The challenge of unprecedented floods and droughts in risk management.

Risk management has reduced vulnerability to floods and droughts globally1,2, yet their impacts are still increasing3. An improved understanding of the causes of changing impacts is therefore needed, but has been hampered by a lack of empirical data4,5. On the basis of a global dataset of 45 pairs of events that occurred within the same area, we show that risk management generally reduces the impacts of floods and droughts but faces difficulties in reducing the impacts of unprecedented events of a magnitude not previously experienced. If the second event was much more hazardous than the first, its impact was almost always higher. This is because management was not designed to deal with such extreme events: for example, they exceeded the design levels of levees and reservoirs. In two success stories, the impact of the second, more hazardous, event was lower, as a result of improved risk management governance and high investment in integrated management. The observed difficulty of managing unprecedented events is alarming, given that more extreme hydrological events are projected owing to climate change3.

Current State and Future Direction of Postpartum Hemorrhage Risk Assessment.

In the United States, postpartum hemorrhage is a leading preventable cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. To reduce morbidity from postpartum hemorrhage, risk assessment is an important starting point for informing decisions about risk management and hemorrhage prevention. Current perinatal care guidelines from the Joint Commission recommend that all patients undergo postpartum hemorrhage risk assessment at admission and after delivery. Three maternal health organizations-the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, AWHONN, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Safe Motherhood Initiative-have developed postpartum hemorrhage risk-assessment tools for clinical use. Based on the presence of risk factors, each organization categorizes patients as low-, medium-, or high-risk, and ties pretransfusion testing recommendations to these categorizations. However, the accuracy of these tools' risk categorizations has come under increasing scrutiny. Given their low positive predictive value, the value proposition of pretransfusion testing in all patients classified as medium- and high-risk is low. Further, 40% of all postpartum hemorrhage events occur in low-risk patients, emphasizing the need for early vigilance and treatment regardless of categorization. We recommend that maternal health organizations consider alternatives to category-based risk tools for evaluating postpartum hemorrhage risk before delivery.

A mixed-methods study describing behavioral factors that influenced general practitioners' experiences using triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, general practices were asked to expand triage and to reduce unnecessary face-to-face contact by prioritizing other consultation modes, e.g., online messaging, video, or telephone. The current study explores the potential barriers and facilitators general practitioners experienced to expanding triage systems and their attitudes towards triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A mixed-method study design was used in which a quantitative online survey was conducted along with qualitative interviews to gain a more nuanced appreciation for practitioners' experiences in the United Kingdom. The survey items were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework so they would capture 14 behavioral factors that may influence whether practitioners use triage systems. Items were responded to using seven-point Likert scales. A median score was calculated for each item. The responses of participants identifying as part-owners and non-owners (i.e., "partner" vs. "non-partner" practitioners) were compared. The semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely and examined using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 204 participants (66% Female). Most participants (83%) reported triaging patients. The items with the highest median scores captured the 'Knowledge,' 'Skills,' 'Social/Professional role and identity,' and 'Beliefs about capabilities' domains. The items with the lowest median scores captured the 'Beliefs about consequences,' 'Goals,' and 'Emotions' domains. For 14 of the 17 items, partner scores were higher than non-partner scores. All the qualitative interview participants relied on a phone triage system. Six broad themes were discovered: patient accessibility, confusions around what triage is, uncertainty and risk, relationships between service providers, job satisfaction, and the potential for total digital triage. Suggestions arose to optimize triage, such as ensuring there is sufficient time to conduct triage accurately and providing practical training to use triage efficiently. CONCLUSIONS: Many general practitioners are engaging with expanded triage systems, though more support is needed to achieve total triage across practices. Non-partner practitioners likely require more support to use the triage systems that practices take up. Additionally, practical support should be made available to help all practitioners manage the new risks and uncertainties they are likely to experience during non-face-to-face consultations.

