Molar root canal treatment performed by undergraduate dental students; an observational study of procedural errors and student perception.

BACKGROUND: Molar root canal treatment (RCT) is challenging and requires training and specific skills. Rotary instrumentation (RI) reduces the time needed for instrumentation but may increase the risk of certain procedural errors. The aims of this study were to evaluate the quality of molar RCTs provided by undergraduate students, to compare the prevalence of procedural errors following manual and RI, and to assess the students' self-perceived confidence to perform molar RCT without supervision and their preference for either manual or RI. METHODS: Molar RCTs performed by the final year students were evaluated radiographically according to predefined criteria (Appendix 1). The procedural errors, treatment details, and the students' self-perceived confidence to perform molar RCT and their preference for either manual or RI were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed, and the Chi-squared test was used to detect any statistically significant differences. RESULTS: 60.4% of RCTs were insufficient. RI resulted in more sufficient treatments compared with MI (49% vs. 30.3% respectively. X2: 7.39, p = 0.007), required fewer visits to complete (2.9 vs. 4.6 respectively. X2: 67.23, p < 0.001) and was the preferred technique by 93.1% of students. The most common procedural errors were underextension of the root canal obturation (48.4%), insufficient obturation (45.5%), and improper coronal seal (35.2%) without a significant difference between the two techniques. 26.4% of the participating students reported that they did not feel confident to perform molar RCT without supervision. CONCLUSION: The quality of molar RCT provided by UG students was generally insufficient. RI partially improved the technical quality of RCT compared with MI. UG students need further endodontic training and experience before they can safely and confidently practise molar RCT.

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.

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.

Surgical Safety Does Not Happen By Accident: Learning From Perioperative Near Miss Case Studies.

Adverse surgical events cause negative patient health outcomes and harm that can often overshadow the safe and effective patient care provided daily by nurses as members of interprofessional healthcare teams. Near misses occur far more frequently than adverse events and are less visible to nurse leaders because patient harm is avoided due to chance, prevention, or mitigation. However, near misses have comparable root causes to adverse events and exhibit the same underlying patterns of failure. Reviewing near misses provides nurses with learning opportunities to identify patient care weaknesses and build appropriate solutions to enhance care. As the operating room is one of the most complex work settings in healthcare, identifying potential weaknesses or sources for errors is vital to reduce healthcare-associated risks for patients and staff. The purpose of this manuscript is to educate, inform, and stimulate critical thinking by discussing perioperative near miss case studies and the underlying factors that lead to errors. Our authors discuss 15 near miss case studies occurring across the perioperative patient experience of care and discuss barriers to near miss reporting. Nurse leaders can use our case studies to stimulate discussion among perioperative and perianesthesia nurses in their hospitals to inform comprehensive risk reduction programs.

Patient safety incidents in endoscopy: a human factors analysis of nonprocedural significant harm incidents from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS).

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in understanding and reducing the risk of endoscopic procedures, there is little consideration of the safety of the wider endoscopy service. Patient safety incidents (PSIs) still occur. We sought to identify nonprocedural PSIs (nPSIs) and their causative factors from a human factors perspective and generate ideas for safety improvement. METHODS: Endoscopy-specific PSI reports were extracted from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS). A retrospective, cross-sectional human factors analysis of data was performed. Two independent researchers coded data using a hybrid thematic analysis approach. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) was used to code contributory factors. Analysis informed creation of driver diagrams and key recommendations for safety improvement in endoscopy. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2019, 1181 endoscopy-specific PSIs of significant harm were reported across England and Wales, with 539 (45.6%) being nPSIs. Five categories accounted for over 80% of all incidents, with "follow-up and surveillance" being the largest (23.4% of all nPSIs). From the free-text incident reports, 487 human factors codes were identified. Decision-based errors were the most common act prior to PSI occurrence. Other frequent preconditions to incidents were focused on environmental factors, particularly overwhelmed resources, patient factors, and ineffective team communication. Lack of staffing, standard operating procedures, effective systems, and clinical pathways were also contributory. Seven key recommendations for improving safety have been made in response to our findings. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first national-level human factors analysis of endoscopy-specific PSIs. This work will inform safety improvement strategies and should empower individual services to review their approach to safety.

