Nursing practice leaders' perspectives on continuing challenges related to the Doctor of Nursing Practice Degree.

In 2020, deans from top-ranked nursing schools authored a Nursing Outlook article titled, "Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Degree in the United States: Reflecting, Readjusting, and Getting Back on Track." In 2022, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing published the report, "State of the Doctor of Nursing Practice Education."- Both have been critical to advancing national discussions on the implementation of a universal DNP practiceentry standard in nursing. This paper, written by Chief Nursing Officers from top-ranked academic medical centers, reports on perspectives from practice settings/employers regarding issues raised by educators and deans in those documents. Barriers to acceptance of the DNP degree in practice include a lack of degree standardization, a need for DNP outcomes data, and a desire for a clearer return on investment for the DNP degree among graduates and employers.

Wrong-Patient Ordering Errors in Peripartum Mother-Newborn Pairs: A Unique Patient-Safety Challenge in Obstetrics.

Because maternal morbidity and mortality remain persistent challenges to the U.S. health care system, efforts to improve inpatient patient safety are critical. One important aspect of ensuring patient safety is reducing medical errors. However, obstetrics presents a uniquely challenging environment for safe ordering practices. When mother-newborn pairs are admitted in the postpartum setting with nearly identical names in the medical record (for example, Jane Doe and Janegirl Doe), there is a potential for wrong-patient medication ordering errors. This can lead to harm from the wrong patient receiving a medication or diagnostic test, especially a newborn receiving an adult dose of medication, as well as delaying treatment for the appropriate patient. We describe two clinical scenarios of wrong-patient ordering errors between mother-newborn pairs. The first involves an intravenous labetalol order that was placed for a postpartum patient but was released from the automated dispensing cabinet under the newborn's name. The medication was administered correctly, but an automatic order for labetalol was generated in the neonate's chart. Another scenario involves a woman presenting in labor with acute psychotic symptoms. The psychiatry service placed a note and orders for antipsychotic medications in the neonate's chart. These orders were cancelled shortly thereafter and replaced for the mother. These scenarios illustrate this specific patient-safety concern inherent in the treatment of mother-newborn pairs and highlight that perinatal units should evaluate threats to patient safety embedded in the unique mother-newborn relationship and develop strategies to reduce risk.

Psychological distress, coping behaviors, and preferences for support among New York healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The mental health toll of COVID-19 on healthcare workers (HCW) is not yet fully described. We characterized distress, coping, and preferences for support among NYC HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional web survey of physicians, advanced practice providers, residents/fellows, and nurses, conducted during a peak of inpatient admissions for COVID-19 in NYC (April 9th-April 24th 2020) at a large medical center in NYC (n = 657). RESULTS: Positive screens for psychological symptoms were common; 57% for acute stress, 48% for depressive, and 33% for anxiety symptoms. For each, a higher percent of nurses/advanced practice providers screened positive vs. attending physicians, though housestaff's rates for acute stress and depression did not differ from either. Sixty-one percent of participants reported increased sense of meaning/purpose since the COVID-19 outbreak. Physical activity/exercise was the most common coping behavior (59%), and access to an individual therapist with online self-guided counseling (33%) garnered the most interest. CONCLUSIONS: NYC HCWs, especially nurses and advanced practice providers, are experiencing COVID-19-related psychological distress. Participants reported using empirically-supported coping behaviors, and endorsed indicators of resilience, but they also reported interest in additional wellness resources. Programs developed to mitigate stress among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic should integrate HCW preferences.

Incident Reports of Naming Errors among Two Sets of Infant Twins.

Newborns are at high risk for identification errors due to their inability to speak and indistinguishable features. To reduce this risk, The Joint Commission requires hospitals to use a distinct identification method for newborns. Most hospitals create medical records for newborns at birth using temporary naming conventions, resulting in patients with similar identifiers. Typically, multiple-birth infants are distinguished from their siblings by a single character (1, 2, or A, B), placing them at higher risk for identification errors, which can delay care and compromise patient safety. METHODS: We present 2 unrelated cases involving naming errors in sets of infant twins receiving care in a healthcare system using Joint Commission compliant distinct temporary naming convention. RESULTS: In the 2 cases, system failures contributed to naming errors in 2 sets of infant twins, which resulted in delayed care. In the first case, twins were inadvertently assigned the same temporary name. In the second case, an infant's blood specimen label did not include a single character, which distinguishes a multiple-birth infant from their sibling. Further safeguards are needed to reduce this risk. These cases illustrated the potential for misidentification related to newborn naming conventions during the registration process, especially between siblings of multiple-birth infants. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to determine strategies to prevent newborn identification errors. Potential strategies to reduce this risk and protect newborns include improving the design of newborn identifiers, systems-level interventions such as verification alerts, and improved registration processes.

