How to HEEAL: A Patient and Peer-Centric Simulation Curriculum for Medical Error Disclosure.

Introduction: Medical errors are an unfortunate certainty with emotional and psychological consequences for patients and health care providers. No standardized medical curriculum on how to disclose medical errors to patients or peers exists. The novel HEEAL (honesty/empathy/education/apology-awareness/lessen chance for future errors) curriculum addresses this gap in medical education through a multimodality workshop. Methods: This 6-hour, two-part curriculum incorporated didactic and standardized patient (SP) simulation education with rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP). The morning focused on provider-patient error disclosure; the afternoon applied the same principles to provider-provider (peer) discussion. Summative simulations with SPs evaluated learners' skill baseline and improvement. Formative simulations run by expert simulation educators used RCDP to provide real-time feedback and opportunities for adjustment. Medical knowledge was measured through pre- and postintervention multiple-choice questions. Learners' confidence and attitude towards medical errors disclosure were surveyed pre- and postintervention with assistance of the Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment tool, revised with the addition of several questions related to provider-provider disclosure. Results: Fourteen medical students participated in this pilot curriculum. Statistical significance was demonstrated in medical knowledge (p = .01), peer-disclosure skills (p = .001), and confidence in medical error disclosure (p < .001). Although there was improvement in patient-disclosure skills, this did not reach statistical significance (p = .05). Discussion: This curriculum addresses the need for designated training in medical error disclosure. Learners gained knowledge, skills, and confidence in medical error disclosure. We recommend this curriculum for medical students preparing for transition to residency.

Disclosure following a medical error: lessons learned from a national initiative of workshops with patients, healthcare teams, and executives.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increase in disclosures of medical errors, transparency remains a challenge. Recognized barriers include shame, fear of litigation, disciplinary actions, and loss of patient trust. In 2018, the Israeli Ministry of Health initiated a series of workshops about disclosure of medical errors. The workshops involved medical center executives, healthcare providers, patients, and family members of patients who had previously been harmed by a medical error. This study presents the lessons learned about perceived challenges in disclosure of errors in 15 such workshops. METHODS: Data collection included participant observations in 15 workshops, full audio recordings of all of the workshops, and documentation of detailed field notes. Analysis was performed under thematic analysis guidelines. RESULTS: We identified four main themes: "Providers agree on the value of disclosure of a medical error to the patient"; "Emotional challenges of disclosure of medical error to patients"; "The medico-legal discourse challenges transparency"; and "Providers and patients call for a change in the culture regarding disclosure of medical errors". Participant observations indicated that the presence of a patient who had experienced a tragedy in another hospital, and who was willing to share it created an intimate atmosphere that enabled an open conversation between parties. CONCLUSION: The study shows the moral, human, and educational values of open discourse in a protective setting after the occurrence of a medical error. We believe that workshops like these may help foster a culture of institutional disclosure following medical errors. We recommend that the Ministry of Health extend such workshops to all healthcare facilities, establish guidelines and mandate training for skills in disclosure for all providers.

Adverse Events in Pediatric Dental Practice: Survey of Pediatric Dentists in the United States.

Purpose: To survey pediatric dentists in the United States regarding adverse events during dental care for children. Methods: A self-administered, anonymous online survey was sent to American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry members (N equals 6,327) using REDCap® software (between October and December 2019). The questionnaire (all items with radio-button numerical categories) included five items surveying pediatric adverse event occurrence and seven demographic items. Annualized occurrences of adverse events in US pediatric dental practices were extrapolated from the data collected. Results: The survey response was 11 percent (n equals 704), with 91 percent of respondents reporting that at least one child experienced an adverse event during dental treatment. The two most prevalent adverse events, each reported by 82 percent of respondents, were self-inflicted trauma to soft tissues after local anesthesia and nausea and vomiting, with annualized estimates of 7,816 and 7,003, respectively. Major adverse events (respiratory depression, cardiovascular depression, neurological damage, death) during pediatric dental treatment were reported by 14 percent of respondents (annualized estimate equals 443). "Wrong" errors (wrong tooth/wrong procedure/wrong patient) were reported by 24 percent of respondents (annualized estimate equals 600). Conclusions: Adverse events during pediatric dental care are of noticeable concern with some (wrong tooth/wrong procedure/wrong patient errors) that can be procedurally mitigated.

Medical errors, affected sites, and adverse consequences among patients in the orthopaedic department: Does age matter?