Why Simulation Matters: A Systematic Review on Medical Errors Occurring During Simulated Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, the implementation of simulation education in health care has increased exponentially. Simulation-based education allows learners to practice patient care in a controlled, psychologically safe environment without the risk of harming a patient. Facilitators may identify medical errors during instruction, aiding in developing targeted education programs leading to improved patient safety. However, medical errors that occur during simulated health care may not be reported broadly in the simulation literature. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to identify and categorize the type and frequency of reported medical errors in healthcare simulation. METHODS: Systematic review using search engines, PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS from 2000 to 2020, using the terms "healthcare simulation" AND "medical error." Inclusion was based on reported primary research of medical errors occurring during simulated health care. Reported errors were classified as errors of commission, omission, systems related, or communication related. RESULTS: Of the 1105 articles screened, only 20 articles met inclusion criteria. Errors of commission were the most reported (17/20), followed by systems-related errors (13/20), and errors of omission (12/20). Only 7 articles reported errors attributed to communication. Authors in 16 articles reported more than one type of error. CONCLUSIONS: Simulationists and patient safety advocates must continually identify systems-related errors and training deficits that can lead to inaction, improper action, and poor communication. Recent dialogs in the simulation community have also underscored the potential benefits of developing a registry of errors across simulation centers, with a goal of aggregating, analyzing, and disseminating insights from various simulation exercises.

Safety in Health Care: The Impact of Operating Room Design.

The science of operating room design has grown over the past 20 years due to the realization that the physical environment influences health care provider performance and patient outcomes. Medical errors occur when the normal workflow in an operating room is disrupted as providers must overcome sub-optimal conditions. All aspects of the physical environment can impact operating room flow. Studying the layout, contents, ergonomics, and environmental parameters of the operating can lead improved work conditions resulting improved patient and provider safety. At the forefront of operating room design science is the use of simulation and the evaluation of new technologies.

Quality and safety interventions in surgery.

Medical errors resulting in treatment-related harm have been a challenge for many years, with particularly severe consequences in surgery. Efforts to improve safety should focus on system-based changes to response and rescue pathways, and will require further research and adequate engagement by clinical staff.

How do we ensure a safe ABO recheck process?

BACKGROUND: Collecting a patient's blood in a correctly labeled pretransfusion specimen tube is essential for accurate ABO typing and safe transfusion. Noncompliance with specimen collection procedures can lead to wrong blood in tube (WBIT) incidents with potentially fatal consequences. Recent WBIT events inspired the investigation of how various institutions currently reduce the risk of these errors and ensure accurate ABO typing of patient samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article describes the techniques employed at various institutions across the United States to mitigate the risk of misidentified pretransfusion patient specimens. Details and considerations for each of these measures are provided. RESULTS: Several institutions require the order for an ABO confirmation specimen, if indicated, to be generated from the transfusion medicine (TM) laboratory. Others issue a dedicated collection tube that is available exclusively from the TM service. Many institutions employ barcoding for electronic positive patient identification. Some use a combination of these strategies, depending on the locations or service lines from which the specimens are collected. CONCLUSION: The description of various WBIT mitigation strategies will inform TM services on practices that may be effective at their respective institutions. Irrespective of the method(s) utilized, institutions should continue to monitor and mitigate specimen misidentification errors to promote sustained safe transfusion practices.

Validation of a Reduced Set of High-Performance Triggers for Identifying Patient Safety Incidents with Harm in Primary Care: TriggerPrim Project.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to construct and validate a reduced set of high-performance triggers for identifying adverse events (AEs) via electronic medical records (EMRs) review in primary care (PC). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study for validating a diagnostic test. The study included all 262 PC centers of Madrid region (Spain). Patients were older than 18 years who attended their PC center over the last quarter of 2018. The randomized sample was n = 1797. Main measurements were as follows: ( a ) presence of each of 19 specific computer-identified triggers in the EMR and ( b ) occurrence of an AE. To collect data, EMR review was conducted by 3 doctor-nurse teams. Triggers with statistically significant odds ratios for identifying AEs were selected for the final set after adjusting for age and sex using logistic regression. RESULTS: The sensitivity (SS) and specificity (SP) for the selected triggers were: ≥3 appointments in a week at the PC center (SS = 32.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 22.8%-41.8%]; SP = 92.8% [95% CI, 91.6%-94.0%]); hospital admission (SS = 19.4% [95% CI, 11.4%-27.4%]; SP = 97.2% [95% CI, 96.4%-98.0%]); hospital emergency department visit (SS = 31.2% [95% CI, 21.8%-40.6%]; SP = 90.8% [95% CI, 89.4%-92.2%]); major opioids prescription (SS = 2.2% [95% CI, 0.0%-5.2%]; SP = 99.8% [95% CI, 99.6%-100%]); and chronic benzodiazepine treatment in patients 75 years or older (SS = 14.0% [95% CI, 6.9%-21.1%]; SP = 95.5% [95% CI, 94.5%-96.5%]).The following values were obtained in the validation of this trigger set (the occurrence of at least one of these triggers in the EMR): SS = 60.2% (95% CI, 50.2%-70.1%), SP = 80.8% (95% CI, 78.8%-82.6%), positive predictive value = 14.6% (95% CI, 11.0%-18.1%), negative predictive value = 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.2%), positive likelihood ratio = 3.13 (95% CI, 2.3-4.2), and negative likelihood ratio = 0.49 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7). CONCLUSIONS: The set containing the 5 selected triggers almost triples the efficiency of EMR review in detecting AEs. This suggests that this set is easily implementable and of great utility in risk-management practice.

