An Interdisciplinary Clinical Approach for Workplace Violence Prevention and Injury Reduction in the General Hospital Setting: S.A.F.E. Response.

BACKGROUND: Workplace violence is a major public health concern. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 2002 to 2013, incidents of serious workplace violence (those requiring days off) were four times more common in health care than in private industry. AIMS: An interprofessional committee developed, implemented, and evaluated a quality improvement project from 2012 to 2016 to reduce workplace violence and prevent staff injury. The initiative termed S.A.F.E. Response stands for Spot a threat, Assess the risk, Formulate a safe response, Evaluate the outcome. METHOD: An institutional review board-approved quality improvement survey was implemented and evaluated. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. An interprofessional committee developed and implemented a comprehensive program to prevent injury, which included (a) a mandatory eLearning educational training, (b) a S.A.F.E. Response with standardized interventions for the clinical conditions affecting safety, and (c) a clinical debriefing process. A reduction in nursing staff assault incidence rates was identified as a success. RESULTS: Nursing staff injury rates decreased an average of 40%. CONCLUSIONS: A reduction in nursing staff assault incidence rates was notable. Clinicians equipped with knowledge, skills, and resources can identify and defuse unsafe situations to prevent violence. This clinical approach shifts the focus from crisis intervention to crisis prevention, which reduces injury.

Understanding Test Results Follow-Up in the Ambulatory Setting: Analysis of Multiple Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Delayed or incomplete test result follow-up, which can lead to missed and/or delayed diagnosis, is an important issue in the ambulatory setting. Delayed test result follow-up has been linked to poorer patient outcomes and increased risk of mortality and accounts for a large portion of medical malpractice claims. Yet improvements are difficult, reflecting the complexity of the test result follow-up process. Test result follow-up safety culture was investigated using qualitative and quantitative patient safety and quality of care data at an academic medical center. METHODS: After an environmental scan, five sources of data were used to compass multiple perspectives on safety culture-two national surveys (AHRQ MO SOPS for safety culture and CG-CAHPS for patient satisfaction); patient and family complaints; safety reports; and provider response times to test message results in the electronic health record. RESULTS: The following metrics were inspected: how patients and providers estimated the frequency for providing timely test results; how patients' satisfaction with their provider correlated with their provider's response time to test result messages; and qualitative themes in patient complaints and safety reports filed by clinic. The institution was compared to national benchmarks using surveys. As test result response time decreased, patient satisfaction increased (p = 0.0073). CONCLUSION: Test result follow-up culture was investigated using tools typically used to examine patient satisfaction and experience and staff culture. Use of these five sources of data led to an examination of multiple perspectives in follow-up culture and identification of possible explanations for inappropriate follow-up. These data sources can be further explored to identify possible solutions.

A Population-Based Care Improvement Initiative for Patients at Risk for Delirium, Alcohol Withdrawal, and Suicide Harm.

BACKGROUND: In a population-based approach, a hospital-wide interprofessional care redesign at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH; Boston), was conducted to provide optimal evidence-informed care for patients at risk for delirium, alcohol abuse, and suicide harm (DASH). The initiative involved enhanced screening and the introduction of new care management guidelines and order sets pertaining to the DASH diagnoses. METHODS: An interprofessional group from medicine, nursing, and psychiatry jointly led a hospitalwide effort for the improvement of care and outcomes of patients presenting with a DASH diagnosis (delirium, alcohol withdrawal, and suicide harm). The care improvement process consisted of four phases: (1) development of guidelines, (2) imple mentation/rollout, (3) integration into practice, and (4) sustainability, including ongoing practice development and evaluation. RESULTS: Implementation outcomes were evaluated using eight parameters-acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability. Internal billing data and ICD-9-CM [International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification] diagnostic codes were used to identify the DASH population. Patients were compared pre- and postprogram implementation for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. The average length of stay, reported as the number of midnights in the hospital, remained consistent for DASH patients-9.3-10.0 days (versus 5.3-6.0 days for BWH over all). The DASH readmission rate decreased by 9%-from 15.1% to 13.7%, approaching the overall BWH rate of 13.3%. CONCLUSION: Close nurse-physician collaboration, including joint leadership and simultaneous rollout for nurses and physicians, contributed to the initiative's effective implementation.

The Psychiatry Morbidity and Mortality Incident Reporting Tool Increases Psychiatrist Participation in Reporting Adverse Events.

OBJECTIVES: Although the reporting of adverse events (AEs) is widely thought to be a key first step to improving patient safety in hospital systems, underreporting remains a common problem, particularly among physicians. We aimed to increase the number of safety reports filed by psychiatrists in our hospital system. METHODS: We piloted an online survey for psychiatry-specific AE reporting, the Psychiatry Morbidity and Mortality Incident Reporting Tool (PMIRT) for a 1-year period. An e-mail prompt containing a link to the survey was sent on a weekly basis to all psychiatry department clinical staff. The primary outcome was the total number of events reported by psychiatrists through PMIRT; secondary outcomes were the total number of AEs and the number of serious harm events filed by psychiatrists in our hospital's formal event reporting system before and after implementation of the new protocol. RESULTS: Psychiatrists filed 65 reports in PMIRT during the study period. The average number of AEs reported by psychiatrists in the hospital's formal event reporting system significantly increased after the intervention (P = 0.0251), and the average number of serious harm events reported by psychiatrists increased nonsignificantly (P = 0.1394). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of an increase in awareness of event reporting with a psychiatry-specific AE reporting tool resulted in a significant improvement in the number of reports by psychiatrists.