Identifying hot spots for harm and blind spots across the care pathway from patient complaints about general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare complaints are underutilized for quality improvement in general practice. Systematic analysis of complaints has identified hot spots (areas across the care pathway where issues occur frequently) and blind spots (areas across the care pathway that cannot be observed by staff) in secondary care. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) has been adapted to the HCAT(GP). AIMS: This study aimed to: (i) assess whether the HCAT(GP) can systematically analyze complaints about general practice; and (ii) identify hot spots and blind spots in general practice. METHODS: GP complaints were sampled. Complaints were coded with the HCAT(GP), classified by HCAT(GP) category (e.g. Safety, Environment, Listening), stage of care (e.g. accessing care, referral/follow-up), severity (e.g. low, medium, high), and harm (e.g. none, major). Descriptive statistics were run to identify discrete issues. A chi-square test of independence identified hot spots, and logistic regression was used for blind spots. RESULTS: A total of 230 complaints, encompassing 432 issues (i.e. unique problems within complaints), were categorized. Relationship issues (e.g. problems with listening, communication, and patient rights) emerged most frequently (n = 174, 40%). Hot spots were identified in the consultation and the referral/follow-up stages (χ 2(5, n = 432) = 17.931, P < 0.05). A blind spot for multiple issues was identified, with the likelihood of harm increasing with number of issues (odds ratio = 2.02, confidence interval = 1.27-3.23, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Complaints are valuable data for improving general practice. This study demonstrated that the HCAT(GP) can support the systematic analysis of general practice complaints, and identify hot spots and blind spots in care.

An analysis of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Patients and family members make complaints about their hospital care in order to express their dissatisfaction with the care received and prompt quality improvement. Increasingly, it is being understood that these complaints could serve as important data on how to improve care if analysed using a standardized tool. The use of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) for this purpose has emerged internationally for quality and safety improvement. Previous work has identified hot spots (areas in care where harm occurs frequently) and blind spots (areas in care that are difficult for staff members to observe) from complaints analysis. This study aimed to (i) apply the HCAT to a sample of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) to identify hot spots and blind spots in care and (ii) compare the findings of this analysis to a previously published study on hospital complaints in the UK. METHODS: A sample of complaints was taken from 16 hospitals in the RoI in Quarter 4 of 2019 (n = 641). These complaints were coded using the HCAT to classify complaints by domain, category, severity, stage of care and harm. Chi-squared tests were used to identify hot spots, and logistic regression was used to identify blind spots. The findings of this study were compared to a previously published UK study that used HCAT to identify hot spots and blind spots. RESULTS: Hot spots were identified in Irish hospital complaints while patients were receiving care on the ward, during initial examination and diagnosis, and while they were undergoing operations or procedures. This aligned with hot spots identified in the UK study. Blind spots were found for systemic problems, where patients experience multiple issues across their care. CONCLUSIONS: Hot spots and blind spots for patient harm can be identified in hospital care using the HCAT analysis. These in turn could be used to inform improvement interventions, and direct stakeholders to areas that require urgent attention. This study also highlights the promise of the HCAT for use across different healthcare systems, with similar results emerging from the RoI and the UK.

How safe is prehospital care? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As compared to other domains of healthcare, little is known about patient safety incidents (PSIs) in prehospital care. The aims of our systematic review were to identify how the prevalence and level of harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care are assessed; the frequency of PSIs in prehospital care; and the harm associated with PSIs in prehospital care. METHOD: Searches were conducted of Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete and the grey literature. Reference lists of included studies and existing related reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies reporting data on number/frequency of PSIs and/or harm associated with PSIs were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from the studies and carried out a critical appraisal using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: Of the 22 included papers, 16 (73%) used data from record reviews, and 6 (27%) from incident reports. The frequency of PSIs in prehospital care was found to be a median of 5.9 per 100 records/transports/patients. A higher prevalence of PSIs was identified within studies that used record review data (9.9 per 100 records/transports/patients) as compared to incident reports (0.3 per records/transports/patients). Across the studies that reported harm, a median of 15.6% of PSIs were found to result in harm. Studies that utilized record review data reported that a median of 6.5% of the PSIs resulted in harm. For data from incident reporting systems, a median of 54.6% of incidents were associated with harm. The mean QATSDD score was 25.6 (SD = 4.1, range = 16-34). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review gives direction as to how to advance methods for identifying PSIs in prehospital care and assessing the extent to which patients are harmed.

