Improving health system responses when patients are harmed: a protocol for a multistage mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: At least 10% of hospital admissions in high-income countries, including Australia, are associated with patient safety incidents, which contribute to patient harm ('adverse events'). When a patient is seriously harmed, an investigation or review is undertaken to reduce the risk of further incidents occurring. Despite 20 years of investigations into adverse events in healthcare, few evaluations provide evidence of their quality and effectiveness in reducing preventable harm.This study aims to develop consistent, informed and robust best practice guidance, at state and national levels, that will improve the response, learning and health system improvements arising from adverse events. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The setting will be healthcare organisations in Australian public health systems in the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. We will apply a multistage mixed-methods research design with evaluation and in-situ feasibility testing. This will include literature reviews (stage 1), an assessment of the quality of 300 adverse event investigation reports from participating hospitals (stage 2), and a policy/procedure document review from participating hospitals (stage 3) as well as focus groups and interviews on perspectives and experiences of investigations with healthcare staff and consumers (stage 4). After triangulating results from stages 1-4, we will then codesign tools and guidance for the conduct of investigations with staff and consumers (stage 5) and conduct feasibility testing on the guidance (stage 6). Participants will include healthcare safety systems policymakers and staff (n=120-255) who commission, undertake or review investigations and consumers (n=20-32) who have been impacted by adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH02007 and 2023/ETH02341).The research findings will be incorporated into best practice guidance, published in international and national journals and disseminated through conferences.

A multifaceted risk management program to improve the reporting rate of patient safety incidents in primary care: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While patient safety incident reporting is of key importance for patient safety in primary care, the reporting rate by healthcare professionals remains low. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a risk management program in increasing the reporting rate within multiprofessional primary care facilities. METHODS: A nation-wide cluster-randomised controlled trial was performed in France, with each cluster defined as a primary care facility. The intervention included professional e-learning training, identification of a risk management advisor, and multidisciplinary meetings to address incident analysis. In the first observational period, a patient safety incident reporting system for professionals was implemented in all facilities. Then, facilities were randomised, and the program was implemented. Incidents were reported over the 15-month study period. Quasi-Poisson models were used to compare reporting rates. RESULTS: Thirty-five facilities (intervention, n = 17; control, n = 18) were included, with 169 and 232 healthcare professionals, respectively, involved. Overall, 7 out of 17 facilities carried out the entire program (41.2%), while 6 did not hold meetings (35.3%); 48.5% of professionals logged on to the e-learning website. The relative rate of incidents reported was 2.7 (95% CI = [0.84-11.0]; p = 0.12). However, a statistically significant decrease in the incident rate between the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods was observed for the control arm (HR = 0.2; 95% CI = [0.05-0.54]; p = 0.02), but not for the intervention arm (HR = 0.54; 95% CI = [0.2-1.54]; p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: This program didn't lead to a significant improvement in the patient safety incident reporting rate by professionals but seemed to sustain reporting over time. Considering that the program was fully implemented in only 41% of facilities, this highlights the difficulty of implementing such multidisciplinary programs in primary care despite its adaptation to the setting. A better understanding of how risk management is currently organized in these multiprofessional facilities is of key importance to improve patient safety in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: The study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02403388) on 30 March 2015.

Exploring the safety reporting culture among healthcare practitioners in Saudi hospitals: a comprehensive 2022 national study.

BACKGROUND: With the rise in medical errors, establishing a strong safety culture and an effective incident reporting system is crucial. As part of the Saudi National Health Transformation Vision of 2030, multiple projects have been initiated to periodically assess healthcare quality measures and ensure a commitment to continuous improvement. Among these is the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture National Project (HSPSC), conducted regularly by the Saudi Patient Safety Center (SPSC). However, comprehensive tools for assessing reporting culture are lacking. Addressing this gap can enhance reporting, efficiency, and health safety. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to investigate the reporting practices among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Saudi Arabian hospitals and examine the relationship between reporting culture domains and other variables such as hospital bed capabilities and HCPs' work positions. METHODS: The study focuses on measuring the reporting culture-related items measures and employs secondary data analysis using information from the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture conducted by the Saudi Center for Patient Safety in 2022, encompassing hospitals throughout Saudi Arabia. Data incorporated seven items in total: four items related to the Response to Error Domain, two related to the Reporting Patient Safety Events Domain, and one associated with the number of events reported in the past 12 months. RESULTS: The sample for the analyzed data included 145,657 HCPs from 392 hospitals. The results showed that the average positive response rates for reporting culture-related items were between 50% and 70%. In addition, the research indicated that favorable response rates were relatively higher among managerial and quality/patient safety/risk management staff. In contrast, almost half had not reported any events in the preceding year, and a quarter reported only 1 or 2 events. Pearson correlation analysis demonstrates a strong negative correlation between bed capacity and reporting safety events, response to error, and number of events reported (r = -0.935, -0.920, and - 0.911, respectively; p < 0.05), while a strong positive correlation is observed between reporting safety events and response to error (r = 0.980; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Almost 75% of the HCPs reported fewer safety events over the last 12 months, indicating an unexpectedly minimal recorded occurrence variance ranging from 0 to 2 incidents.

