient safety culture than those who did not use the method. This difference was not seen in physician units. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the GC method has a positive impact on patient safety culture and PAE reporting. However, the method does not seem to have the same impact in physician units as in units with nursing staff, which calls for further investigation.

Access to primary and specialized somatic health care for persons with severe mental illness: a qualitative study of perceived barriers and facilitators in Swedish health care.

BACKGROUND: Persons with severe mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) have a high prevalence of somatic conditions compared to the general population. Mortality data in the Nordic countries reveal that these persons die 15-20 years earlier than the general population. Some factors explaining this high prevalence may be related to the individuals in question; others arise from the health care system's difficulty in offering somatic health care to these patient groups. The aim of the present study was therefore to explore the experiences and views of patients, relatives and clinicians regarding individual and organizational factors which facilitate or hinder access to somatic health care for persons with severe mental illness. METHODS: Flexible qualitative design. Data was collected by means of semi-structured individual interviews with patients with severe mental illness, relatives and clinicians representing primary and specialized health care. In all, 50 participants participated. RESULTS: The main barrier to accessing somatic care is the gap between the organization of the health care system and the patients' individual health care needs. This is observed at both individual and organizational level. The health care system seems unable to support patients with severe mental illness and their psychiatric-somatic comorbidity. The main facilitators are the links between severe mental illness patients and medical departments. These links take the form of functions (i.e. systems which ensure that patients receive regular reminders), or persons (i.e. professional contacts who facilitate patients' access the health care). CONCLUSIONS: Health care services for patients with severe mental illness need reorganization. Organizational structures and systems that facilitate cooperation between different departments must be put in place, along with training for health care professionals about somatic disease among psychiatric patients. The links between individual and organizational levels could be strengthened by introducing professional contacts, such as liaison physicians and case managers. This is also important to reduce stress and responsibility among relatives.

Towards a more liveable life for close relatives of individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

The life of close relatives of persons with bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with emotional distress, depression, and a high level of use of mental health care. Illness-related changes of their life situation endanger relationships, social life, finances, and occupational functioning. Understanding of facilitating conditions for close relatives is still a neglected research area. The aim of the present study thus was to explore what makes the life of close relatives of persons with BD more liveable. A lifeworld phenomenological approach was used. The findings reveal that keeping distance, having stability in everyday life, and strengthening equality through transparent communication are conditions that enable close relatives to influence the unpredictable and its consequences and thus make life more liveable. This implies contributions from close relatives, the person with BD, and the caring services. We propose that health-care support should not be divided in support for the patient and/or the close relatives but instead be designed as support for the 'patient and close relatives' as a unit. Professional caregivers need to take responsibility for creating intersubjective settings for the person with BD and their close relatives to share their needs and make joint plans for how to influence the illness-related life issues.

The paradox of being both needed and rejected: the existential meaning of being closely related to a person with bipolar disorder.

The aim of this study was to elucidate the existential meaning of being closely related to a person with bipolar disorder. A qualitative, descriptive, and explorative design with a phenomenological meaning-oriented analysis was used. The findings reveal a paradoxical, existential exposure of close relatives to a person with bipolar disorder, being both needed and rejected whilst being overshadowed by the specific changeable nature of bipolar disorder. Psychiatric health care services are recommended to consider changes in attitudes and structures that may facilitate close relatives' participation in the care and treatment of persons with bipolar disorder.