Measurement and monitoring patient safety in prehospital care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital care is potentially hazardous with the possibility for patients to experience an adverse event. However, as compared to secondary care, little is known about how patient safety is managed in prehospital care settings. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review were to identify and classify the methods of measuring and monitoring patient safety that have been used in prehospital care using the five dimensions of the Measuring and Monitoring Safety (MMS) framework and use this classification to identify where there are safety 'blind spots' and make recommendations for how these deficits could be addressed. METHODS: Searches were conducted in January 2020, with no limit on publication year, using Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science and Academic Search. Reference lists of included studies and existing related reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies concerned with measuring and monitoring safety in prehospital care were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from studies and applied a quality appraisal tool (the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs). RESULTS: A total of 5301 studies were screened, with 52 included in the review. A total of 73% (38/52) of the studies assessed past harm, 25% (13/52) the reliability of safety critical processes, 1.9% (1/52) sensitivity to operations, 38.5% (20/52) anticipation and preparedness and 5.8% (3/52) integration and learning. A total of 67 methods for measuring and monitoring safety were used across the included studies. Of these methods, 38.8% (26/67) were surveys, 29.9% (20/67) were patient records reviews, 14.9% (10/67) were incident reporting systems, 11.9% (8/67) were interviews or focus groups and 4.5% (3/67) were checklists. CONCLUSIONS: There is no single method of measuring and monitoring safety in prehospital care. Arguably, most safety monitoring systems have evolved, rather than been designed. This leads to safety blind spots in which information is lacking, as well as to redundancy and duplication of effort. It is suggested that the findings from this systematic review, informed by the MMS framework, can provide a structure for critically thinking about how safety is being measured and monitored in prehospital care. This will support the design of a safety surveillance system that provides a comprehensive understanding of what is being done well, where improvements should be made and whether safety interventions have had the desired effect.

Understanding hand hygiene behaviour in the intensive care unit to inform interventions: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Improving hand hygiene (HH) compliance is one of the most important, but elusive, goals of infection control. The purpose of this study was to use the capability (C), opportunity (O), motivation (M), and behaviour (B; COM-B) model and the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to gain an understanding of the barriers and enablers of HH behaviours in an intensive care unit (ICU) in order to identify specific interventions to improve HH compliance. METHODS: A semi-structured interview schedule was developed based upon the COM-B model. This schedule was used to interview a total of 26 ICU staff: 12 ICU nurses, 11 anaesthetic specialist registrars, and three anaesthetic senior house officers. RESULTS: Participants were confident in their capabilities to carry out appropriate HH behaviours. The vast majority of participants reported having the necessary knowledge and skills, and believed they were capable of carrying out appropriate HH behaviours. Social influence was regarded as being important in encouraging HH compliance by the interviewees- particularly by nurses. The participants were motivated to carry out HH behaviours, and it was recognised that HH was an important part of their job and is important in preventing infection. It is recommended that staff are provided with targeted HH training, in which individuals receive direct and individualised feedback on actual performance and are provided guidance on how to address deficiencies in HH compliance at the bedside at the time at which the HH behaviour is performed. Modelling of appropriate HH behaviours by senior leaders is also suggested, particularly by senior doctors. Finally, appropriate levels of staffing are a factor that must be considered if HH compliance is to be improved. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that short interviews with ICU staff, founded on appropriate behavioural change frameworks, can provide an understanding of HH behaviour. This understanding can then be applied to design interventions appropriately tailored to the needs of a specific unit, which will have an increased likelihood of improving HH compliance.

Hand Hygiene Compliance in the ICU: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the literature describing compliance with World Health Organization hand hygiene guidelines in ICUs, to evaluate the quality of extant research, and to examine differences in compliance levels across geographical regions, ICU types, and healthcare worker groups, observation methods, and moments (indications) of hand hygiene. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches were conducted in August 2018 using Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Reference lists of included studies and related review articles were also screened. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, peer-reviewed studies measuring hand hygiene compliance by healthcare workers in an ICU setting using direct observation guided by the World Health Organization's "Five Moments for Hand Hygiene," published since 2009, were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Information was extracted on study location, research design, type of ICU, healthcare workers, measurement procedures, and compliance levels. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-one studies were included. Most were conducted in high-income countries (60.7%) and in adult ICUs (85.2%). Mean hand hygiene compliance was 59.6%. Compliance levels appeared to differ by geographic region (high-income countries 64.5%, low-income countries 9.1%), type of ICU (neonatal 67.0%, pediatric 41.2%, adult 58.2%), and type of healthcare worker (nursing staff 43.4%, physicians 32.6%, other staff 53.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Mean hand hygiene compliance appears notably lower than international targets. The data collated may offer useful indicators for those evaluating, and seeking to improve, hand hygiene compliance in ICUs internationally.

