Family role in paediatric safety incidents: a retrospective study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare-associated harm is an international public health issue. Children are particularly vulnerable to this with 15%-35% of hospitalised children experiencing harm during medical care. While many factors increase the risk of adverse events, such as children's dependency on others to recognise illness, children have a unique protective factor in the form of their family, who are often well placed to detect and prevent unsafe care. However, families can also play a key role in the aetiology of unsafe care.We aim to explore the role of families, guardians and parents in paediatric safety incidents, and how this may have changed during the pandemic, to learn how to deliver safer care and codevelop harm prevention strategies across healthcare settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a retrospective study inclusive of an exploratory data analysis and thematic analysis of incident report data from the Learning from Patient Safety Events service (formerly National Reporting and Learning System), using the established PatIent SAfety classification system. Reports will be identified by using specific search terms, such as *parent* and *mother*, to capture narratives with explicit mention of parental involvement, inclusive of family members with parental and informal caregiver responsibilities.Paediatricians and general practitioners will characterise the reports and inter-rater reliability will be assessed. Exploratory descriptive analysis will allow the identification of types of incidents involving parents, contributing factors, harm outcomes and the specific role of the parents including inadvertent contribution to or mitigation of harm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by Cardiff University Research Ethics Committee (SMREC 22/32). Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, presented at international conferences and presented at stakeholder workshops.

Patient safety in prisons: a multi-method analysis of reported incidents in England.

OBJECTIVES: Prisoners use healthcare services three times more frequently than the general population with poorer health outcomes. Their distinct healthcare needs often pose challenges to safe healthcare provision. This study aimed to characterise patient safety incidents reported in prisons to guide practice improvement and identify health policy priorities.Design: We carried out an exploratory multi-method analysis of anonymised safety incidents from prisons. SETTING: Safety incidents had been reported to the National Reporting and Learning System by prisons in England between April 2018 and March 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Reports were reviewed to identify any unintended or unexpected incident(s) which could have, or did, lead to harm for prisoners receiving healthcare. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Free-text descriptions were examined to identify the type and nature of safety incidents, their outcomes and harm severity. Analysis was contextualised with subject experts through structured workshops to explain relationships between the most common incidents and contributory factors. RESULTS: Of 4112 reports, the most frequently observed incidents were medication-related (n = 1167, 33%), specifically whilst administering medications (n = 626, 54%). Next, were access-related (n = 559,15%), inclusive of delays in patients accessing healthcare professionals (n = 236, 42%) and managing medical appointments (n = 171, 31%). The workshops contextualised incidents involving contributing factors (n = 1529, 28%) into three key themes, namely healthcare access, continuity of care and the balance between prison and healthcare priorities. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of improving medication safety and access to healthcare services for prisoners. We recommend staffing level reviews to ensure healthcare appointments are attended, and to review procedures for handling missed appointments, communication during patient transfers and medication prescribing.

Mixed-methods study protocol: do national reporting and learning system medication incidents in palliative care reflect patient and carer concerns about medication management and safety?

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 20% of serious safety incidents involving palliative patients relate to medication. These are disproportionately reported when patients are in their usual residence when compared with hospital or hospice. While patient safety incident reporting systems can support professional learning, it is unclear whether these reports encompass patient and carer concerns with palliative medications or interpersonal safety. AIM: To explore and compare perceptions of (un)safe palliative medication management from patient, carer and professional perspectives in community, hospital and hospice settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use an innovative mixed-methods study design combining systematic review searching techniques with cross-sectional quantitative descriptive analysis and interpretative qualitative metasynthesis to integrate three elements: (1) Scoping review: multiple database searches for empirical studies and first-hand experiences in English (no other restrictions) to establish how patients and informal carers conceptualise safety in palliative medication management. (2)Medication incidents from the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System: identifying and characterising reports to understand professional perspectives on suboptimal palliative medication management. (3) Comparison of 1 and 2: contextualising with stakeholder perspectives. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Our team includes a funded patient and public involvement (PPI) collaborator, with experience of promoting patient-centred approaches in patient safety research. Funded discussion and dissemination events with PPI and healthcare (clinical and policy) professionals are planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Prospective ethical approval granted: Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Ref 19/28). Our study will synthesise multivoiced constructions of patient safety in palliative care to identify implications for professional learning and actions that are relevant across health and social care. It will also identify changing or escalating patterns in palliative medication incidents due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peer-reviewed publications, academic presentations, plain English summaries, press releases and social media will be used to disseminate to the public, researchers, clinicians and policy-makers.

Incidence, nature and causes of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England: retrospective case note review.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England; describe and classify the associated patient safety incidents and generate suggestions to mitigate risks of ameliorable factors contributing to the incidents. DESIGN: Retrospective case note review. Patients with significant health problems were identified and clinical judgements were made on avoidability and severity of harm. Factors contributing to avoidable harm were identified and recorded. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen general practitioners (GPs) undertook a retrospective case note review of a sample of 14 407 primary care patients registered with 12 randomly selected general practices from three regions in England (total list size: 92 255 patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of significant harm considered at least 'probably avoidable' and the nature of the safety incidents. RESULTS: The rate of significant harm considered at least probably avoidable was 35.6 (95% CI 23.3 to 48.0) per 100 000 patient-years (57.9, 95% CI 42.2 to 73.7, per 100 000 based on a sensitivity analysis). Overall, 74 cases of avoidable harm were detected, involving 72 patients. Three types of incident accounted for more than 90% of the problems: problems with diagnosis accounted for 45/74 (60.8%) primary incidents, followed by medication-related problems (n=19, 25.7%) and delayed referrals (n=8, 10.8%). In 59 (79.7%) cases, the significant harm could have been identified sooner (n=48) or prevented (n=11) if the GP had taken actions aligned with evidence-based guidelines. CONCLUSION: There is likely to be a substantial burden of avoidable significant harm attributable to primary care in England with diagnostic error accounting for most harms. Based on the contributory factors we found, improvements could be made through more effective implementation of existing information technology, enhanced team coordination and communication, and greater personal and informational continuity of care.