Improved Safety Culture and Teamwork Climate Are Associated With Decreases in Patient Harm and Hospital Mortality Across a Hospital System.

OBJECTIVES: Improved safety and teamwork culture has been associated with decreased patient harm within specific units in hospitals or hospital groups. Most studies have focused on a specific harm type. This study's objective was to document such an association across an entire hospital system and across multiple harm types. METHODS: The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) was administered to all clinical personnel (including physicians) before, 2 years after, and 4 years after establishing a comprehensive patient safety/high-reliability program at a major children's hospital. Resultant data were analyzed hospital-wide as well as by individual units, medical sections, and professional groups. RESULTS: Safety attitude scores improved over the 3 surveys (P < 0.05) as did teamwork attitude scores (P = nonsignificant). These increases were accompanied by contemporaneous statistically significant decreases in all-hospital harm (P < 0.01), serious safety events (P < 0.001), and severity-adjusted hospital mortality (P < 0.001). Differences were noted between physicians' and nurses' views on specific safety and teamwork items within individual units, with nursing scores often lower. These discipline-specific differences decreased with time. CONCLUSIONS: Improved safety and teamwork climate as measured by SAQ are associated with decreased patient harm and severity-adjusted mortality. Discrepancies in SAQ scores exist between different professional groups but decreased over time.

Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched. REVIEW METHODS: Observational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337 025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Around one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.

How Does Treatment Uncertainty Factor into Decisions to Place Patients on Active Surveillance for Kidney Cancer?

There are various management options for localized kidney cancer, including active surveillance, thermal ablation, partial nephrectomy, and radical nephrectomy. Choosing the optimal management requires consideration of oncologic outcomes, overall survival, and potential harms associated with each option. Oncologic outcomes and overall survival are determined by tumor and patient characteristics, respectively, and represent relatively objective metrics. The comparative harms of different management approaches are less predictable and result in treatment-related uncertainty. Active surveillance offers less uncertainty for many patients with localized kidney cancer: operative risks are completely forgone, oncologic outcomes are excellent, anxiety and illness uncertainty are well managed, and delayed intervention can be safely pursued. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the causes of treatment-related uncertainty associated with management options for localized kidney cancer. We discuss how active surveillance offers a certain degree of certainty according to the available literature. This could influence the decision to place patients on active surveillance.

Principles of Pediatric Patient Safety: Reducing Harm Due to Medical Care.

Pediatricians render care in an increasingly complex environment, which results in multiple opportunities to cause unintended harm. National awareness of patient safety risks has grown since the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) published its report "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System" in 1999. Patients and society as a whole continue to challenge health care providers to examine their practices and implement safety solutions. The depth and breadth of harm incurred by the practice of medicine is still being defined as reports continue to reveal a variety of avoidable errors, from those that involve specific high-risk medications to those that are more generalizable, such as patient misidentification and diagnostic error. Pediatric health care providers in all practice environments benefit from having a working knowledge of patient safety language. Pediatric providers should serve as advocates for best practices and policies with the goal of attending to risks that are unique to children, identifying and supporting a culture of safety, and leading efforts to eliminate avoidable harm in any setting in which medical care is rendered to children. In this Policy Statement, we provide an update to the 2011 Policy Statement "Principles of Pediatric Patient Safety: Reducing Harm Due to Medical Care."

Predictors of warfarin-associated adverse events in hospitalized patients: Opportunities to prevent patient harm.

BACKGROUND: The optimum international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring frequency for hospitalized patients receiving warfarin is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Assess relationship between daily versus less frequent INR monitoring and overanticoagulation and warfarin-related adverse events. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System data. SETTING: Randomly selected acute care hospitals across the United States. PATIENTS: Patients hospitalized from 2009 to 2013 for pneumonia, acute cardiac disease, or surgery who received warfarin. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: (1) Association between frequency of INR monitoring and an INR ≥6.0 or warfarin-related adverse event. (2) Association between the rate of change of the INR and a subsequent INR ≥5.0 and ≥6.0. RESULTS: Among 8529 patients who received warfarin for ≥3 days, for 1549 (18.2%) the INR was not measured on 2 or more days. These patients had higher propensity-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of having a warfarin-associated adverse event (OR: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-2.17) for cardiac patients and surgical patients (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.20-2.48), with no significant association for pneumonia patients. Cardiac and pneumonia patients with 1 day or more without an INR measurement had higher propensity-adjusted ORs of having an INR ≥6.0 (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.07-2.41 and OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.36-2.71, respectively). A 1-day increase in the INR of ≥0.9 occurred in 621 patients (12.5%) and predicted a subsequent INR of ≥6.0 (positive likelihood ratio of 4.2). CONCLUSION: Daily INR measurement and recognition of a rapidly rising INR might decrease the frequency of warfarin-associated adverse events in hospitalized patients.

Management of patient safety in French hospitals

No disponible