Assessing the completeness of periodontal disease documentation in the EHR: a first step in measuring the quality of care.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to measure the proportion of patients for which comprehensive periodontal charting, periodontal disease risk factors (diabetes status, tobacco use, and oral home care compliance), and periodontal diagnoses were documented in the electronic health record (EHR). We developed an EHR-based quality measure to assess how well four dental institutions documented periodontal disease-related information. An automated database script was developed and implemented in the EHR at each institution. The measure was validated by comparing the findings from the measure with a manual review of charts. RESULTS: The overall measure scores varied significantly across the four institutions (institution 1 = 20.47%, institution 2 = 0.97%, institution 3 = 22.27% institution 4 = 99.49%, p-value < 0.0001). The largest gaps in documentation were related to periodontal diagnoses and capturing oral homecare compliance. A random sample of 1224 charts were manually reviewed and showed excellent validity when compared with the data generated from the EHR-based measure (Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, and NPV > 80%). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of developing automated data extraction scripts using structured data from EHRs, and successfully implementing these to identify and measure the periodontal documentation completeness within and across different dental institutions.

Designing audit and feedback dashboards for dentists to monitor their opioid prescribing.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prescription drug abuse is a major factor leading to drug overdose deaths in the US and dentists are one of the leading prescribers of opioid pain medication. Knowing that Audit & Feedback (A&F) dashboards are an effective tool and are used as quality improvement interventions, we aimed to develop such dashboards personalized for dental providers which could allow them to monitor their own opioid prescribing performance. METHODS: In this paper we report on the process for designing the A&F dashboards for dentists which were developed by using an iterative human-centered design process. The results obtained from each iteration were used to enrich the information needs analyses, provide function testing, and guide the design decisions of the next iteration. RESULTS: Engaging dentists in the development and refinement of the dashboards while using the think-aloud protocol for user-testing, provided rapid feedback and identified areas that were confusing and needed either a redesign or additional explanatory content. The final version of dashboards consisted of displaying necessary information through easy to interpret visualizations and interactive features. These included providing access to current national and organizational prescribing guidelines, displaying changes in individual prescribing behavior over time, comparing individual prescribing rate to peer group rate and target rate, displaying procedure specific prescribing, integrating patient reported post-operative dental pain experience and providing navigation and interpretation tips for users. The dashboards were easy to learn and understand for the dentists and were deemed as worth using often in dental practice. CONCLUSION: Our research was able to demonstrate the creation of useful and usable A&F dashboards using data from electronic dental records and patient surveys, for dentists to effectively monitor their opioid prescribing behavior. Efficacy of the dashboards will be tested in future work.

Identifying Contributing Factors Associated With Dental Adverse Events Through a Pragmatic Electronic Health Record-Based Root Cause Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed contributing factors associated with dental adverse events (AEs). METHODS: Seven electronic health record-based triggers were deployed identifying potential AEs at 2 dental institutions. From 4106 flagged charts, 2 reviewers examined 439 charts selected randomly to identify and classify AEs using our dental AE type and severity classification systems. Based on information captured in the electronic health record, we analyzed harmful AEs to assess potential contributing factors; harmful AEs were defined as those that resulted in temporary moderate to severe harm, required hospitalization, or resulted in permanent moderate to severe harm. We classified potential contributing factors according to (1) who was involved (person), (2) what were they doing (tasks), (3) what tools/technologies were they using (tools/technologies), (4) where did the event take place (environment), (5) what organizational conditions contributed to the event? (organization), (6) patient (including parents), and (7) professional-professional collaboration. A blinded panel of dental experts conducted a second review to confirm the presence of an AE. RESULTS: Fifty-nine cases had 1 or more harmful AEs. Pain occurred most frequently (27.1%), followed by nerve injury (16.9%), hard tissue injury (15.2%), and soft tissue injury (15.2%). Forty percent of the cases were classified as "temporary not moderate to severe harm." Person (training, supervision, and fatigue) was the most common contributing factor (31.5%), followed by patient (noncompliance, unsafe practices at home, low health literacy, 17.1%), and professional-professional collaboration (15.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Pain was the most common harmful AE identified. Person, patient, and professional-professional collaboration were the most frequently assessed factors associated with harmful AEs.

