Speaking up or remaining silent about patient safety concerns in rehabilitation: A cross-sectional survey to assess staff experiences and perceptions.

Background and Aims: Patient safety incidents may be prevented if healthcare workers speak up to voice their concerns when they observe hazardous clinical situations. This study aims to investigate the frequency of speaking up and healthcare workers' perception of organizational climate in rehabilitation clinics. Methods: An online survey was conducted in five rehabilitation clinics. An existing survey instrument (Speaking Up About Patient Safety Questionnaire [SUPS-Q]) was adapted for this purpose. The instrument includes items on self-reported speak-up-related behavior (perceived safety concerns, withholding voice, and speaking up), anticipated speak-up behavior, barriers to speaking up, and speak-up-related climate measures (psychological safety, encouraging environment, and resignation). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance for differences between groups, multiple regression, and measures for validity and reliability of the scales. Results: Four hundred seventy-one individuals participated in the survey (response rate of 32%). In the 4 weeks preceding the survey, 81% of respondents had specific concerns about patient safety, 83% performed speak up and 41% remained silent in one or more instances. Expected differences between professional groups were confirmed, but surprisingly, we found no effect of hierarchical level on speaking up behavior and perception of the speak-up climate. Factors that most frequently prevented healthcare workers from speaking up were ineffectiveness (38%), presence of patients (26%), and unpredictability of the actor's reaction (25%). The psychometric evaluation of the adapted SUPS-Q showed acceptable results for validity and reliability. Conclusions: Healthcare workers in rehabilitation clinics frequently perceive safety concerns. The study underlines the importance of promoting a culture of safety and speaking up. The short survey instrument SUPS-Q can be used by rehabilitation clinics to initiate discussions related to facilitators and barriers to speaking up and to identify areas for improvement within the organization.

Quality standards for safe medication in nursing homes: development through a multistep approach including a Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to develop quality standards reflecting minimal requirements for safe medication processes in nursing homes. DESIGN: In a first step, relevant key topics for safe medication processes were deducted from a systematic search for similar guidelines, prior work and discussions with experts. In a second step, the essential requirements for each key topic were specified and substantiated with a literature-based rationale. Subsequently, the requirements were evaluated with a piloted, two-round Delphi study. SETTING: Nursing homes in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Interprofessional panel of 25 experts from science and practice. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Each requirement was rated for its relevance for a safer and resident-oriented medication on a 9-point Likert-Scale based on the RAND/UCLA method. The requirements were considered relevant if, in the second round, the median relevance rating was ≥7 and the proportion of ratings ≥7 was ≥80%. RESULTS: Five key topics with a total of 87 requirements were elaborated and rated in the Delphi study. After the second round (response rate in both rounds 100%), 85 requirements fulfilled the predefined criteria and were therefore included in the final set of quality standards. The five key topics are: (I) 'The medication is reviewed regularly and in defined situations', (II) 'The medication is reviewed in a structured manner', (III) 'The medication is monitored in a structured manner', (IV) 'All healthcare professionals are committed to an optimal interprofessional collaboration' and (V) 'Residents are actively involved in medication process'. CONCLUSIONS: We developed normative quality standards for a safer and resident-oriented medication in Swiss nursing homes. Altogether, 85 requirements define the medication processes and the behaviour of healthcare professionals. A rigorous implementation may support nursing homes in taking a step towards safer and resident-oriented medication.

Nurses' and Physicians' Perceptions of Indwelling Urinary Catheter Practices and Culture in Their Institutions.

