Grading recommendations for enhanced patient safety in sentinel event analysis: the recommendation improvement matrix.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of sentinel event (SE) analysis is to prevent recurrence. However, the rate of SEs has remained constant over the past years. Research suggests this is in part due to the quality of recommendations. Currently, standards for the selection of recommendations are lacking. Developing a method to grade recommendations could help in both designing and selecting interventions most likely to improve patient safety. The aim of this study was to (1) develop a user-friendly method to grade recommendations and (2) assess its applicability in a large series of Dutch perioperative SE analysis reports. METHODS: Based on two grading methods, we developed the recommendation improvement matrix (RIM). Applicability was assessed by analysing all Dutch perioperative SE reports over a 12-month period. After which interobserver agreement was studied. RESULTS: In the RIM, two elements are crucial: whether the recommendation intervenes before or after an SE and whether it eliminates or controls the hazard. Applicability was evaluated in 115 analysis reports, encompassing 161 recommendations. Recommendation quality varied from the highest, category A, to the lowest, category D, with category A accounting for 44%, category B for 35%, category C for 2% and category D for 19% of recommendations. There was a fair interobserver agreement. CONCLUSION: The RIM can be used to grade recommendations in SE analysis and could possibly help in both designing and selecting interventions. It is relatively simple, user-friendly and has the potential to improve patient safety. The RIM can help formulate effective and sustainable recommendations, a second key objective of the RIM is to foster and facilitate constructive dialogue among those responsible for patient safety.

Criteria for recommendations after perioperative sentinel events.

BACKGROUND: The recurrence of sentinel events (SEs) is a persistent problem worldwide, despite repeated analyses and recommendations formulated to prevent recurrence. Research suggests this is partly attributable to the quality of the recommendations, and determining if a recommendation will be effective is not yet covered by an adequate guideline. Our objectives were to (1) develop and validate criteria for high-quality recommendations, and (2) evaluate recommendations using the criteria developed. METHODS: (1) Criteria were developed by experts using the bowtie method. Medical doctors then determined if the recommendations of Dutch in-hospital SE analysis reports met the criteria, after which interobserver variability was tested. (2) Researchers determined which recommendations of Dutch perioperative SE analysis reports produced from 2017 to 2018 met the criteria. RESULTS: The criteria were: (1) a recommendation needs to be well defined and clear, (2) it needs to specifically describe the intended changes, and (3) it needs to describe how it will reduce the risk or limit the consequences of a similar SE. Validation of criteria showed substantial interobserver agreement. The SE analysis reports (n=115) contained 442 recommendations, of which 64% failed to meet all criteria, and 28% of reports did not contain a single recommendation that met the criteria. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated criteria for high-quality recommendations. The majority of recommendations did not meet our criteria. It was disconcerting to find that over a quarter of the investigations did not produce a single recommendation that met the criteria, not even in SEs with a fatal outcome. Healthcare providers have an obligation to prevent SEs, and certainly their recurrence. We anticipate that using these criteria to determine the potential of recommendations will aid in this endeavour.

Bipolar clavicular fractures and treatment options.

INTRODUCTION: Fractures of the clavicle are common injuries, accounting 2.6-4% of all fractures in adults. Of these fractures, 21-28% are lateral clavicle fractures and 2-3% are medial clavicle fractures. Bipolar clavicle fractures are defined as a lateral and medial fracture and are uncommon. There is no consensus on the treatment of these fractures. The aim of this study is to provide a treatment on bipolar clavicle fractures based on the current literature. METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed, the Cochrane library and EMBASE were searched up on September 25th, 2017. Two reviewers (KR and TG) independently screened titles and abstracts for their relevance. Studies designed to evaluate the outcomes of conservative and/or operative treatment of segmental bipolar clavicle fractures in adults (> 16 years) were included. Editorials and commentaries were excluded, as well as synthetic, cadaveric and animal studies. Primary outcomes considered were pain reduction and shoulder function. Secondary outcomes considered are complications. RESULTS: Ten studies reporting results from ten patients were included for the review. In most patients, if treated operatively, surgical treatment with the use of double plating was performed. Only in elderly patients conservative treatment was adopted. All included patients were pain free and had a full range of motion after 3-6 months. Only two case reports provided a DASH score, while in eight studies no functional outcome score was measured. CONCLUSION: A missed bipolar fracture can complicate the clinical progress. Surgical management of these fractures may be necessary; however, the treatment of choice depends on the age of the patient, daily activities and comorbidity.

Prioritising recommendations following analyses of adverse events in healthcare: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify an appropriate method-a user-friendly and validated method-that prioritises recommendations following analyses of adverse events (AEs) based on objective features. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (Ovid) and ERIC (Ovid) were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were considered eligible when reporting on methods to prioritise recommendations. DATA EXTRACTION: Two teams of reviewers performed the data extraction which was defined prior to this phase. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven methods were identified that are designed to prioritise recommendations. After completing the data extraction, none of the methods met all the predefined criteria. Nine methods were considered user-friendly. One study validated the developed method. Five methods prioritised recommendations based on objective features, not affected by personal opinion or knowledge and expected to be reproducible by different users. CONCLUSION: There are several methods available to prioritise recommendations following analyses of AEs. All these methods can be used to discuss and select recommendations for implementation. None of the methods is a user-friendly and validated method that prioritises recommendations based on objective features. Although there are possibilities to further improve their features, the 'Typology of safety functions' by de Dianous and Fiévez, and the 'Hierarchy of hazard controls' by McCaughan have the most potential to select high-quality recommendations as they have only a few clearly defined categories in a well-arranged ordinal sequence.