Risk-based centralized data monitoring of clinical trials at the time of COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 pandemic caused several alarming challenges for clinical trials. On-site source data verification (SDV) in the multicenter clinical trial became difficult due to travel ban and social distancing. For multicenter clinical trials, centralized data monitoring is an efficient and cost-effective method of data monitoring. Centralized data monitoring reduces the risk of COVID-19 infections and provides additional capabilities compared to on-site monitoring. The key steps for on-site monitoring include identifying key risk factors and thresholds for the risk factors, developing a monitoring plan, following up the risk factors, and providing a management plan to mitigate the risk. METHODS: For analysis purposes, we simulated data similar to our clinical trial data. We classified the data monitoring process into two groups, such as the Supervised analysis process, to follow each patient remotely by creating a dashboard and an Unsupervised analysis process to identify data discrepancy, data error, or data fraud. We conducted several risk-based statistical analysis techniques to avoid on-site source data verification to reduce time and cost, followed up with each patient remotely to maintain social distancing, and created a centralized data monitoring dashboard to ensure patient safety and maintain the data quality. CONCLUSION: Data monitoring in clinical trials is a mandatory process. A risk-based centralized data review process is cost-effective and helpful to ignore on-site data monitoring at the time of the pandemic. We summarized how different statistical methods could be implemented and explained in SAS to identify various data error or fabrication issues in multicenter clinical trials.

Clozapine treatment: Ensuring ongoing monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The current coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has led mental health systems to uncertainty regarding safe continuation of clozapine monitoring protocols. Clozapine is without doubt the only antipsychotic available with repeatedly proven efficacy in treatment resistant schizophrenia.1 Replacing clozapine with an alternative antipsychotic in patients stabilized with clozapine can potentially lead to higher risk of relapse or exacerbation of severity of illness.1 Clozapine, as already known, has a number of side effects, some of which can be serious, thus patients receiving clozapine require ongoing scheduled monitoring. Side effects of clozapine include neutropenia or agranulocytosis, myocarditis, fever, hypersalivation, weight gain and constipation. These side effects can be detected and treated when recognized on time decreasing the possibility of serious consequences making the implementation of an ongoing treatment monitoring protocol for patients on clozapine mandatory.2 Since it was advised for all mental health providers in most countries worldwide to limit non-urgent hospital visits and procedures to reduce the risk of contamination a challenge arose for patients' ability to access health care facilities for their routine clozapine monitoring. Nevertheless, the majority of Mental Health Care Authorities decided to ensure access for all patients on clozapine to their routine monitoring protocol.3,4 To date, no data exist on any potential relationship between antipsychotic use and the risk of contamination with SARS-CoV-2 or the development of severe symptoms of the infection. The literature suggests that patients receiving antipsychotics, especially clozapine, have an increased risk of developing pneumonia, leading to the assumption that patients receiving clozapine are at higher risk to develop COVID-19. 1 Balancing the importance of monitoring continuation against the increased risk for COVID-19, an International Consensus Statement was recently published addressing a monitoring protocol with reduced visits. The Consensus suggested reduced hematologic monitoring frequency of every 3 months with a prescription of 90 days clozapine supply (if safe). The above applies to patients receiving clozapine for at least one year without neutropenia. Τhe risk of neutropenia after 12 months of clozapine treatment falls significantly.4 Based on the above it is suggested to all clozapine clinics to implement a guidance monitoring protocol for all patients on clozapine to ensure safety during the pandemic. Besides hematological monitoring that requires physical contact with healthcare workers it is significant to implement a telemedicine appointment in frequent intervals to monitor symptoms of infection, symptoms of cardiovascular diseases and constipation. Patient should also be advised to regularly monitor one's blood pressure and pulses and ideally be educated on how by a member of the staff. If a patient is detected with any symptoms related to the above an emergency appointment for evaluation should be planned. Overall, since both the consequences and the duration of the pandemic are unknown, mental health services must work jointly to implement a clozapine monitoring plan to ensure safe continuation in such a vulnerable population.