Long-Term Impacts Faced by Patients and Families After Harmful Healthcare Events.

BACKGROUND: Patients and families report experiencing a multitude of harms from medical errors resulting in physical, emotional, and financial hardships. Little is known about the duration and nature of these harms and the type of support needed to promote patient and family healing after such events. We sought to describe the long-term impacts (LTIs) reported by patients and family members who experienced harmful medical events 5 or more years ago. METHODS: We performed a content analysis on 32 interviews originally conducted with 72 patients or family members about their views of the factors contributing to their self-reported harmful event. Interviews selected occurred 5 or more years after the harmful event and were grouped by time since event, 5 to 9 years (22 interviews) or 10 or more years (10 interviews) for analysis. We analyzed these interviews targeting spontaneous references of ongoing impacts experienced by the participants. RESULTS: Participants collectively described the following four LTIs: psychological, social/behavioral, physical, and financial. Most cited psychological impacts with half-reporting ongoing anger and vivid memories. More than half reported ongoing physical impacts and one-third experienced ongoing financial impacts. Long-term social and behavioral impacts such as alterations in lifestyle, self-identity, and healthcare seeking behaviors were the most highly reported. CONCLUSIONS: These patients and families experienced many profound LTIs after their harmful medical event. For some, these impacts evolved into secondary harms ongoing 10 years and more after the event. Our results draw attention to the persistent impacts patients and families may experience long after harmful events and the need for future research to understand and support affected patients and families.

Development and testing of the Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey (SQuIPS).

BACKGROUND: To create a theory-informed survey that quality improvement (QI) teams can use to understand stakeholder perceptions of an intervention. METHOD: We created the survey then performed a cross-sectional survey of QI stakeholders of three QI projects. The projects sought to: (1) reduce unplanned extubations in a neonatal intensive care unit; (2) maintain normothermia during colorectal surgery and (3) reduce specimen processing errors for ambulatory gastroenterology procedures. We report frequencies of responses to survey items, results of exploratory factor analysis, and how QI team leaders used the results. RESULTS: Overall we received surveys from 319 out of 386 eligible stakeholders (83% response rate, range for the three QI projects 57%-86%). The QI teams found that the survey results confirmed existing concerns (eg, the intervention would not make work easier) and revealed unforeseen concerns such as lack of consensus about the overall purpose of the intervention and its importance. The results of our factor analysis indicate that one 7-item scale (Cronbach's alpha 0.9) can efficiently measure important aspects of stakeholder perceptions, and that two additional Likert-type items could add valuable information for leaders. Two QI team leaders made changes to their project based on survey responses that indicated the intervention made stakeholders' jobs harder, and that there was no consensus about the purpose of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey was feasible for QI teams to use, and identified stakeholder perspectives about QI interventions that leaders used to alter their QI interventions to potentially increase the likelihood of stakeholder acceptance of the intervention.

Child protective services utilization of child abuse pediatricians: A mixed methods study.

Several children's hospitals and medical schools across Texas have child abuse pediatricians (CAPs) who work closely with child protection workers to help ensure accurate assessments of the likelihood of maltreatment in cases of suspected abuse and neglect. Since the state does not mandate which cases should be referred to a CAP center, we were interested in studying factors that may influence workers' decisions to consult a CAP. We used a mixed methods study design consisting of a focus group followed by a survey. The focus group identified multiple factors that impact workers' decision-making, including several that involve medical providers. Responses from 436 completed surveys were compared to employees' number of years of employment and to the state region in which they worked. Focus group findings and survey responses revealed frustration among many workers when dealing with medical providers, and moderate levels of confidence in workers' abilities to make accurate determinations in cases involving medical information. Workers were more likely to refer cases involving serious physical injury than other types of cases. Among workers who reported prior interactions with a CAP, experiences and attitudes regarding CAPs were typically positive. The survey also revealed significant variability in referral practices by state region. Our results suggest that standard guidelines regarding CAP referrals may help workers who deal with cases involving medical information. Future research and quality improvement efforts to improve transfers of information and to better understand the qualities that CPS workers appreciate in CAP teams should improve CAP-CPS coordination.

