Association of diabetes with frequency and cost of hospital admissions: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute inpatient hospital admissions account for more than half of all health care costs related to diabetes. We sought to identify the most common and costly conditions leading to hospital admission among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. METHODS: We used data from the General Internal Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) study, a retrospective cohort study, of all patients admitted to a general internal medicine service at 7 Toronto hospitals between 2010 and 2015. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) Most Responsible Diagnosis code was used to identify the 10 most frequent reasons for admission in patients with diabetes. Cost of hospital admission was estimated using the CIHI Resource Intensity Weight. Comparisons were made between patients with or without diabetes using the Pearson χ2 test for frequency and distribution-free confidence intervals (CIs) for median cost. RESULTS: Among the 150 499 hospital admissions in our study, 41 934 (27.8%) involved patients with diabetes. Compared with patients without diabetes, hospital admissions because of soft tissue and bone infections were most frequent (2.5% v. 1.9%; prevalence ratio [PR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.19-1.37) and costly (Can$8794 v. Can$5845; cost ratio [CR] 1.50, 95% CI 1.37-1.65) among patients with diabetes. This was followed by urinary tract infections (PR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11-1.22; CR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.29), stroke (PR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.19; CR 1.19, 95% CI 1.14-1.25) and electrolyte disorders (PR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.20; CR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08-1.34). INTERPRETATION: Soft tissue and bone infections, urinary tract infections, stroke and electrolyte disorders are associated with a greater frequency and cost of hospital admissions in patients with diabetes than in those without diabetes. Preventive strategies focused on reducing hospital admissions secondary to these disorders may be beneficial in patients with diabetes.

Assessment of Health Information Technology-Related Outpatient Diagnostic Delays in the US Veterans Affairs Health Care System: A Qualitative Study of Aggregated Root Cause Analysis Data.

Importance: Diagnostic delay in the outpatient setting is an emerging safety priority that health information technology (HIT) should help address. However, diagnostic delays have persisted, and new safety concerns associated with the use of HIT have emerged. Objective: To analyze HIT-related outpatient diagnostic delays within a large, integrated health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study involved qualitative content analysis of safety concerns identified in aggregated root cause analysis (RCA) data related to HIT and outpatient diagnostic delays. The setting was the US Department of Veterans Affairs using all RCAs submitted to the Veterans Affairs (VA) National Center for Patient Safety from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Common themes associated with the role of HIT-related safety concerns were identified and categorized according to the Health IT Safety framework for measuring, monitoring, and improving HIT safety. This framework includes 3 related domains (ie, safe HIT, safe use of HIT, and using HIT to improve safety) situated within an 8-dimensional sociotechnical model accounting for interacting technical and nontechnical variables associated with safety. Hence, themes identified enhanced understanding of the sociotechnical context and domain of HIT safety involved. Results: Of 214 RCAs categorized by the terms delay and outpatient submitted during the study period, 88 were identified as involving diagnostic delays and HIT, from which 172 unique HIT-related safety concerns were extracted (mean [SD], 1.97 [1.53] per RCA). Most safety concerns (82.6% [142 of 172]) involved problems with safe use of HIT, predominantly sociotechnical factors associated with people, workflow and communication, and a poorly designed human-computer interface. Fewer safety concerns involved problems with safe HIT (14.5% [25 of 172]) or using HIT to improve safety (0.3% [5 of 172]). The following 5 key high-risk areas for diagnostic delays emerged: managing electronic health record inbox notifications and communication, clinicians gathering key diagnostic information, technical problems, data entry problems, and failure of a system to track test results. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of a national RCA data set suggests that interventions to reduce outpatient diagnostic delays could aim to improve test result management, interoperability, data visualization, and order entry, as well as to decrease information overload.

Using Safety-II and resilient healthcare principles to learn from Never Events.

OBJECTIVES: Conduct a secondary analysis of root cause analysis (RCA) reports of Never Events to determine whether and how Safety-II/resilient healthcare principles could contribute to improving the quality of investigation reports and therefore preventing future Never Events. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative retrospective analysis of RCA reports. SETTING: A large acute healthcare Trust in London. PARTICIPANTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Quality of RCA reports, robustness of actions proposed. RESULTS: RCA reports had low-to-moderate effectiveness ratings and low resilience ratings. Reports identified many system vulnerabilities that were not addressed in the actions proposed. Using a Safety-II/resilient healthcare lens to examine work-as-done and misalignments between demand and capacity would strengthen analysis of Never Events. CONCLUSION: Safety-II/Resilient Healthcare concepts can increase the quality of RCA reports and focus attention on prospectively strengthening systems. Recommendations for incorporating Safety-II concepts into RCA processes are provided.

