How might health services capture patient-reported safety concerns in a hospital setting? An exploratory pilot study of three mechanisms.

INTRODUCTION: Emergent evidence suggests that patients can identify and report safety issues while in hospital. However, little is known about the best method for collecting information from patients about safety concerns. This study presents an exploratory pilot of three mechanisms for collecting data on safety concerns from patients during their hospital stay. METHOD: Three mechanisms for capturing safety concerns were coproduced with healthcare professionals and patients, before being tested in an exploratory trial using cluster randomisation at the ward level. Nine wards participated, with each mechanism being tested over a 3-month study period. Patients were asked to feed back safety concerns via the mechanism on their ward (interviewing at their bedside, paper-based form or patient safety 'hotline'). Safety concerns were subjected to a two-stage review process to identify those that would meet the definition of a patient safety incident. Differences between mechanisms on a range of outcomes were analysed using inferential statistics. Safety concerns were thematically analysed to develop reporting categories. RESULTS: 178 patients were recruited. Patients in the face-to-face interviewing condition provided significantly more safety concerns per patient (1.91) compared with the paper-based form (0.92) and the patient safety hotline (0.43). They were also significantly more likely to report one or more concerns, with 64% reporting via the face-to-face mechanism, compared with 41% via the paper-based form and 19% via the patient safety hotline. No mechanism differed significantly in the number of classified patient safety incidents or physician-rated preventability and severity. DISCUSSION: Interviewing at the patient's bedside is likely to be the most effective means of gathering safety concerns from inpatients, potentially providing an opportunity for health services to gather patient feedback about safety from their perspective.

A discrete choice experiment to explore patients' willingness to risk disease relapse from treatment withdrawal in psoriatic arthritis.

The objective of this study is to assess patient preferences for treatment-related benefits and risk of disease relapse in the management of low disease states of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Focus groups with patients and a literature review were undertaken to determine the characteristics of treatment and symptoms of PsA important to patients. Patient preferences were assessed using a discrete choice experiment which compared hypothetical treatment profiles of the risk and benefits of treatment withdrawal. The risk outcome included increased risk of disease relapse, while benefit outcomes included reduced sickness/nausea from medication and changes in health-related quality of life. Each patient completed 12 choice sets comparing treatment profiles. Preference weights were estimated using a logic regression model, and the maximum acceptable risk in disease relapse for a given improvement in benefit outcomes was elicited. Final sample included 136 patients. Respondents attached the greatest importance to eliminating severe side effects of sickness/nausea and the least importance to a change in risk of relapse. Respondents were willing to accept an increase in the risk of relapse of 32.6 % in order to eliminate the side effects of sickness/nausea. For improvements in health status, the maximum acceptable risk in relapse was comparable to a movement from some to no sickness/nausea. The study suggests that patients in low disease states of PsA are willing to accept greater risks of relapse for improvements in side effects of sickness/nausea and overall health status, with the most important benefit attribute being the elimination of severe sickness or nausea.