OBJECTIVES: Indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs) are commonly used devices in acute care that may lead to catheter-associated urinary tract infections or noninfectious complications. Responsibilities for IUC are usually shared between nurses and physicians, and a common mental model among the two professional groups is thus essential for a successful reduction in catheter use. The aim of this study was to determine variation in the perceptions of current practices and culture regarding IUC use between these two groups. METHODS: Nurses and physicians (N = 1579) from seven Swiss hospitals completed a written survey on safe IUC use in their institution. The survey assessed participant's perceptions of current practices and culture in their institution, and their perceived responsibilities related to IUC care. t tests and logistic regression were used to examine differences in responses between physicians and nurses. RESULTS: Nurses and physicians each have their own tasks but also share responsibilities for catheter placement, care, and removal. Overall, nurses were more positive than physicians about current practices and culture regarding IUC use within their institution (mean scale scores = 5.4 for nurses versus 5.1 for physicians, P < 0.001). Perceptions of the two professional groups diverged most strongly on practices to avoid unnecessary placement of IUCs, the presence of shared values and attitudes in support of restrictive catheter use, and the other group's leadership commitment. CONCLUSIONS: Indwelling urinary catheter management is a strong interprofessional domain and a shared responsibility. It is crucial that measures to raise awareness and to communicate new standards target both nurses and physicians and are discussed in interprofessional formats.

Change in staff perspectives on indwelling urinary catheter use after implementation of an intervention bundle in seven Swiss acute care hospitals: results of a before/after survey study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in staff perspectives towards indwelling urinary catheter (IUC) use after implementation of a 1-year quality improvement project. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional survey at baseline (October 2016) and 12-month follow-up (October 2017). SETTING: Seven acute care hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was targeted at all nursing and medical staff members working at the participating hospitals at the time of survey distribution. A total of 1579 staff members participated in the baseline survey (T0) (49% response rate) and 1527 participated in the follow-up survey (T1) (47% response rate). INTERVENTION: A multimodal intervention bundle, consisting of an evidence-based indication list, daily re-evaluation of ongoing catheter need and staff training, was implemented over the course of 9 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Staff knowledge (15 items), perception of current practices and culture (scale 1-7), self-reported responsibilities (multiple-response question) and determinants of behaviour (scale 1-7) before and after implementation of the intervention bundle. RESULTS: The mean number of correctly answered knowledge questions increased significantly between the two survey periods (T0: 10.4, T1: 11.0; p<0.001). Self-reported responsibilities with regard to IUC management by nurses and physicians changed only slightly over time. Perception of current practices and culture in regard to safe urinary catheter use increased significantly (T0: 5.3, T1: 5.5; p<0.001). Significant changes were also observed for determinants of behaviour (T0: 5.3, T1: 5.6; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: We found small but significant changes in staff perceptions after implementation of an evidence-based intervention bundle. Efforts now need to be targeted at sustaining and reinforcing these changes, so that restrictive use of IUCs becomes an integral part of the hospital culture.

Speaking up about patient safety in psychiatric hospitals - a cross-sectional survey study among healthcare staff.

Speaking up is an important communication strategy to prevent patient harm. The aim of this study was to examine speak up-related behaviour and climate for the first time in psychiatric hospitals. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare workers (HCWs) in six psychiatric hospitals with nine sites in Switzerland. Measures assessed speak up-related behaviour with 11 items organized in three scales (the frequency of perceived safety concerns, the frequency of withholding voice, and the frequency of speaking up). Speak up-related climate was assessed by 11 items organized in 3 subscales (psychological safety for speaking up, encouraging environment for speaking up, and resignation). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability, correlations and multiple regression analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and analysis of variance for comparing mean scores between professional groups. A total of 817 questionnaires were completed (response rate: 23%). In different items, 45%-65% of HCWs reported perceived safety concerns at least once during the past four weeks. Withholding voice was reported by 13-25% of HCWs, and speaking up was reported by 53%-72% of HCWs. Systematic differences in scores were found between professional groups (nurses, doctors, psychologists) and hierarchical groups (lower vs higher status). The vignette showed that hierarchical level and perceived risk of harm for the patient were significant predictors for the self-reported likelihood to speak up. Situations triggering safety concerns occur frequently in psychiatric hospitals. Speaking up and voicing concerns should be further promoted as an important safety measure.

[Selected safety-relevant medication processes in Swiss nursing homes: Current state of affairs and optimization potentials]. / Ausgewählte sicherheitsrelevante Medikationsprozesse in Schweizer Alters- und Pflegeheimen: Status quo und Optimierungspotenziale.

