Room of Hazards: A Comparison of Differences in Safety Hazard Recognition Among Various Hospital-Based Healthcare Professionals and Trainees in a Simulated Patient Room.

OBJECTIVES: Adverse events in hospitals are common. While studies have used simulated patient rooms to assess healthcare trainees' skills in detecting safety hazards, few have explored the characteristics of safety hazards that make them more or less identifiable to healthcare workers. We sought to determine differences in hospital-based safety hazard identification among physicians, nurses, and other staff members. METHODS: Healthcare workers were invited to identify safety hazards in a simulated patient room with intentionally placed hazards. Responses were transcribed and compared between physicians (MD), nurses (RN), and other hospital-based healthcare professionals and trainees (other). Data were analyzed using nonparametric statistical analysis. RESULTS: Twelve physicians, 29 nurses, and 26 other staff members participated in this study. Different professions identified different numbers of total hazards with nurses identifying more hazards than other professions (RN: 9.59, MD: 9.17, other: 6.35; P = 0.001). All professions had difficulty identifying hazards associated with omission (e.g., no precaution sign: MD: 8.3%, RN: 3.4%, other: 0%) or hazards requiring 2-step logical thinking (e.g., intravenous heparin for patient with head laceration: MD: 0%, RN: 6.9%, other: 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians, nurses, and others identified different numbers of total hazards, and few participants identified hazards associated with omission or 2-step logical thinking. While previous studies have found differences in types of hazards identified among different healthcare members, we identified hazards that were collectively challenging for all participants to identify. Future studies should target identification of these types of hazards, using human factor engineering to decrease risk of patient harm.

Cryptosporidiosis is predominantly an urban, anthroponotic infectious disease among Zambian children.

BACKGROUND: Cryptosporidium species are leading causes of diarrhoea in children and immunocompromised individuals. This study aimed to characterise Cryptosporidium species from children in rural and urban settings of Zambia. METHODS: Stool samples collected from 490 children aged <5 y with diarrhoea were assessed for Cryptosporidium oocysts microscopically. A structured questionnaire was used to collect demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Positive samples were subjected to PCR and gp60 sequence analysis. RESULTS: The overall prevalence was 10% (50/490, 95% CI 7.8 to 13.2) with a peak in March, the late rainy season. Children who came from households where boiling water was not practised (OR=2.5, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.17; p=0.007) or who had experienced recurrent episodes of diarrhoea (OR=9.31, 95% CI 3.02 to 28.73; p=0.001) were more likely to have Cryptosporidium infection. Genotyping of 16 positive samples (14 from urban and 2 from rural sources) revealed Cryptosporidium hominis (14/16) and Cryptosporidium parvum (2/16). The Cryptosporidium hominis subtypes identified were Ia, Ib and Ie with subtype families IeAIIG3 (1), IbA9G3R2 (2), IaA31R3 (3), IbA9G3 (5), IaA27R3 (1), IaA30R3 (1) and Ia (1). Subtypes IbA9G3 and Ia were identified in children from a rural area. Cryptosporidium parvum subtypes were IIcA5G3R2 (1) and IIcA5G3a (1). CONCLUSIONS: All isolates successfully genotyped were C. hominis or anthroponotic C. parvum, suggesting that anthroponotic transmission dominates in Lusaka and the surrounding countryside.

Room of Hazards: An Interprofessional Evaluation of Safety Risks in a Simulated Patient Room.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 3.7% of patients experience adverse events in health care facilities, many of which are preventable. Patient safety requires effective training and an interprofessional culture of safety, but few studies compare the safety skills of different hospital professions. We sought to assess skills in safety hazards identification among staff from different health care disciplines with a pilot study. METHODS: An exercise with a simulated room of an inpatient ward with a patient mannequin in a hospital bed with 34-intentionally planted safety hazards was set up. Health care staff members from various professions walked around the room and independently documented observed safety hazards. Identified hazards were separated based on staff disciplines, grouped into 5 categories (patient, medications, equipment, environment, care processes), and analyzed using analysis of variance. Because participants identified more hazards than the 34 intentionally planted hazards, these were analyzed separately. RESULTS: The study included 111 staff: nurses (n = 68), nursing students (n = 5), medical students (n = 3), physicians (n = 11), social workers (n = 5), pharmacists (n = 6), certified nursing assistants (n = 9), and psychologists (n = 4). There were significant differences among professions in the following categories: medications, equipment, and total number of safety hazards (P < 0.05 for all). Nurses found more intended equipment hazards than did social workers (38.8% versus 4.4%, P < 0.001), pharmacists (38.8% versus 11.1%, P = 0.004), medical students (38.8% versus 7.4%, P = 0.021), and psychologists (38.8% versus 8.3%, P = 0.001) and more medication hazards than nursing students (20.3% versus 16.7%, P = 0.008), whereas certified nursing assistants also found more equipment hazards than did social workers (25.9% versus 4.4%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in patterns of safety hazards identified among health care professions, with nurses identifying more hazards than several other professions. This finding suggests that each health care profession's unique training and responsibilities result in varying ability to identify safety hazards and that interdisciplinary safety teams may be more effective than those from only a single profession. Our study provides a starting point to encourage diversification of hospital professions in simulation-based safety trainings, although further work is needed to validate these findings moving forward.