Building a Resilient Patient Safety Culture: A Large Healthcare Organization's Approach to Systematically Reviewing Serious Harm Events.

Across Canada, pressures related to staffing, burnout and funding continue to affect healthcare organizations and systems. These pressures impact the quality of care Canadians receive, most notably access to care. Evidence indicates that patients are more likely to suffer from preventable harm during periods of hospital overcrowding and, indeed, very recent data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information suggest that rates of preventable harm have increased modestly in Canadian hospitals. A key lever that can have a positive impact on patient safety culture and contribute to fewer preventable adverse events at an institutional level is systematic formal case reviews. This article describes a large healthcare organization's approach to systematically reviewing serious harm events. An evaluation of both quantitative and qualitative metrics suggests that Unity Health Toronto's critical incident review process has been effective at building a resilient patient safety culture that stood up to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and continues to have a positive impact on patient safety at Unity Health Toronto.

Refocusing on Patient Safety.

Patient safety provides an important foundation for high-quality care. Research in Canada and elsewhere has identified substantial levels of harm in hospitals and other settings; these results spurred the development and spread of safety practices, along with strategies to strengthen organizational training, incident reporting and analysis and a host of resources intended to reduce the burden of harm. Yet, despite these efforts, 20 years after the publication of the Canadian Adverse Event study (Baker et al. 2004) and other studies, many leaders believe progress in patient safety has stalled (NEJM Catalyst 2023). Indeed, some recent studies indicate that the levels of harm have increased. One notable study by David Bates and colleagues (2023), building on approaches used in earlier studies, identified at least one adverse event in 23.6% of a random sample of patients in Massachusetts hospitals in 2018. Among 978 events, 22.7% were judged preventable and one-third required at least substantial intervention or prolonged recovery.

Global progress and Never Events.

John Tingle, Lecturer in Law, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, discusses some national and international reports on patient safety.

Teaching clinical reasoning: principles from the literature to help improve instruction from the classroom to the bedside.

Clinical reasoning has been characterized as being an essential aspect of being a physician. Despite this, clinical reasoning has a variety of definitions and medical error, which is often attributed to clinical reasoning, has been reported to be a leading cause of death in the United States and abroad. Further, instructors struggle with teaching this essential ability which often does not play a significant role in the curriculum. In this article, we begin with defining clinical reasoning and then discuss four principles from the literature as well as a variety of techniques for teaching these principles to help ground an instructors' understanding in clinical reasoning. We also tackle contemporary challenges in teaching clinical reasoning such as the integration of artificial intelligence and strategies to help with transitions in instruction (e.g., from the classroom to the clinic or from medical school to residency/registrar training) and suggest next steps for research and innovation in clinical reasoning.

Putting the "Action" in RCA2: An Analysis of Intervention Strength After Adverse Events.

BACKGROUND: Safety event reporting and review is well established within US hospitals, but systems to ensure implementation of changes to improve patient safety are less developed. METHODS: Contributing factors and corrective actions for events brought to a tertiary care academic medical center's multidisciplinary hospital-level safety event review meeting were prospectively collected from 2020 to 2021. Corrective actions were tracked to completion through 2023. The authors retrospectively coded corrective actions by category and strength using the US Department of Veterans Affairs/Institute for Healthcare Improvement Action Hierarchy Tool. RESULTS: In the analysis of 67 events, 15 contributing factor themes were identified and resulted in 148 corrective actions. Of these events, 85.1% (57/67) had more than one corrective action. Of the 148 corrective actions, 84 (56.8%) were rated as weak, 36 (24.3%) as intermediate, 15 (10.1%) strong, and 13 (8.8%) needed more information. The completion rate was 97.6% (for weak corrective actions), 80.6% (intermediate), and 73.3% (strong) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Safety events were often addressed with multiple corrective actions. There was an inverse relationship between intervention strength and completion, the strongest interventions with the lowest rate of completion. By integrating action strength and completion status into corrective action follow-up, health care organizations may more effectively identify and address those barriers to completing the strongest interventions that ultimately achieve high reliability.

