Supporting Error Management and Safety Climate in Ambulatory Care Practices: The CIRSforte Study.

BACKGROUND: To improve patient safety, it is important that healthcare facilities learn from critical incidents. Tools such as reporting and learning systems and team meetings structure error management and promote learning from incidents. To enhance error management in ambulatory care practices, it is important to promote a climate of safety and ensure personnel share views on safety policies and procedures. In contrast to the hospital sector, little research has been dedicated to developing feasible approaches to supporting error management and safety climate in ambulatory care. In this study, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a multicomponent intervention to address how error management and safety climate can be improved in ambulatory care practices. METHODS: In a prospective 1-group pretest-posttest implementation study, we sought to encourage teams in German ambulatory practices to use proven methods such as guidelines, workshops, e-learning, (online) meetings, and e-mail newsletters. A pretest-posttest questionnaire was used to evaluate level and strength of safety climate and psychological behavioral determinants for systematic error management. Using 3 short surveys, we also assessed the state of error management in the participating practices. In semistructured interviews, we asked participants for their views on our intervention measures. RESULTS: Overall, 184 ambulatory care practices nationwide agreed to participate. Level of safety climate and safety climate strength (rwg) improved significantly. Of psychological behavioral determinants, significant improvements could be seen in "action/coping planning" and "action control." Seventy-six percent of practices implemented a new reporting and learning system or modified their existing system. The exchange of information between practices also increased over time. Interviews showed that the introductory workshop and provided materials such as report forms or instructions for team meetings were regarded as helpful. CONCLUSIONS: A significant improvement in safety climate level and strength, as well as participants' knowledge of how to analyze critical incidents, derive preventive measures and develop concrete plans suggest that it is important to train practice teams, to provide practical tips and tools, and to facilitate the exchange of information between practices. Future randomized and controlled intervention trials should confirm the effectiveness of our multicomponent intervention.Trial registration: Retrospectively registered on 18. November 2019 in German Clinical Trials Register No. DRKS00019053.

Strength of Safety Measures Introduced by Medical Practices to Prevent a Recurrence of Patient Safety Incidents: An Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the strength of safety measures described in incident reports in outpatient care. METHODS: An incident reporting project in German outpatient care included 184 medical practices with differing fields of specialization. The practices were invited to submit anonymous incident reports to the project team 3 times for 17 months. Using a 14-item coding scheme based on international recommendations, we deductively coded the incident reports and safety measures. Safety measures were classified as "strong" (likely to be effective and sustainable), "intermediate" (possibly effective and sustainable), or "weak" (less likely to be effective and sustainable). RESULTS: The practices submitted 245 incident reports. In 160 of them, 243 preventive measures were described, or an average of 1.5 per report. The number of documented measures varied from 1 in 67% to 4 in 5% of them. Four preventive measures (2%) were classified as strong, 37 (15%) as intermediate, and 202 (83%) as weak. The most frequently mentioned measures were "new procedure/policy" (n = 121) and "information/notification/warning" (n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: The study provides examples of critical incidents in medical practices and for the first time examines the strength of ensuing measures introduced in outpatient care. Overall, the proportion of weak measures is (too) high, indicating that practices need more support in identifying strong measures.

Characteristics of Critical Incident Reporting Systems in Primary Care: An International Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to support the development of future critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) in primary care by collecting information on existing systems. Our focus was on processes used to report and analyze incidents, as well as strategies used to overcome difficulties. METHODS: Based on literature from throughout the world, we identified existing CIRS in primary care. We developed a questionnaire and sent it to operators of a purposeful sample of 17 CIRS in primary care. We used cross-case analysis to compare the answers and pinpoint important similarities and differences in the CIRS in our sample. RESULTS: Ten CIRS operators filled out the questionnaire, and 9 systems met our inclusion criteria. The sample of CIRS came from 8 different countries and was rather heterogeneous. The reporting systems invited a broad range of professions to report, with some also including reports by patients. In most cases, reporting was voluntary and conducted via an online reporting form. Reports were analyzed locally, centrally, or both. The various CIRS used interesting ideas to deal with barriers. Some, for example, used confidential reporting modes as a compromise between anonymity and the need for follow-up investigations, whereas others used smartphone applications and call centers to speed up the reporting process. CONCLUSIONS: We found multiple CIRS that have operated in primary care for many years and have received a high number of reports. They were largely developed in accordance with recommendations found in literature. Developers of future systems may find this overview useful.