Propuesta para la valoración de la gestión de riesgos de la COVID-19 con enfoque difuso / Proposal for valuation of the risk management of the COVID-19 with a diffuse

Introducción: el enfrentamiento a la COVID-19 impone importantes retos a los profesionales de la salud relacionados con los cuidados de la salud de la población y con la prevención y control de infecciones en la comunidad y en las instituciones de salud. Uno de los mayores retos a los que se enfrentan los hospitales es gestionar los riesgos sin que ello suponga un deterioro de la calidad percibida por el paciente y personal sanitario. Objetivo: diseñar un modelo para la gestión de riesgos epidemiológicos relacionado con la COVID-19 en consejos y unidades de salud. Métodos: se utilizó la Lógica Difusa Compensatoria como método pertinente de la modelación matemática en procesos complejos. Resultados: se tiene un modelo de decisión para la valoración de la gestión de riesgos relacionado con la COVID-19, integrado al sistema de control interno hospitalario. Conclusiones: se demostró la pertinencia de la gestión de riesgos como alternativa para exterminar la pandemia causada por el nuevo Coronavirus SARS CoV-2. Se confirma la pertinencia de la lógica difusa compensatoria para la toma de decisiones en proceso complejos. Se integró la gestión de riesgos de la COVID-19 al sistema de control interno hospitalario, permitiendo tomar estrategias para la mejora de las entidades de la salud(AU)

Introduction: the confrontation with COVID-19 imposes important challenges on health professionals related to the health care of the population and to the prevention and control of infections in the community and in health institutions. One of the biggest challenges that hospitals face is managing their risk more efficiently without this deteriorating the quality perceived by the patient and healthcare personnel. Objective: assessing the management of epidemiological risk related to COVID-19 in healt councils and units. Methods: compensatory fuzzy logic was used as a pertinent method of mathematical modeling in complex processes. Results: there is a decision model for the assessment of risk management related to COVID-19, integrated into the hospital internal control system. Conclusions: the relevance of risk management as an alternative to exterminate the pandemic caused by the new coronavirus SARS CoV-2 was demonstrated. The pertinence of diffuse compensatory logic for decision making in complex processes is confirmed. The risk management of de covid was integrated into the hospital internal control system, allowing the desing of strategies for the improvement of health entities(EU)

Improving Health Risk Assessment as a Basis for Public Health Decisions in the 21st Century.

One-fifth of the way through the 21st century, a commonality of factors with those of the last 50 years may offer the opportunity to address unfinished business and current challenges. The recommendations include: (1) Resisting the tendency to oversimplify scientific assessments by reliance on single disciplines in lieu of clear weight-of-evidence expressions, and on single quantitative point estimates of health protective values for policy decisions; (2) Improving the separation of science and judgment in risk assessment through the use of clear expressions of the range of judgments that bracket protective quantitative levels for public health protection; (3) Use of comparative risk to achieve the greatest gains in health and the environment; and (4) Where applicable, reversal of the risk assessment and risk management steps to facilitate timely and substantive improvements in public health and the environment. Lessons learned and improvements in the risk assessment process are applied to the unprecedented challenges of the 21st century such as, pandemics and climate change. The beneficial application of the risk assessment and risk management paradigm to ensure timely research with consistency and transparency of assessments is presented. Institutions with mandated stability and leadership roles at the national and international levels are essential to ensure timely interdisciplinary scientific assessment at the interface with public policy as a basis for organized policy decisions, to meet time sensitive goals, and to inform the public.

A national survey of COVID-19 challenges, responses and effects in Australian general practice.

METHOD: A national cross-sectional online survey of Australian general practitioners was conducted in April and May 2020, with 572 respondents. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic in Australia has resulted in major changes to general practice business models. Most practices have experienced increased workload and reduced income. DISCUSSION: Australian general practices have undertaken major innovation and realignment to respond to staff safety and patient care challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Increased administration, reduced billable time, managing staffing and pivoting to telehealth service provision have negatively affected practice viability. Major sources of information for general practice are primary care-specific, but many practices turn to colleagues for support and resources.

