Patient safety -- a balanced measurement framework.

Evidence of the unacceptably high incidence of patient harm associated with health care has resulted in patient safety becoming a major reform agenda. Despite significant investment by governments on strategies to reduce patient harm, confusion still exists on how to measure patient safety. While the goal of patient safety is harm prevention, most of the measurement focus has been on counting incident reports. The (ab)use of reported incident data to measure both technical safety performance (injury rates) and evaluate the effectiveness of safety improvement initiatives continues to confuse and mislead consumers, funders and providers of health care. This paper proposes a simple measurement framework for patient safety which balances the elements of: learning, action, performance, patient experience, and staff attitudes and behaviour. Application of this framework to current priority areas should be used as a basis for patient safety improvement at clinical unit, hospital, state and national levels.

Using research to make health care safer.

There is a fine balance that needs to be maintained between research and improvement in safety and quality in health care - when do we need more research and when can we just get on with it? The moral imperative to improve care may have been a distractor, preventing adequate attention to research. Three research areas are proposed as current priorities for patient safety: getting evidence into practice, measurement of safety, and the evaluation of complex interventions. A focus on these areas should ensure that research becomes more central to the process of making health care safer.

Should patient safety be more patient centred?

In a patient-centred health system the views, experiences and rights of the patient drive the way that care is delivered. There is now an increasing emphasis on patient-centredness as an essential characteristic of safe and high quality care, but to date the involvement of patients in patient safety activities has been limited. The views and priorities of patients are not always valued in safety and quality work, and their perspectives are rarely included in activities such as incident investigation. We propose six areas of action to make patient safety more patient centred and hypothesise that the replacement of industrial safety models with a patient-centred model of safety culture will improve clinicians' ability to engage with safety initiatives.

Laptops and smartphones in the operating theatre - how does our knowledge of vigilance, multi-tasking and anaesthetist performance help us in our approach to this new distraction?

There has been no research performed concerning the effects of the use of laptops and smartphones in the operating theatre on anaesthetist performance, yet these devices are now in frequent use. This article explores the implications of this phenomenon. The cognitive and environmental factors that support or detract from vigilance and multi-tasking are explored and core anaesthetic literature on the nature of anaesthetic work and operating theatre distractions is reviewed. Experienced anaesthetists are skilled at multi-tasking while maintaining situational awareness, but there are limits. Noise, interruptions and emotional arousal are detrimental to the cognitive performance of anaesthetists. While limited reading during periods of low task load may not reduce vigilance, computer use introduces text-based activities that are more interactive and potentially more distracting. All anaesthetists need to be mindful of the limits to the human attention span which requires observation and limiting distractions. Trainees have less experience and less 'attentional' safety margin, so should avoid adding additional distractions such as discretionary use of laptops or smartphones to their operating theatre work. We provide recommendations for future research on the specific advantages and disadvantages of pervasive computing in the operative theatre.

A classification of hospital-acquired diagnoses for use with routine hospital data.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a tool to allow Australian hospitals to monitor the range of hospital-acquired diagnoses coded in routine data in support of quality improvement efforts. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of abstracted inpatient records for all episodes in acute care hospitals in Victoria for the financial year 2005-06 (n=2.032 million) to develop a classification system for hospital-acquired diagnoses; each record contains up to 40 diagnosis fields coded with the ICD-10-AM (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, Australian modification). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The Classification of Hospital Acquired Diagnoses (CHADx) was developed by: analysing codes with a "complications" flag to identify high-volume code groups; assessing their salience through an iterative review by health information managers, patient safety researchers and clinicians; and developing principles to reduce double counting arising from coding standards. RESULTS: The dataset included 126,940 inpatient episodes with any hospital-acquired diagnosis (complication rate, 6.25%). Records had a mean of three flagged diagnoses; including unflagged obstetric and neonatal codes, 514,371 diagnoses were available for analysis. Of these, 2.9% (14,898) were removed as comorbidities rather than complications, and another 118,640 were removed as redundant codes, leaving 380,833 diagnoses for grouping into CHADx classes. We used 4345 unique codes to characterise hospital-acquired conditions; in the final CHADx these were grouped into 144 detailed subclasses and 17 "roll-up" groups. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring quality improvement requires timely hospital-onset data, regardless of causation or "preventability" of each complication. The CHADx uses routinely abstracted hospital diagnosis and condition-onset information about in-hospital complications. Use of this classification will allow hospitals to track monthly performance for any of the CHADx indicators, or to evaluate specific quality improvement projects.

The National Open Disclosure Pilot: evaluation of a policy implementation initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which aspects of open disclosure "work" for patients and health care staff, based on an evaluation of the National Open Disclosure Pilot. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured and open-ended interviews conducted between March and October 2007 with 131 clinical staff and 23 patients and family members who had participated in one or more open disclosure meetings. 21 of 40 pilot hospital sites, in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Queensland, were included in the evaluation. Participating health care staff comprised 49 doctors, 20 nurses, and 62 managerial and support staff. In-depth qualitative data analysis involved mapping of discursive themes and subthemes across the interview transcripts. RESULTS: Interviewees broadly supported open disclosure; they expressed uncertainty about its deployment and consequences, and made detailed suggestions of ways to optimise the experience, including careful pre-planning, participation by senior medical staff, and attentiveness to consumers' experience of the adverse event. CONCLUSION: Despite some uncertainties, the national evaluation indicates strong support for open disclosure from both health care staff and consumers, as well as a need to resource this new practice.