Remembering Ben-Tzion Karsh's scholarship, impact, and legacy.

Dr. Ben-Tzion (Bentzi) Karsh was a mentor, collaborator, colleague, and friend who profoundly impacted the fields of human factors and ergonomics (HFE), medical informatics, patient safety, and primary care, among others. In this paper we honor his contributions by reflecting on his scholarship, impact, and legacy in three ways: first, through an updated simplified bibliometric analysis in 2020, highlighting the breadth of his scholarly impact from the perspective of the number and types of communities and collaborators with which and whom he engaged; second, through targeted reflections on the history and impact of Dr. Karsh's most cited works, commenting on the particular ways they impacted our academic community; and lastly, through quotes from collaborators and mentees, illustrating Dr. Karsh's long-lasting impact on his contemporaries and students.

Adverse Event Reporting: Harnessing Residents to Improve Patient Safety.

OBJECTIVES: Reporting of adverse and near miss events are essential to identify system level targets to improve patient safety. Resident physicians historically report few events despite their role as front-line patient care providers. We sought to evaluate barriers to adverse event reporting in an effort to improve reporting. Our main outcomes were as follows: resident attitudes about event reporting and the frequency of event reporting before and after interventions to address reporting barriers. METHODS: We surveyed first year residents regarding barriers to adverse event reporting and used this input to construct a fishbone diagram listing barriers to reporting. Barriers were addressed, and resident event reporting was compared before and after efforts were made to reduce obstacles to reporting. RESULTS: First year residents (97%) recognized the importance of submitting event reports; however, the majority (85%) had not submitted an event report in the first 6 months of residency. Only 7% of residents specified that they had not witnessed an adverse event in 6 months, whereas one third had witnessed 10 or more events. The main barriers were as follows: lack of knowledge about how to submit events (38%) and lack of time to submit reports (35%). After improving resident education around event reporting and simplifying the reporting process, resident event reporting increased 230% (68 to 154 annual reports, P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: We were able to significantly increase resident event reporting by educating residents about adverse events and near misses and addressing the primary barriers to event reporting. Moving forward, we will continue annual resident education about patient safety, focus on improving feedback to residents who submit reports, and empower senior residents to act as role models to junior residents in patient safety initiatives.

Meaningful use's benefits and burdens for US family physicians.

Objective: The federal meaningful use (MU) program was aimed at improving adoption and use of electronic health records, but practicing physicians have criticized it. This study was aimed at quantifying the benefits (ie, usefulness) and burdens (ie, workload) of the MU program for practicing family physicians. Materials and Methods: An interdisciplinary national panel of experts (physicians and engineers) identified the work associated with MU criteria during patient encounters. They conducted a national survey to assess each criterion's level of patient benefit and compliance burden. Results: In 2015, 480 US family physicians responded to the survey. Their demographics were comparable to US norms. Eighteen of 31 MU criteria were perceived as useful for more than half of patient encounters, with 13 of those being useful for more than two-thirds. Thirteen criteria were useful for less than half of patient encounters. Four useful criteria were reported as having a high compliance burden. Discussion: There was high variability in physicians' perceived benefits and burdens of MU criteria. MU Stage 1 criteria, which are more related to basic/routine care, were perceived as beneficial by most physicians. Stage 2 criteria, which are more related to complex and population care, were perceived as less beneficial and more burdensome to comply with. Conclusion: MU was discontinued, but the merit-based incentive payment system within the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 adopted its criteria. For many physicians, MU created a significant practice burden without clear benefits to patient care. This study suggests that policymakers should not assess MU in aggregate, but as individual criteria for open discussion.

EHR-related medication errors in two ICUs.

The objective of this study was to describe the frequency, potential harm, and nature of electronic health record (EHR)-related medication errors in intensive care units (ICUs). Using a secondary data analysis of a large database of medication safety events collected in a study on EHR technology in ICUs, we assessed the EHR relatedness of a total of 1622 potential preventable adverse drug events (ADEs) identified in a sample of 624 patients in 2 ICUs of a medical center. Thirty-four percent of the medication events were found to be EHR related. The EHR-related medication events had greater potential for more serious patient harm and occurred more frequently at the ordering stage as compared to non-EHR-related events. Examples of EHR-related events included orders with omitted information and duplicate orders. The list of EHR-related medication errors can be used by health care delivery organizations to monitor implementation and use of the technology and its impact on patient safety. Health information technology (IT) vendors can use the list to examine whether their technology can mitigate or reduce EHR-related medication errors.

Characterising the complexity of medication safety using a human factors approach: an observational study in two intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE: To examine medication safety in two intensive care units (ICU), and to assess the complexity of medication errors and adverse drug events (ADE) in ICUs across the stages of the medication-management process. METHODS: Four trained nurse data collectors gathered data on medication errors and ADEs between October 2006 and March 2007. Patient care documents (eg, medication order sheets, notes) and incident reports were used to identify medication errors and ADEs in a 24-bed adult medical/surgical ICU and an 18-bed cardiac ICU in a tertiary care, community teaching hospital. In this cross-sectional study, a total of 630 consecutive ICU patient admissions were assessed to produce data on the number, rates and types of potential and preventable ADEs across stages of the medication-management process. RESULTS: An average of 2.9 preventable or potential ADEs occurred in each admission, that is, 0.4 events per patient-day. Preventable or potential ADEs occurred in 2.6% of the medication orders. The rate of potential ADEs per 1000 patient-days was 276, whereas the rate of preventable ADEs per 1000 patient-days was 9.2. Most medication errors occur at the ordering (32%) and administration stages (39%). In 16-24% of potential and preventable ADEs, clusters of errors occurred either as a sequence of errors (eg, delay in medication dispensing leading to delay in medication administration) or grouped errors (eg, route and frequency errors in the order for a medication). Many of the sequences led to administration errors that were caused by errors earlier in the medication-management process. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the complexity of the vulnerabilities of the medication-management process is important to devise solutions to improve patient safety. Electronic health record technology with computerised physician order entry may be one step necessary to improve medication safety in ICUs. Solutions that target multiple stages of the medication-management process are necessary to address sequential errors.

