Seeking systems-based facilitators of safety and healthcare resilience: a thematic review of incident reports.

Patient safety incident reports are a key source of safety intelligence. This study aimed to explore whether information contained in such reports can elicit facilitators of safety, including responding, anticipating, monitoring, learning, and other mechanisms by which safety is maintained. The review further explored whether, if found, this information could be used to inform safety interventions. Anonymized incident reports submitted between August and October 2020 were obtained from two large teaching hospitals. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) tool and the resilience potentials (responding, anticipating, monitoring, and learning) frameworks guided thematic analysis. SEIPS was used to explore the components of people, tools, tasks, and environments, as well as the interactions between them, which contribute to safety. The resilience potentials provided insight into healthcare resilience at individual, team, and organizational levels. Sixty incident reports were analysed. These included descriptions of all the SEIPS framework components. People used tools such as electronic prescribing systems to perform tasks within different healthcare environments that facilitated safety. All four resilient capacities were identified, with mostly individuals and teams responding to events; however, monitoring, anticipation, and learning were described for individuals, teams, and organizations. Incident reports contain information about safety practices, much of which is not identified by traditional approaches such as root cause analysis. This information can be used to enhance safety enablers and encourage greater proactive anticipation and system-level learning.

Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors in Men With Erectile Dysfunction and the Risk of Alzheimer Disease: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Repurposing phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) as drugs for Alzheimer disease (AD) risk reduction has shown promise based on animal studies. However, evidence in humans remains inconclusive. Therefore, we conducted a cohort study to evaluate the association between PDE5I initiation compared with nonuse and the risk of developing AD in men with erectile dysfunction (ED). METHODS: Using electronic health records from IQVIA Medical Research Data UK (formerly known as the THIN database), we identified men aged ≥40 years with a new diagnosis of ED between 2000 and 2017. Individuals with a previous diagnosis of dementia, cognitive impairment, confusion, or prescription for dementia symptoms were excluded. The occurrence of incident AD was identified using diagnostic read codes. To minimize immortal-time bias, PDE5I initiation was treated as a time-varying exposure variable. Potential confounders were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CIs. A secondary analysis explored the association between AD and the cumulative number of PDE5I prescriptions. Sensitivity analyses included lag (delay) periods of 1 and 3 years after cohort entry to address the prodromal stage of AD. RESULTS: The study included 269,725 men, with 1,119 newly diagnosed with AD during a median follow-up of 5.1 (interquartile range 2.9-8.9) years. The adjusted HR in PDE5I initiators compared with nonuse was 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.93). The associated risk of AD decreased in individuals issued >20 prescriptions: HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.43-0.73) for 21-50 prescriptions and HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.49-0.87) for >50 prescriptions. Sensitivity analysis with a 1-year lag period supported the primary findings (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94), but the results differed with the inclusion of a 3-year lag period (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80-1.08). DISCUSSION: PDE5I initiation in men with ED was associated with a lower risk of AD, particularly in those most frequently issued prescriptions. The differences between primary and sensitivity analyses highlight the need to explore the optimal lag period. To enhance the generalizability of our findings, a randomized controlled trial including both sexes and exploring various PDE5I doses would be beneficial to confirm the association between PDE5I and AD.

A multicentre observational study to investigate feasibility of a direct oral penicillin challenge in de-labelling 'low risk' patients with penicillin allergy by non-allergy healthcare professionals (SPACE study): Implications for healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: The huge burden of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. This is magnified by insufficient allergy specialists and lack of 'point-of-care' tests. We investigated the feasibility of non-allergy healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering direct oral penicillin challenges (DPCs) for penicillin allergy de-labelling. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals in England across three settings (acute medical, pre-surgical and haematology-oncology). Patients with a PAL were screened and stratified as low risk/high risk. Low risk patients (non-immune mediated symptoms, benign rash, tolerated amoxicillin since and family history) underwent a DPC. RESULTS: N = 2257 PALs were screened, 1054 were eligible; 643 were approached, 373 declined, 270 consented and 259 risk stratified (low risk = 155; high risk = 104). One hundred and twenty-six low risk patients underwent DPC, 122 (96.8%) were de-labelled with no serious allergic reactions. Conversion rate from screening-to-consent was 12% [3.3% and 17.9% in acute and elective settings respectively; odds ratios for consent were 3.42 (p < 0.001) and 5.53 (p < 0.001) in haematology-oncology and pre-surgical setting respectively. Common reasons for failure to progress in the study included difficulty in reaching patients, clinical instability/medical reasons, lacking capacity to consent and psychological factors. INTERPRETATION: DPCs can be delivered by non-allergy HCPs. A high proportion of patients with PALs did not progress in the study pathway. Strategies to deliver DPC at optimal points of the care pathway are needed to enhance uptake. Elective settings offer greater opportunities than acute settings for DPC. The safety and simplicity of DPCs lends itself to adoption by healthcare systems beyond the UK, including in resource-limited settings.