Background: Orthopaedics have become the focus of research on patient safety due to the high incidence of medical errors. Previous studies were based on all orthopaedic patients and rarely conducted empirical analyses from the perspective of age. This study aimed to fill the academic gap in the age variable by comparing medical errors, affected sites, and adverse consequences in orthopaedic patients. Methods: This retrospective study included 329 litigation claims against orthopaedists using data from China Judgments Online. First, we performed computer crawling and screened 5,237 litigation documents using keywords, including medical errors. Second, 2,536 samples were retained through systematic random sampling, and 549 irrelevant cases were deleted after manual reading. Finally, three clinicians from different medical departments selected 329 incidents related to orthopaedics for further analysis, according to the description of the lawsuits. Three other professional orthopaedists evaluated the patients' ages, affected sites of medical errors, and adverse consequences. Results: The greatest number of medical errors was observed in the joints (30.43%) for all orthopaedic patients. However, adult patients (aged 18-60 years) were most susceptible to errors in the extremities (30.42%). A higher rate of complications was associated with a higher rate of morbidity/mortality for the corresponding patients. Medical errors correlated with complications occurred in the following sites: joints (15.38%), extremities (12.50%), spine (16.95%), multiple sites (15.38%), and hands and feet (14.81%). In addition to surgical errors, over 10% of all orthopaedic patients experienced missed diagnoses. The incidence of insufficient adherence to informed consent obligations was 13.5% among adult patients and was much higher in paediatric and older adults patients. When orthopaedic patients suffered from medical technical errors, iatrogenic mortality/morbidity would decrease by 0.3% for one unit increase in age. Conclusion: Dividing patients into different ages demonstrated diverse results in terms of medical errors and affected sites. Negligence in diagnosis and examination can be fatal factors that endanger safety, and complications may cause morbidity/mortality. When patients suffered from technical errors, age is inversely proportional to mortality/morbidity. Special attention needs to be paid to technical errors in the younger older adults population (60-64 years old), which has inspired implications in promoting aging and public health.

Be careful about what you wish for in NHS patient safety reform.

John Tingle and Amanda Cattini discuss some recent reports on potential changes to litigation procedures for patient harm cases and to the Never Events framework.

An Interprofessional Initiative to Address Tests Pending at Discharge for Hospitalized Pediatric Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric hospitalized patients often are discharged before all lab tests are completed. Given the risk of medical errors related to inadequate test follow-up, we piloted a collaborative initiative to address tests pending at discharge (TPAD) within our pediatric hospital medicine section. Our objectives were to delineate the responsibilities of case managers and pediatric hospital medicine clinicians in addressing these tests and to establish a communication process. METHODS: We formed an interprofessional team and performed a current state assessment, including a survey to pediatric hospital medicine clinicians to assess time spent following up TPAD and confidence that results were followed up in a timely and appropriate manner. We obtained a list of 1450 individual TPAD for the previous 9 months using an electronic health record data query, from which a list of 26 common and straightforward labs were identified for case manager follow-up. A shared case manager Epic Inbasket for TPAD was created and was checked twice daily. We developed a phased approach to establish a workflow for follow-up. DISCUSSION: The case manager partnership was launched in 4 phases for the duration of the 6-month pilot. However, due to duplication of work and less value of case managers addressing straightforward labs, the pilot was stopped. A more effective and mutually beneficial role for pediatric hospital medicine attendings and case managers may be to have the case managers address complex TPAD and communicate with primary care clinicians and families.

A novel framework for human factors analysis and classification system for medical errors (HFACS-MES)-A Delphi study and causality analysis.

The healthcare system (HCS) is one of the most crucial and essential systems for humanity. Currently, supplying the patients' safety and preventing the medical adverse events (MAEs) in HCS is a global issue. Human and organizational factors (HOFs) are the primary causes of MAEs. However, there are limited analytical methods to investigate the role of these factors in medical errors (MEs). The aim of present study was to introduce a new and applicable framework for the causation of MAEs based on the original HFACS. In this descriptive-analytical study, HOFs related to MEs were initially extracted through a comprehensive literature review. Subsequently, a Delphi study was employed to develop a new human factors analysis and classification system for medical errors (HFACS-MEs) framework. To validate this framework in the causation and analysis of MEs, 180 MAEs were analyzed by using HFACS-MEs. The results showed that the new HFACS-MEs model comprised 5 causal levels and 25 causal categories. The most significant changes in HFACS-MEs compared to the original HFACS included adding a fifth causal level, named "extra-organizational issues", adding the causal categories "management of change" (MOC) and "patient safety culture" (PSC) to fourth causal level", adding "patient-related factors (PRF)" and "task elements" to second causal level and finally, appending "situational violations" to first causal level. Causality analyses among categories in the HFACS-MEs framework showed that the new added causal level (extra-organizational issues) have statistically significant relationships with causal factors of lower levels (Φc≤0.41, p-value≤0.038). Other new causal category including MOC, PSC, PRF and situational violations significantly influenced by the causal categories of higher levels and had an statistically significant effect on the lower-level causal categories (Φc>0.2, p-value<0.05). The framework developed in this study serves as a valuable tool in identifying the causes and causal pathways of MAEs, facilitating a comprehensive analysis of the human factors that significantly impact patient safety within HCS.