Barriers to Accurate Blood Pressure Measurement in the Medical Office.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of blood pressure (BP) measurement errors in the outpatient setting, little is known about why primary care clinics struggle to achieve consistently accurate BP measurements in routine practice. We investigated barriers affecting measurement of BP for adult patients in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evaluation in 6 adult primary care clinics. BP measurement was observed during 54 routine patient encounters. Six managers completed semistructured interviews and 18 clinical staff members participated in focus group discussions. We used an inductive, data-driven approach to identify and organize findings into cohesive, overarching themes describing factors affecting BP measurement. RESULTS: Observed errors in BP measurement spanned the entire spectrum of steps required to obtain BP properly. Barriers to proper BP measurement were related to staff knowledge and behavior (inadequate knowledge, training, and feedback); workflow constraints (need to multitask, inadequate time); and equipment issues (BP monitors, seating). Patient characteristics and behavior also affected BP measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Correct measurement of BP is affected by a wide range of factors and is challenging to accomplish consistently in primary care. These findings may inform the design of performance improvement programs to maximize the quality of BP measurement in the outpatient setting.

Improving Communication and Resolution Following Adverse Events Using a Patient-Created Simulation Exercise.

OBJECTIVE: The response to adverse events can lack patient-centeredness, perhaps because the involved institutions and other stakeholders misunderstand what patients and families go through after care breakdowns. STUDY SETTING: Washington and Texas. STUDY DESIGN: The HealthPact Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) created and led a five-stage simulation exercise to help stakeholders understand what patients experience following an adverse event. The half-day exercise was presented twice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Lessons learned related to the development and conduct of the exercise were synthesized from planning notes, attendee evaluations, and exercise discussion notes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: One hundred ninety-four individuals attended (86 Washington and 108 Texas). Take-homes from these exercises included the fact that the response to adverse events can be complex, siloed, and uncoordinated. Participating in this simulation exercise led stakeholders and patient advocates to express interest in continued collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: A PFAC-designed simulation can help stakeholders understand patient and family experiences following adverse events and potentially improve their response to these events.

Patients as Partners in Learning from Unexpected Events.

IMPORTANCE: Patient safety experts believe that patients/family members should be involved in adverse event review. However, it is unclear how aware patients/family members are about the causes of adverse events they experienced. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients/family members interviewed could identify at least one contributing factor for the event they experienced. Secondary objectives included understanding the way patients/family members became aware of adverse events, the types of contributing factors patients/family members identified for different types of adverse events, and recommendations provided by patients/family members to address the contributing factors. DESIGN: We interviewed patients/family members using semistructured interviews to understand their perceptions about why these adverse events occurred. The adverse events occurred between 1991 and 2014. SETTING: Participants described adverse events that occurred in various types of health care organizations (i.e., hospitals, ambulatory facilities/clinics, and dental clinics). PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 72 patients and family members who each described a unique adverse event. Eligibility requirements were that patients/family members spoke English or Spanish and were aware of an adverse event that happened to them or a loved one. INTERVENTION(S) FOR CLINICAL TRIALS OR EXPOSURE(S) FOR OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): The main outcome was determining whether patients/family members could identify at least one contributing factor they perceived as related to the adverse event they described. RESULTS: Each participant identified at least one contributing factor and on average identified 3.67 contributing factors for their event. The most frequently mentioned contributing factors were Staff Qualifications/Knowledge (79 percent), Safety Policies/Procedures (74 percent), and Communication (64 percent). Participants knew about the contributing factors from personal observation only (32 percent), personal reasoning (11 percent), personal research (7 percent), record review (either their own medical records or reports they received in their own investigation; 6 percent), and being told by a physician (5 percent). Finally, patients/family members were able to provide recommendations that address each of the nine contributing factors we examined. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients/family members identified contributing factors related to their adverse event. Given that these contributing factors might not be known to health care organizations because most participants stated that they were not involved in the analysis process, opportunities for organizational learning from patients are potentially being missed. Health care organizations should interview patients/family about the event that harmed them to help ensure a full understanding of the causes of the event.