What discontinued trials teach us about trial registration?

OBJECTIVE: Trial registries were set up to improve transparency, remove duplication, improve awareness and avoid waste. Many trials never reach the point of patient enrolment due to a myriad of reasons. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons for and characteristics of discontinuation of trials. RESULTS: A total of 163 discontinued trials were identified and compared to completed trials. A Survey was designed to further explore the nature and conduct of the trial. No differences in registered and categorised information was observed between discontinued and completed trials. Most trials discontinue due to patient or participant recruitment issues, often related to funding. Substantial changes to procedures or the protocol or changes to recruitment strategy were also commonly cited reasons. Survey information was available for 21 discontinued and 28 completed trials and no obvious differences could be identified. Our findings highlight the underlying problem of lack of detail, suboptimal recording, dated information and incomplete reporting of trials within a trial registry which hampers sharing and learning. To date, important progress has been made by the implementation of standards and the requirement of trials to be registered. Our review identifies areas where further improvements can be made.

Identifying interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit through co-design with stakeholders.

Background: Despite the effectiveness of hand hygiene (HH) for infection control, there is a lack of robust scientific data to guide how HH can be improved in intensive care units (ICUs).  The aim of this study is to use the literature, researcher, and stakeholder opinion to explicate potential interventions for improving HH compliance in the ICU, and provide an indication of the suitability of these interventions. Methods: A four-phase co-design study was designed. First, data from a previously completed systematic literature review was used in order to identify unique components of existing interventions to improve HH in ICUs. Second, a workshop was held with a panel of 10 experts to identify additional intervention components. Third, the 91 intervention components resulting from the literature review and workshop were synthesised into a final list of 21 hand hygiene interventions. Finally, the affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side-effects/safety, and equity of each intervention was rated by 39 stakeholders (health services researchers, ICU staff, and the public). Results: Ensuring the availability of essential supplies for HH compliance was the intervention that received most approval from stakeholders. Interventions involving role models and peer-to-peer accountability and support were also well regarded by stakeholders. Education/training interventions were commonplace and popular. Punitive interventions were poorly regarded. Conclusions: Hospitals and regulators must make decisions regarding how to improve HH compliance in the absence of scientific consensus on effective methods. Using collective input and a co-design approach, the guidance developed herein may usefully support implementation of HH interventions that are considered to be effective and acceptable by stakeholders.

What are the predictors of hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit? A cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Although appropriate hand hygiene (HH) practices are recognised as the most effective preventative strategy for infection, adherence is suboptimal. Previous studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have found differences in HH compliance between those moments that protect the patient, and those that protect the healthcare provider. However, such studies did not control for other variables known to impact HH compliance. AIM: To examine HH among healthcare workers (HCWs) in ICU settings, and identify whether there is a statistical difference in HH compliance between patient-protective and self-protective moments, while controlling for other variables known to influence HH compliance (i.e. professional role, unit and shift time). METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in four ICUs across three Irish hospitals. Compliance was assessed according to the WHO's 'five moments for hand hygiene'. HCW professional role, total number of 'opportunities' for HH and whether compliance was achieved were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 712 HH opportunities were recorded, with an overall compliance rate of 56.9%. Logistic regression analysis revealed that physicians, allied healthcare professionals and auxiliary staff were less likely than nurses to engage in HH. HCWs were more likely to comply during night shifts compared to morning shifts, and with self-protective as compared to patient-protective HH moments. CONCLUSION: The information provided in this study provides a data-driven approach that ICUs can use to tailor HH interventions to where, when and for whom they are most required.

Guided Reflection Interventions Show No Effect on Diagnostic Accuracy in Medical Students.