Enhancing patient safety in trauma: Understanding adverse events, assessment tools, and the role of trauma video review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate adverse events (AEs) in trauma resuscitation, evaluate contributing factors, and assess methods, such as trauma video review (TVR), to mitigate AEs. BACKGROUND: Trauma remains a leading cause of global mortality and morbidity, necessitating effective trauma care. Despite progress, AEs during trauma resuscitation persist, impacting patient outcomes and the healthcare system. Identifying and analyzing AEs and their determinants are crucial for improving trauma care. METHODS: This narrative review explored the definition, identification, and assessment of AEs associated with trauma resuscitation within the trauma system. It includes various studies and assessment tools such as STAT Taxonomy and T-NOTECHs. Additionally, it assessed the role of TVR in detecting AEs and strategies to enhance patient safety. CONCLUSION: Integrated with standardized tools, TVR shows promise for identifying AEs. Challenges include ensuring reporting consistency and integrating approaches into existing protocols. Future research should prioritize linking trauma team performance to patient outcomes, and develop sustainable TVR programs to enhance patient safety.

Patient safety incidents in Irish general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: an exploratory practice level analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is defined as the prevention of harm to patients and aims to prevent errors. This analysis explores factors associated with the reported occurrence of patient safety incidents (PSIs) in general practices in Ireland at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The PRICOV-19 was a cross-sectional study to record the (re)organisation of care provided in general practice and changes implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in 38 countries. Primary outcomes include three potential scenarios of PSIs: delayed care due to practice factors, delayed care due to patient factors, and delayed care due to triage. Exploratory variables included demographic and organisational characteristics, triage, collaboration, and strategies to safeguard staff members' well-being. RESULTS: Of the 172 participating Irish general practices, 71% (n = 122) recorded at least one potential PSI. The most frequent incident was delayed care due to patient factors (65%), followed by practice (33%) and triage (30%). Multivariate analysis showed that delayed care due to patient factors was associated with changes in the process of repeat prescriptions (OR 6.7 [CI 95% 2.5 to 19.6]). Delayed care due to practice factors was associated with suburbs/small towns (OR 4.2 [1.1 to 19.8]) and structural changes to the reception (OR 3.5 [1.2 to 11.4]). While delayed care due to patient factors was associated with having a practice population of 6000-7999 patients (OR 4.7 [1.1 to 27.6]) and delayed care due to practice factors was associated with having a practice population of 2000-3999 patients (OR 4.2 [1.2 to 17.1]). No linear associations were observed with higher or lower patient numbers for any factor. Delayed care due to triage was not associated with any exploratory variables. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in dramatic changes in the delivery of care through general practices in Ireland. Few factors were associated with the reported occurrence of PSIs, and these did not show consistent patterns. Sustained improvements were made in relation to repeat prescriptions. The lack of consistent patterns, potentially confirms that the autonomous decisions made in general practice in response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic could have benefitted patient safety (See Graphical abstract).

Medical Error Prevalence, Nursing Power, and Structural Empowerment: A Serial Mediation Analysis.

Aim: To investigate how structural empowerment and power may contribute to and predict the reduction of medical errors. Background: Medical errors threaten patient well-being, leading to adverse outcomes. Improving work conditions holds promise for reducing medical errors among nurses. Methods: A multisite correlational cross-sectional design was utilized. Data were completed by 375 nurses from four hospitals in Jordan. Data collection occurred between September and November 2023 using sociodemographic, structural empowerment, and medical error questionnaires. The study employed descriptive statistics, Pearson r correlation, and serial mediation analysis. Informed consent was obtained from each participant. Results: Pearson r correlation revealed significant negative correlations between medical error and structural empowerment, formal power, and informal power. The conceptual framework was significant and predicted 16% of the variance in medical errors. The mediation analysis confirmed that formal power and informal power mediate the relationship between structural empowerment and medical error. Conclusions and Implications. This study sheds light on the intricate connection of structural empowerment, formal and informal power, and their collective impact on reducing medical errors. Understanding and addressing these dynamics allows nurses and administrators to achieve a culture of patient safety. Reduction of medical errors is paramount to a safe healthcare environment that prioritizes patient outcomes. Strategies should be fostered to enhance structural empowerment, refine formal power structures, and leverage the positive aspects of informal networks.