Conducting an efficient proactive risk assessment prior to CPOE implementation in an intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: To develop, conduct, and evaluate a proactive risk assessment (PRA) of the design and implementation of CPOE in an ICU. METHODS: We developed a PRA method based on issues identified from documented experience with conventional PRA methods and the constraints of an organization about to implement CPOE in an intensive care unit. The PRA method consists of three phases: planning (three months), team (one five-hour meeting), and evaluation (short- and long-term). RESULTS: Sixteen unique relevant vulnerabilities were identified as a result of the PRA team's efforts. Negative consequences resulting from the vulnerabilities included potential patient safety and quality of care issues, non-compliance with regulatory requirements, increases in cognitive burden on CPOE users, and/or worker inconvenience or distress. Actions taken to address the vulnerabilities included redesign of the technology, process (workflow) redesign, user training, and/or ongoing monitoring. Verbal and written evaluation by the team members indicated that the PRA method was useful and that participants were willing to participate in future PRAs. Long-term evaluation was accomplished by monitoring an ongoing "issues list" of CPOE problems identified by or reported to IT staff. Vulnerabilities identified by the team were either resolved prior to CPOE implementation (n=7) or shortly thereafter (n=9). No other issues were identified beside those identified by the team. CONCLUSIONS: Generally positive results from the various evaluations including a long-term evaluation demonstrate the value of developing an efficient PRA method that meets organizational and contextual requirements and constraints.

Code status discussions at hospital admission are not associated with patient and surrogate satisfaction with hospital care: results from the multicenter hospitalist study.

BACKGROUND: Physicians may avoid code status discussions for fear of decreasing patient or surrogate satisfaction. METHODS: Charts of patients admitted to medical services at 6 university hospitals were reviewed for documentation of a code status discussion in the first 24 hours of admission. Satisfaction with care provided during the hospitalization was assessed by telephone 1 month after discharge. RESULTS: Of the 11 717 patients with 1-month follow-up, 1090 (9.3%) had a code status discussion documented. Patient or surrogate satisfaction did not differ by whether a discussion was documented. The lack of association persisted after adjusting for patient's severity of illness and using propensity adjustment for likelihood of having a discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Discussing code status on admission to the inpatient setting did not affect patient or surrogate satisfaction.

Do hospitalists affect clinical outcomes and efficiency for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH)?

BACKGROUND: Care by hospitalists has been associated with improved/similar clinical outcomes and efficiency. However, less is known about their effect on conditions dependent upon specialists for procedures/treatment plans. Our objective was to compare care for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) patients attended by academic hospitalists and nonhospitalists. METHODS: The study included 450 UGIH patients admitted to general medical services of 6 teaching hospitals. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality and complications (ie, recurrent bleeding, intensive care unit [ICU] transfer, decompensation, transfusion, reendoscopy, 30-day readmission). Efficiency was measured by hospital costs and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Of 450 patients, 40% (177) were cared for by hospitalists with no differences between groups by endoscopic diagnosis, performance of early esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), Rockall risk score, or Charlson comorbidity index. Unadjusted clinical outcomes between hospitalists and nonhospitalists were similar except for 2 outcomes: patients cared for by hospitalists were more likely to receive a transfusion (74% vs. 63%; P = 0.02) or be readmitted within 30 days (7.3% vs. 3.3%; P = 0.05). However, differences in adverse outcomes between providers were not seen after multivariable adjustments. Median LOS was similar for hospitalists and nonhospitalists (4 days; P = 0.69), but patients cared for by hospitalists had higher median costs ($7,359 vs. $6,181; P < 0.01). In multivariable analyses, LOS was similar (5.2 vs. 4.7 days; P = 0.15) and costs remained higher for the hospitalist-led teams (P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having similar overall outcomes and LOS, costs were higher in UGIH patients attended by hospitalists. These results suggest that the academic hospitalist model may be tempered in patients requiring specialists for procedures or management.

Guideline for low-cost antimicrobial use in the outpatient setting.

In an effort to increase appropriate prescribing of low-cost antimicrobials in the outpatient setting, an evidence-based guideline was created to identify situations when low-cost medications can be used. A literature search identified relevant clinical trials describing the efficacy of antimicrobials used in the outpatient setting. These were analyzed to identify low-cost medications defined as $15 or less. The information was put into guideline format that includes the level of evidence for recommending the drug and information about cost. Sixteen common infections and their treatments were included in the guideline. The efficacy data were similar for the low-cost and higher-cost antimicrobials for all infections included. We created a low-cost antimicrobial guideline for common infections treated in the outpatient setting. The treatment options have similar efficacy to higher cost medications. This guideline will serve as an information source for providers to help them rapidly determine the low-cost treatments for common infections. In addition, it can serve as a template for the development of similar guidelines in other therapeutic classes. These guidelines should be customized before implementation at other health care organizations, with consideration of local resistance patterns, drug availability and patient factors. The effect of guideline implementation on future prescribing habits and providers' opinions about availability of cost information and subsequent conversations with patients and prescribers of medications deserves further study.