Background: Guided reflection interventions, in an effort to reduce diagnostic error, encourage diagnosticians to generate alternative diagnostic hypotheses and gather confirming and disconfirming evidence before making a final diagnosis. This method has been found to significantly improve diagnostic accuracy in recent studies; however, it requires a significant investment of time, and psychological theory suggests the possibility for unintended consequences owing to cognitive bias. This study compared a short and long version of a guided reflection task on improvements in diagnostic accuracy, change in diagnostic confidence, and rates of corrected diagnoses. Methods: One hundred and eighty-six fourth- and fifth-year medical students diagnosed a series of fictional clinical cases, by first impressions (control condition) or by using a short or long guided reflection process, and rated their confidence in their initial diagnostic hypothesis at intervals throughout the process. In the "short" condition, participants were asked to generate two alternatives to their initial diagnostic hypothesis; in the "long" condition, six alternatives were required. Results: The reflective intervention did not elicit more accurate final diagnoses than diagnosis based on first impressions only. Participants who completed a short version of the task performed similarly to those who completed a long version. Neither the short nor long form elicited significant changes in diagnostic confidence from the beginning to the end of the diagnostic process, nor did the conditions differ on the rate of corrected diagnoses. Conclusions: This study finds no evidence to support the use of the guided reflection method as a diagnostic aid for novice diagnosticians, who may already use an analytical approach to diagnosis and therefore derive less benefit from this intervention than their more experienced colleagues. The results indicate some support for a shorter, less demanding version of the process, and further study is now required to identify the most efficient process to recommend to doctors.

Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error incurs enormous human and economic costs. The dual-process model reasoning provides a framework for understanding the diagnostic process and attributes certain errors to faulty cognitive shortcuts (heuristics). The literature contains many suggestions to counteract these and to enhance analytical and non-analytical modes of reasoning. AIMS: To identify, describe and appraise studies that have empirically investigated interventions to enhance analytical and non-analytical reasoning among medical trainees and doctors, and to assess their effectiveness. METHODS: Systematic searches of five databases were carried out (Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, Education Resource Information Centre (ERIC) and Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials), supplemented with searches of bibliographies and relevant journals. Included studies evaluated an intervention to enhance analytical and/or non-analytical reasoning among medical trainees or doctors. FINDINGS: Twenty-eight studies were included under five categories: educational interventions, checklists, cognitive forcing strategies, guided reflection, instructions at test and other interventions. While many of the studies found some effect of interventions, guided reflection interventions emerged as the most consistently successful across five studies, and cognitive forcing strategies improved accuracy and confidence judgements. Significant heterogeneity of measurement approaches was observed, and existing studies are largely limited to early-career doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Results to date are promising and this relatively young field is now close to a point where these kinds of cognitive interventions can be recommended to educators. Further research with refined methodology and more diverse samples is required before firm recommendations may be made for medical education and policy; however, these results suggest that such interventions hold promise, with much current enthusiasm for new research.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder and Comorbid Affective Disorder: A Pilot Matched Control Trial.

This study examined whether acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) enhances treatment as usual (TAU) in improving treatment outcomes in patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) and comorbid affective disorder. Fifty-two participants were included in the study, of whom 26 were patients with AUD and either depression or bipolar disorder treated with ACT group therapy in parallel with TAU (inpatient integrated treatment) and 26 were matched controls who had received TAU alone. Drinking and craving outcomes were total alcohol abstinence, cumulative abstinence duration (CAD) and Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS) scores at 3 and 6 months postintervention. Affective and anxiety outcomes were Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores at these follow-ups. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. Retention rates were high: 100% of the ACT group were followed up at 3 and 6 months; 92.3% and 84.6% of the TAU alone group were followed up at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Patients in the ACT group reported significantly higher CAD at 3 and 6 months, significantly lower BDI and BAI scores at 3 and 6 months, and significantly lower OCDS scores at 3 months, than those who received only TAU. No other significant differences in treatment outcomes were found between the groups. ACT provides added benefit to TAU in improving drinking, craving, depression and anxiety outcomes in patients with AUD and comorbid affective disorder. Most treatment improvements were sustained over a 6-month follow-up period.

Predictors of fatigue in cancer patients before and after chemotherapy.

Fatigue is a debilitating and common condition in cancer patients. This study examined pretreatment predictors of fatigue before chemotherapy and also assessed whether these could prospectively predict fatigue posttreatment. A total of 100 patients completed questionnaires assessing psychological factors, physical activity and sleep. A subsample of 26 participants wore actigraphs to objectively assess sleep/wake and activity/rest. Fatigue was measured pretreatment and posttreatment and at follow-up several months later. Greater pretreatment pain, depression, stress and sleep disruption significantly predicted greater fatigue before chemotherapy, explaining 55 percent of the variance. Pretreatment fatigue significantly predicted post-treatment fatigue. No other significant prospective predictors of posttreatment fatigue emerged.