Evaluating health information systems-related errors using the human, organization, process, technology-fit (HOPT-fit) framework.

Complex socio-technical health information systems (HIS) issues can create new error risks. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HIS-related errors using the proposed human, organization, process, and technology-fit framework to identify the lessons learned. Qualitative case study methodology through observation, interview, and document analysis was conducted at a 1000-bed Japanese specialist teaching hospital. Effective management of HIS-related errors was attributable to many socio-technical factors including continuous improvement, safety culture, strong management and leadership, effective communication, preventive and corrective mechanisms, an incident reporting system, and closed feedback loops. Enablers of medication errors include system sophistication and process factors like workarounds, variance, clinical workload, slips and mistakes, and miscommunication. The case management effectiveness in handling the HIS-related errors can guide other clinical settings. The potential of HIS to minimize errors can be achieved through continual, systematic, and structured evaluation. The case study validated the applicability of the proposed evaluation framework that can be applied flexibly according to study contexts to inform HIS stakeholders in decision-making. The comprehensive and specific measures of the proposed framework and approach can be a useful guide for evaluating complex HIS-related errors. Leaner and fitter socio-technical components of HIS can yield safer system use.

Interdisciplinary videoconference model for identifying potential adverse transition of care events following hospital discharge to postacute care.

Discharge from hospitals to postacute care settings is a vulnerable time for many older adults, when they may be at increased risk for errors occurring in their care. We developed the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes-Care Transitions (ECHO-CT) programme in an effort to mitigate these risks through a mulitdisciplinary, educational, case-based teleconference between hospital and skilled nursing facility providers. The programme was implemented in both academic and community hospitals. Through weekly sessions, patients discharged from the hospital were discussed, clinical concerns addressed, errors in care identified and plans were made for remediation. A total of 1432 discussions occurred for 1326 patients. The aim of this study was to identify errors occurring in the postdischarge period and factors that predict an increased risk of experiencing an error. In 435 discussions, an issue was identified that required further discussion (known as a transition of care event), and the majority of these were related to medications. In 14.7% of all discussions, a medical error, defined as 'any preventable event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medical care or patient harm', was identified. We found that errors were more likely to occur for patients discharged from surgical services or the emergency department (as compared with medical services) and were less likely to occur for patients who were discharged in the morning. This study shows that a number of errors may be detected in the postdischarge period, and the ECHO-CT programme provides a mechanism for identifying and mitigating these events. Furthermore, it suggests that discharging service and time of day may be associated with risk of error in the discharge period, thereby suggesting potential areas of focus for future interventions.

The impact of resident training on robotic operative times: is there a July Effect?

It is unknown whether the July Effect (a theory that medical errors and organizational inefficiencies increase during the influx of new surgical residents) exists in urologic robotic-assisted surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of urology resident training on robotic operative times at the beginning of the academic year. A retrospective chart review was conducted for urologic robotic surgeries performed at a single institution between 2008 and 2019. Univariate and multivariate mix model analyses were performed to determine the association between operative time and patient age, estimated blood loss, case complexity, robotic surgical system (Si or Xi), and time of the academic year. Differences in surgery time and non-surgery time were assessed with/without resident presence. Operative time intervals were included in the analysis. Resident presence correlated with increased surgery time (38.6 min (p < 0.001)) and decreased non-surgery time (4.6 min (p < 0.001)). Surgery time involving residents decreased by 8.7 min after 4 months into the academic year (July-October), and by an additional 5.1 min after the next 4 months (p = 0.027, < 0.001). When compared across case types stratified by complexity, surgery time for cases with residents significantly varied. Cases without residents did not demonstrate such variability. Resident presence was associated with prolonged surgery time, with the largest effect occurring in the first 4 months and shortening later in the year. However, resident presence was associated with significantly reduced non-surgery time. These results help to understand how new trainees impact operating room times.