Going beyond compliance: A qualitative study of the practice of surgical safety checklist.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a tool designed to enhance team communication and patient safety. When used properly, the SSC acts as a layer of defence against never events. In this study, we performed secondary qualitative analysis of operating theatres (OT) SSC observational notes to examine how the SSC was used after an intensive SSC re-implementation effort and drew on relevant theories to shed light on the observed patterns of behaviours. We aimed to go beyond assessing checklist compliance and to understand potential sociopsychological mechanisms of the variations in SSC practices. METHODS: Direct observation notes of 109 surgical procedures across 13 surgical disciplines were made by two trained nurses in the OT of a large tertiary hospital in Singapore from February to April 2022, three months after SSC re-implementation. Only notes relevant to the use of SSC were extracted and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Data were coded following an inductive process to identify themes or patterns of SSC practices. These patterns were subsequently interpreted against a relevant theory to appreciate the potential sociopsychological forces behind them. RESULTS: Two broad types of SSC practices and their respective sub-themes were identified. Type 1 (vs. Type 2) SSC practices are characterized by patience and thoroughness (vs. hurriedness and omission) in carrying out the SSC process, dedication and attention (vs. delegation and distraction) to the SSC safety checks, and frequent (vs. absence of) safety voices during the conduct of SSC. These patterns were conceptualized as safety-seeking action vs. ritualistic action using Merton's social deviance theory. CONCLUSION: Ritualistic practice of the SSC can undermine surgical safety by creating conditions conducive to never events. To fully realize the SSC's potential as an essential tool for communication and safety, a concerted effort is needed to balance thoroughness with efficiency. Additionally, fostering a culture of collaboration and collegiality is crucial to reinforce and enhance the culture of surgical safety.

Surgical complications: errors and adverse events.

Complications are a recognized hazard of surgery. The term is confusing; it has multiple meanings, including surgical error and adverse surgical outcomes. I propose the latter two terms are used. Grading of 'complications' is difficult but made easier by grading errors and outcomes separately, though they are not always linked. The exact grades are not established.Error avoidance requires efforts at a personal (surgeon) level, including training, learning and preparation, and at a systems level. Understanding human factors is important.The perspective of patients about adverse outcomes is not well understood. There is evidence that, unsurprisingly, patient perspectives may be different to surgeon perspectives. There are a range of surgeon responses to error and adverse outcomes; many are negative. These need to be understood better in order to protect patients and surgeons in the immediate aftermath and in the potentially prolonged 'recovery time', both for patients and surgeons.Level of evidence: V.

Application of Global Trigger Tools in University Hospital and Comparison to Volunteer Adverse Events Reporting System.

BACKGROUND: A voluntary reporting system (VRS) is still used to detect adverse events (AEs) in health-care services in many countries. We attempted to apply the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) for the first time in our country and searched for an answer to the question of whether there could be new triggers. METHODS: Two hundred and forty inpatient records were selected from total of 1,807 inpatient files in the university obstetrics and gynecology clinic between 2018 and 2020. Twenty files per month were reviewed retrospectively using GTT, an approach developed by the American Institute for Health Development. VRS records of the same period were examined. The data were evaluated according to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention scale and those in the E, F, G, H, I categories were included. RESULTS: The number of AEs per 1,000 patient days was 47.81, AEs per 1,000 patient hospitalizations was 95.83, and hospitalizations with AEs was 9.58%. In the VRS data, 10 of 85 reporting cases were listed in the E category (Damage is temporary and requires intervention), 6 of them were related to fall of the patient, and 4 of them were related to medical device and material safety. By applying GTT, 45 cases in category E and 35 cases in category F (Damage is temporary and requires hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization) AEs were detected in 23 patients (9.58%). The number of AEs reported was 8.3 times higher in the GTT than with VRS. Healthcare related infection, development of complications from any procedure, APTT>100 Seconds, INR>6, Organ Injury - Repair or Removal, All Kinds of Operative Complications were found to be the most sensitive triggers (PPV = 100). There was no difference between the patients with and without AEs in terms of age and number of hospitalization days (p: 0.707, p: 0.618). The sensitivity rate of vaginal dinoprostone use and CRP elevation (30% and 22%, respectively) was higher than the mean sensitivity rate of GTT triggers (15.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The GTT is more effective than VRS in detecting AEs. Using vaginal dinoprostone (propess) and high CRP levels could be used as a trigger. The GTT is a credible and fruitful instrument for determining AEs when adapted to the departmental practices.