Risk of Wrong-Patient Orders Among Multiple vs Singleton Births in the Neonatal Intensive Care Units of 2 Integrated Health Care Systems.

IMPORTANCE: Multiple-birth infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have nearly identical patient identifiers and may be at greater risk of wrong-patient order errors compared with singleton-birth infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of wrong-patient orders among multiple-birth infants and singletons receiving care in the NICU and to examine the proportion of wrong-patient orders between multiple-birth infants and siblings (intrafamilial errors) and between multiple-birth infants and nonsiblings (extrafamilial errors). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 6 NICUs of 2 large, integrated health care systems in New York City that used distinct temporary names for newborns per the requirements of The Joint Commission. Data were collected from 4 NICUs at New York-Presbyterian Hospital from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015, and 2 NICUs at Montefiore Health System from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2015. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. All infants in the 6 NICUs for whom electronic orders were placed during the study periods were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Wrong-patient electronic orders were identified using the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) Measure. This measure was used to detect RAR events, which are defined as 1 or more orders placed for a patient that are retracted (ie, canceled) by the same clinician within 10 minutes, then reordered by the same clinician for a different patient within the next 10 minutes. RESULTS: A total of 10 819 infants were included: 85.5% were singleton-birth infants and 14.5% were multiple-birth infants (male, 55.8%; female, 44.2%). The overall wrong-patient order rate was significantly higher among multiple-birth infants than among singleton-birth infants (66.0 vs 41.7 RAR events per 100 000 orders, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.20; P < .001). The rate of extrafamilial RAR events among multiple-birth infants (36.1 per 100 000 orders) was similar to that of singleton-birth infants (41.7 per 100 000 orders). The excess risk among multiple-birth infants (29.9 per 100 000 orders) appears to be owing to intrafamilial RAR events. The risk increased as the number of siblings receiving care in the NICU increased; a wrong-patient order error occurred in 1 in 7 sets of twin births and in 1 in 3 sets of higher-order multiple births. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study suggests that multiple-birth status in the NICU is associated with significantly increased risk of wrong-patient orders compared with singleton-birth status. This excess risk appears to be owing to misidentification between siblings. These results suggest that a distinct naming convention as required by The Joint Commission may provide insufficient protection against identification errors among multiple-birth infants. Strategies to reduce this risk include using given names at birth, changing from temporary to given names when available, and encouraging parents to select names for multiple births before they are born when acceptable to families.

Interventions to improve hospital patient satisfaction with healthcare providers and systems: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many hospital systems seek to improve patient satisfaction as assessed by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys. A systematic review of the current experimental evidence could inform these efforts and does not yet exist. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature by searching electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, the six databases of the Cochrane Library and grey literature databases. We included studies involving hospital patients with interventions targeting at least 1 of the 11 HCAHPS domains, and that met our quality filter score on the 27-item Downs and Black coding scale. We calculated post hoc power when appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 59 studies met inclusion criteria, out of these 44 did not meet the quality filter of 50% (average quality rating 27.8%±10.9%). Of the 15 studies that met the quality filter (average quality rating 67.3%±10.7%), 8 targeted the Communication with Doctors HCAHPS domain, 6 targeted Overall Hospital Rating, 5 targeted Communication with Nurses, 5 targeted Pain Management, 5 targeted Communication about Medicines, 5 targeted Recommend the Hospital, 3 targeted Quietness of the Hospital Environment, 3 targeted Cleanliness of the Hospital Environment and 3 targeted Discharge Information. Significant HCAHPS improvements were reported by eight interventions, but their generalisability may be limited by narrowly focused patient populations, heterogeneity of approach and other methodological concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are a few studies that show some improvement in HCAHPS score through various interventions, we conclude that more rigorous research is needed to identify effective and generalisable interventions to improve patient satisfaction.