The next step in learning from sentinel events in healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the current status of handling and learning from sentinel events (SEs) in Dutch academic hospitals and to develop a basis for the first steps in a joint and transparent approach to improve learning from SEs. DESIGN: Survey by the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres (NFU) as part of the project 'Quality-based Governance'. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: All eight Dutch University Medical Centres (UMCs). RESULTS: Three methods are used to identify the root cause of SEs: the Systematic Incident Reconstruction and Evaluation, Prevention and Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis or TRIPOD method. Experts with different backgrounds are involved in the analysis of SEs. UMCs have different policies regarding the selection of recommendations for implementation. Some UMCs implement all recommendations formulated by the analysis team and in some UMCs the head of the involved department selects recommendations for implementation. No predetermined criteria have been established for this selection. Most UMCs confirm that similar SEs reoccur, which might be due to the quality of the analysis of the SEs or the quality of the recommendations. CONCLUSION: There is a large variety in handling SEs in Dutch academic hospitals and standards for the selection of recommendations are lacking. A next step to decrease the number of (similar) SEs lies in a joint and transparent approach to objectively assess recommendations and further define strategies for successful implementation. Selecting high-quality recommendations for implementation has the potential to lead to a decrease in the number of (similar) SEs and increase in the quality and safety of Dutch healthcare.

Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgical Management of Persisting Pelvic Sepsis or Chronic Sinus After Low Anterior Resection.

BACKGROUND: Redo surgery of persisting pelvic sepsis or chronic presacral sinus after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is challenging. Transanal minimally invasive surgery improves visibility and accessibility of the deep pelvis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the conventional approach with transanal minimally invasive surgery for redo pelvic surgery with or without anastomotic reconstruction. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: All consecutive patients undergoing redo pelvic surgery after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2005 and March 2018 were included. INTERVENTIONS: Redo surgery was divided into redo anastomosis and intersphincteric completion proctectomy. Transanal minimally invasive surgery procedures since November 2014 were compared with the conventional approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points were procedural characteristics and 90-day major complications. RESULTS: In total, 104 patients underwent redo surgery; 47 received a redo anastomosis (18 conventional and 29 transanal minimally invasive surgery) and 57 underwent intersphincteric completion proctectomy (35 conventional and 22 transanal minimally invasive surgery). The transabdominal part of the transanal minimally invasive surgery procedures was performed laparoscopically in 72% and 59% of redo anastomosis and intersphincteric completion proctectomy, compared with 6% and 34% in the conventional group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.100). The 90-day major complication rate was 33% and 45% after redo anastomosis (p=0.546) and 29% and 41% after intersphincteric completion proctectomy (p=0.349) in conventional surgery and transanal minimally invasive surgery. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that transanal minimally invasive surgery is a valid alternative to conventional top-down redo pelvic surgery for persisting pelvic sepsis or chronic sinus, with more often a laparoscopic approach for the abdominal part. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B87. MANEJO QUIRÚRGICO TRANSANAL MÍNIMAMENTE INVASIVO DE LA SEPSIS PÉLVICA PERSISTENTE O DE UN SENO CRÓNICO DESPUÉS DE RESECCIÓN ANTERIOR BAJA: La cirugía de reoperación por sepsis pélvica persistente o un seno presacro crónico después de una resección anterior baja por cáncer de recto es un desafío. La cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva mejora la visibilidad y la accesibilidad a la región profunda de la pelvis.El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el abordaje convencional con la cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva para cirugía pélvica de reoperación con o sin reconstrucción anastomótica.Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectiva.Este estudio se realizó en un centro de referencia terciario.Se incluyeron todos los pacientes consecutivos que se sometieron a una cirugía pélvica de reoperación después de una resección anterior baja por cáncer de recto entre enero de 2005 y marzo de 2018.La cirugía de reoperación se dividió en reconstrucción de anastomosis y proctectomía interesfintérica. Los procedimientos de cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva desde noviembre de 2014 se compararon con el abordaje convencional.Los puntos primarios fueron las características del procedimiento y las complicaciones mayores a 90 días.En total, 104 pacientes fueron sometidos a cirugía de reoperación; 47 recibieron una reconstrucción de anastomosis (18 abordaje convencional y 29 cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva) y 57 se sometieron a una proctectomía interesfintérica (35 abordaje convencional y 22 cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva). La parte transabdominal de los procedimientos de cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva se realizó por vía laparoscópica en el 72% y el 59% de las reconstrucciones de anastomosis y las proctectomías interesfintéricas, respectivamente, en comparación con el 6% y el 34%, respectivamente, en el grupo convencional (p <0.001 y p = 0.100). La tasa de complicaciones mayores a los 90 días fue del 33% y del 45% después de la anastomosis de reconstrucción (p = 0.546) y del 29% y 41% después de la proctectomía interesfintérica (p = 0.349) en cirugía convencional y cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva, respectivamente.La limitación de este estudio es el tamaño relativamente pequeño de la muestra.Este estudio sugiere que la cirugía transanal mínimamente invasiva es una alternativa válida para la cirugía pélvica de reoperación convencional en sepsis pélvica persistente o seno crónico, con un abordaje laparoscópico utilizado más frecuentemente para la parte abdominal. Vea el Abstract del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B87.