Objective assessment of surgical operative performance by observational clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA): a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Both morbidity and mortality data (MMD) and learning curves (LCs) do not provide information on the nature of intraoperative errors and their mechanisms when these adversely impact on patient outcome. OCHRA was developed specifically to address the unmet surgical need for an objective assessment technique of the quality of technical execution of operations at individual operator level. The aim of this systematic review was to review of OCHRA as a method of objective assessment of surgical operative performance. METHODS: Systematic review based on searching 4 databases for articles published from January 1998 to January 2019. The review complies with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and includes original publications on surgical task performance based on technical errors during operations across several surgical specialties. RESULTS: Only 26 published studies met the search criteria, indicating that the uptake of OCHRA during the study period has been low. In 31% of reported studies, the operations were performed by fully qualified consultant/attending surgeons and by surgical trainees in 69% in approved training programs. OCHRA identified 7869 consequential errors (CE) during the conduct of 719 clinical operations (mean = 11 CEs). It also identified 'hazard zones' of operations and proficiency-gain curves (P-GCs) that confirm attainment of persistent competent execution of specific operations by individual trainee surgeons. P-GCs are both surgeon and operation specific. CONCLUSIONS: Increased OCHRA use has the potential to improve patient outcome after surgery, but this is a contingent progress towards automatic assessment of unedited videos of operations. The low uptake of OCHRA is attributed to its labor-intensive nature involving human factors (cognitive engineering) expertise. Aside from faster and more objective peer-based assessment, this development should accelerate increased clinical uptake and use of the technique in both routine surgical practice and surgical training.

Análisis causa-raíz sobre evento adverso producido en la Clínica Odontológica Docente Asistencial, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de La Frontera, Chile / Cause-root analysis on an adverse event generated at the Dental Clinic, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de La Frontera, Chile

El Análisis de Causa-Raíz (ACR) es una forma de estudio retrospectivo de eventos adversos destinado a detectar las causas subyacentes de los mismos para proteger a los pacientes mediante la modificación de los factores dentro del sistema de salud que los provocaron y prevenir sus recurrencias. Si bien esta concepción centrada en la seguridad del paciente ha visto un importante auge en la atención médica, la odontología no ha sido llevada de igual manera probablemente por presentar daños más leves, procedimientos ambulatorios (con la consiguiente falta de seguimiento de muchos eventos adversos) y prácticas fundamentalmente privadas (cuyos conflictos afectarían potencialmente los resultados comerciales). Dado que no hay precedentes en Chile, se presenta un evento adverso producido en la Clínica Odontológica Docente Asistencial de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de La Frontera y su ACR, desarrollado como primera intervención del Centro Chileno para la Observación y Gestión del Riesgo Sanitario de esa institución. Se plantean las necesidades de implementar un sistema explícito de categorización de eventos adversos en esa disciplina y de apoyar políticas de cultura en seguridad para el paciente odontológico, y se discute el papel de las instituciones universitarias para reconocer las áreas de vulnerabilidad en sus clínicas y así reforzar y mejorar la calidad de sus prácticas sanitarias.

Root cause analysis (RCA) is a retrospective study of adverse events performed to detect the underlying causes of these events to protect patients by modifying the factors within the health system that caused them and preventing their recurrences. Although this paradigm focused on patient safety has seen a significant increase in medical care, dentistry has not been carried out in the same way, probably because of milder injuries, outpatient procedures (with the consequent lack of follow-up of many adverse events) and basically private practices (whose conflicts would potentially affect commercial outcomes). Since there is no precedent in Chile, we present an adverse event produced at the Dental Clinic of the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of La Frontera and its RCA, performed as the first intervention of the Chilean Center for the Observation and Management of Health Risk of that institution. The needs to implement an explicit system of categorization of adverse events in this discipline and to provide support for cultural safety policies for the dental patient are discussed. The role of university institutions in recognizing areas of vulnerability in their clinics and to strengthen and improve the quality of their health practices is also discussed.

G-computation demonstration in causal mediation analysis.