BACKGROUND: Reducing adverse drug events in nursing homes is a central patient safety concern. The aim of this study was to assess how often selected medication processes to increase medication safety are already implemented in Swiss nursing homes and to examine how nursing homes that have not yet implemented these processes can be characterized based on their organizational features. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey study among directors of nursing in Swiss nursing homes. RESULTS: 420 of 1,525 invited individuals participated in the survey (response rate: 27.5 %). Of these, 65.0 % stated that regular systematic medication reviews have been provided in their institution. 9.5 % of the nursing homes use a list to identify potentially inappropriate medication, and 6.7 % of the nursing homes have a standardized process to monitor side effects of medications. 66.0 % of the participating nursing homes have implemented at least one of these three processes, 34.0 % of the participating nursing homes have not implemented any of the three processes. Statistically significant differences in process implementation were found according to the geographical location of the nursing home, the type of documentation used for medications, the physician model, the number of external general practitioners, as well as the medication supply channel and the legal obligation to cooperate with pharmacists. No differences were found with regard to the nursing home size. CONCLUSION: In Swiss nursing homes, central safety-relevant medication processes have not yet been implemented nationwide. In particular, implementation is not widespread in nursing homes where medical care for their residents is provided by many different external general practitioners. The organizational features need to be taken into account to successfully implement quality improvement measures.

Implications of involving pharmacy technicians in obtaining a best possible medication history from the perspectives of pharmaceutical, medical and nursing staff: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: In recent years, the involvement of pharmacy technicians in medication reconciliation has increasingly been investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the implications on professional roles and collaboration when a best possible medication history (BPMH) at admission is obtained by pharmacy technicians. DESIGN: Qualitative study with semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using a qualitative content analysis approach. SETTING: Internal medicine units in two mid-sized Swiss hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 21 staff members working at the two sites (6 pharmacy technicians, 2 pharmacists, 6 nurses, 5 physician residents and 2 senior physicians). RESULTS: Pharmacy technicians generally appreciated their new tasks in obtaining a BPMH. However, they also experienced challenges associated with their new role. Interviewees reported unease with direct patient interaction and challenges with integrating the new BPMH tasks into their regular daily duties. We found that pharmacists played a key role in the BPMH process, since they act as coaches for pharmacy technicians, transmit information to the physicians and reconcile preadmission medication lists with admission orders. Physicians stated that they benefitted from the delegation of administrative tasks to pharmacy technicians. Regarding the interprofessional collaboration, we found that pharmacy technicians in the study acted on a preliminary administrative level and did not become part of the larger treatment team. There was no direct interaction between pharmacy technicians and physicians, but rather, the supervising pharmacists acted as intermediaries. CONCLUSION: The tasks assumed by pharmacy technicians need to be clearly defined and fully integrated into existing processes. Engaging pharmacy technicians may generate new patient safety risks and inefficiencies due to process fragmentation. Communication and information flow at the interfaces between professional groups therefore need to be well organised. More research is needed to understand if and under which circumstances such a model can be efficient and contribute to improving medication safety.

Comprehensive programs for preventing pressure ulcers: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the evidence supporting the combined use of interventions to prevent pressure ulcers (PrUs) in acute care and long-term-care facilities. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature describing multifaceted PrU prevention programs was performed. Articles were included if they described an intervention implemented in acute care settings or long-term-care facilities, incorporated more than 1 intervention component, involved a multidisciplinary team, and included information about outcomes related to the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were identified. Recurring components used in the development and implementation of PrU prevention programs included preparations prior to the start of a program, PrU prevention best practices, staff education, clinical monitoring and feedback, skin care champions, and cues to action. Ten studies reported PrU prevalence rates; 9 of them reported decreased prevalence rates at the end of their programs. Of the 6 studies reporting PrU incidence rates, 5 reported a decrease in incidence rates. Four studies measured care processes: 1 study reported an overall improvement; 2 studies reported improvement on some, but not all, measures; and 1 study reported no change. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing literature describing multipronged, multidisciplinary interventions to prevent PrUs in acute care settings and long-term-care facilities. Outcomes reported in these studies suggest that such programs can be successful in reducing PrU prevalence or incidence rates. However, to strengthen the level of evidence, sites should be encouraged to rigorously evaluate their programs and to publish their results.