Scaling up a diagnostic pause at the ICU-to-ward transition: an exploration of barriers and facilitators to implementation of the ICU-PAUSE handoff tool.

OBJECTIVES: The transition from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the medical ward is a high-risk period due to medical complexity, reduced patient monitoring, and diagnostic uncertainty. Standardized handoff practices reduce errors associated with transitions of care, but little work has been done to standardize the ICU to ward handoff. Further, tools that exist do not focus on preventing diagnostic error. Using Human-Centered Design methods we previously created a novel EHR-based ICU-ward handoff tool (ICU-PAUSE) that embeds a diagnostic pause at the time of transfer. This study aims to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing a diagnostic pause at the ICU-to-ward transition. METHODS: This is a multi-center qualitative study of semi-structured interviews with intensivists from ten academic medical centers. Interviews were analyzed iteratively through a grounded theory approach. The Sittig-Singh sociotechnical model was used as a unifying conceptual framework. RESULTS: Across the eight domains of the model, we identified major benefits and barriers to implementation. The embedded pause to address diagnostic uncertainty was recognized as a key benefit. Participants agreed that standardization of verbal and written handoff would decrease variation in communication. The main barriers fell within the domains of workflow, institutional culture, people, and assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents a novel application of the Sittig-Singh model in the assessment of a handoff tool. A unique feature of ICU-PAUSE is the explicit acknowledgement of diagnostic uncertainty, a practice that has been shown to reduce medical error and prevent premature closure. Results will be used to inform future multi-site implementation efforts.

Ten Years Later, Alarm Fatigue Is Still a Safety Concern.

Ten years after the publication of a landmark article in AACN Advanced Critical Care, alarm fatigue continues to be an issue that researchers, clinicians, and organizations aim to remediate. Alarm fatigue contributes to missed alarms and medical errors that result in patient death, increased clinical workload and burnout, and interference with patient recovery. Led by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, national patient safety organizations continue to prioritize efforts to battle alarm fatigue and have proposed alarm management strategies to mitigate the effects of alarm fatigue. Similarly, clinical efforts now use simulation studies, individualized alarm thresholds, and interdisciplinary teams to optimize alarm use. Finally, engineering research efforts have innovated the standard alarm to convey information more effectively for medical users. By focusing on patient and provider safety, clinical workflow, and alarm technology, efforts to reduce alarm fatigue over the past 10 years have been grounded in an evidence-based and personnel-focused approach.

Communication of medical errors in a simulated clinical scenario. Experience with a pediatric residency group.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance of groups of pediatric residents from a Buenos Aires hospital, in terms of correct recognition and communication of a medical error (ME), in a high-fidelity simulation scenario. To describe the reactions and communication attempts following the ME and the self-perception by the trainees before and after a debriefing. METHODS: Quasi-experimental uncontrolled study conducted in a simulation center. First- and third-year pediatric residents participated. We designed a simulation case in which an ME occurred and the patient deteriorated. During the simulation, participants had to provide information on communicating the ME to the patient's father. We assessed communication performance and, additionally, participants completed a self-perception survey about ME management before and after a debriefing. RESULTS: Eleven groups of residents participated. Ten (90.9%) identified the ME correctly, but only 27.3% (n=3) of them reported that a ME had occurred. None of the groups told the father they were going to give him important news concerning his son's health. All 18 residents who actively participated in this communication completed the self-perception survey, with an average score before and after debriefing of 5.00 and 5.05 (out of 10) (p=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high number of groups that recognized the presence of a ME, but the communication action was substantially low. Communication skills were insufficient and residents' self-perception of error management was regular and not modified by the debriefing.