Recent work has considerably advanced the definition, identification and estimation of controlled direct, and natural direct and indirect effects in causal mediation analysis. Despite the various estimation methods and statistical routines being developed, a unified approach for effect estimation under different effect decomposition scenarios is still needed for epidemiologic research. G-computation offers such unification and has been used for total effect and joint controlled direct effect estimation settings, involving different types of exposure and outcome variables. In this study, we demonstrate the utility of parametric g-computation in estimating various components of the total effect, including (1) natural direct and indirect effects, (2) standard and stochastic controlled direct effects, and (3) reference and mediated interaction effects, using Monte Carlo simulations in standard statistical software. For each study subject, we estimated their nested potential outcomes corresponding to the (mediated) effects of an intervention on the exposure wherein the mediator was allowed to attain the value it would have under a possible counterfactual exposure intervention, under a pre-specified distribution of the mediator independent of any causes, or under a fixed controlled value. A final regression of the potential outcome on the exposure intervention variable was used to compute point estimates and bootstrap was used to obtain confidence intervals. Through contrasting different potential outcomes, this analytical framework provides an intuitive way of estimating effects under the recently introduced 3- and 4-way effect decomposition. This framework can be extended to complex multivariable and longitudinal mediation settings.

A method for prioritizing interventions following root cause analysis (RCA): lessons from philosophy.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Root cause analysis (RCA) is widely used to investigate adverse events in health care and is mandated by many organizations and governments. RCA employs a combination of techniques to establish the factors contributing to a harmful outcome. Once the factors are identified, then interventions are usually designed in order to prevent further harms from occurring. Prior to deciding which intervention(s) to implement, we must make judgements of causal importance in the context of multiple, interacting conditions. Clearly, we must take action to prevent adverse events, but we need not take action against every contributing cause. I aim to show that many causal factors can be identified by RCA, but current approaches do not adequately distinguish among these causes, leaving numerous potential targets of intervention. I argue that this is because the literature on RCA (with few exceptions) has largely neglected the literature on philosophy of causation and explanation. METHOD: In this paper, I focus on demonstrating how Strevens' kairetic approach to explanation and Tinbergen's four questions to explain behaviour have the potential to work synergistically with the present RCA methods. RESULT: There are important lessons we can bring to RCA from the literature on causation and explanation, particularly from the philosophy of science and biology. CONCLUSION: This work could enhance the effectiveness of RCA by identifying and understanding the causes that really make a difference to adverse events. This ought to reduce the number of targets and focus intervention following RCA.

Using simulation to improve root cause analysis of adverse surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and test a simulation method of conducting investigation of the causality of adverse surgical outcomes. DESIGN: Six hundred and thirty-one closed claims of a major medical malpractice insurance company were reviewed. Each case had undergone conventional root cause analysis (RCA). Claims were categorized by comparing the predominant underlying cause documented in the case files. Three cases were selected for simulation. SETTING: All records (medical and legal) were analyzed. Simulation scenarios were developed by abstracting data from the records and then developing paper and electronic medical records, choosing appropriate STUDY PARTICIPANTS: including test subjects and confederates, scripting the simulation and choosing the appropriate simulated environment. INTERVENTION: In a simulation center, each case simulation was run 6-7 times and recorded, with participants debriefed at the conclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sources of error identified during simulation were compared with those noted in the closed claims. Test subject decision-making was assessed qualitatively. RESULTS: Simulation of adverse outcomes (SAOs) identified more system errors and revealed the way complex decisions were made by test subjects. Compared with conventional RCA, SAO identified root causes less focused on errors by individuals and more on systems-based error. CONCLUSIONS: The use of simulation for investigation of adverse surgical outcomes is feasible and identifies causes that may be more amenable to effective systems changes than conventional RCA. The information that SAO provides may facilitate the implementation of corrective measures, decreasing the risk of recurrence and improving patient safety.

Integrating disclosure, patient safety and risk management activities.

National Quality Forum safe-practice guidelines encourage hospitals to integrate disclosure, patient safety and risk management activities. Combining collaborative law with a patient safety program in a parallel process makes it possible to achieve this integration. This combination provides for physician-led guidance in determining whether disclosure is required - and, if so, provides mentor assistance with actual disclosure. It offers proactive error prevention by offering a means to quickly utilize information to make safety changes. Additionally, the combination provides an opportunity to access collaborative law at a time when it is still possible to resolve issues without resort to litigation.