Managing Prostate Cancer Surgical Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Brief Report of the Duke Cancer Institute's Initial Experience.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has rapidly placed tremendous stress on health systems around the world. In response, multiple health systems have postponed elective surgeries in order to conserve hospital beds and personal protective equipment, minimize patient traffic, and prevent unnecessary utilization and exposure of healthcare workers. The American College of Surgeons released the following statement on March 13, 2020: "Each hospital, health system and surgeon should thoughtfully review all scheduled elective procedures with a plan to minimize, postpone, or cancel electively scheduled operations, endoscopes, or other invasive procedures until we have passed the predicted inflection point in the exposure graph and can be confident that our health care infrastructure can support a potentially rapid and overwhelming uptick in critical patient care needs." In our state, North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper requested that all hospitals postpone elective and non-urgent procedures and surgeries effective March 23, 2020.

Mitigating the Twin Threats of Climate-Driven Atlantic Hurricanes and COVID-19 Transmission.

The co-occurrence of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season and the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic creates complex dilemmas for protecting populations from these intersecting threats. Climate change is likely contributing to stronger, wetter, slower-moving, and more dangerous hurricanes. Climate-driven hazards underscore the imperative for timely warning, evacuation, and sheltering of storm-threatened populations - proven life-saving protective measures that gather evacuees together inside durable, enclosed spaces when a hurricane approaches. Meanwhile, the rapid acquisition of scientific knowledge regarding how COVID-19 spreads has guided mass anti-contagion strategies, including lockdowns, sheltering at home, physical distancing, donning personal protective equipment, conscientious handwashing, and hygiene practices. These life-saving strategies, credited with preventing millions of COVID-19 cases, separate and move people apart. Enforcement coupled with fear of contracting COVID-19 have motivated high levels of adherence to these stringent regulations. How will populations react when warned to shelter from an oncoming Atlantic hurricane while COVID-19 is actively circulating in the community? Emergency managers, health care providers, and public health preparedness professionals must create viable solutions to confront these potential scenarios: elevated rates of hurricane-related injury and mortality among persons who refuse to evacuate due to fear of COVID-19, and the resurgence of COVID-19 cases among hurricane evacuees who shelter together.

Improving fatigue risk management in healthcare: A systematic scoping review of sleep-related/fatigue-management interventions for nurses and midwives.

BACKGROUND: Nurses and midwives make up almost 50% of the global healthcare shift working workforce. Shift work interferes with sleep and causes fatigue with adverse effects for nurses' and midwives' health, as well as on patient safety and care. Where other safety-critical sectors have developed Fatigue Risk Management Systems, healthcare is behind the curve; with published literature only focussing on the evaluation of discreet sleep-related/fatigue-management interventions. Little is known, however, about which interventions have been evaluated for nurses and midwives. Our review is a critical first step to building the evidence-base for healthcare organisations seeking to address this important operational issue. OBJECTIVES: We address two questions: (1) what sleep-related/fatigue-management interventions have been assessed in nurses and midwives and what is their evidence-base? and (2) what measures are used by researchers to assess intervention effectiveness? DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched in November, 2018 with no limit on publication dates: MEDLINE, PsychINFO and CINAHL. REVIEW METHODS: We included: (1) studies conducted in adult samples of nurses and/or midwives that had evaluated a sleep-related/fatigue-management intervention; and (2) studies that reported intervention effects on fatigue, sleep, or performance at work, and on measures of attention or cognitive performance (as they relate to the impact of shift working on patient safety/care). RESULTS: The search identified 798 potentially relevant articles, out of which 32 met our inclusion criteria. There were 8619 participants across the included studies and all were nurses (88.6% female). We did not find any studies conducted in midwives nor any studies conducted in the UK, with most studies conducted in the US, Italy and Taiwan. There was heterogeneity both in terms of the interventions evaluated and the measures used to assess effectiveness. Napping could be beneficial but there was wide variation regarding nap duration and timing, and we need to understand more about barriers to implementation. Longer shifts, shift patterns including nights, and inadequate recovery time between shifts (quick returns) were associated with poorer sleep, increased sleepiness and increased levels of fatigue. Light exposure and/or light attenuation interventions showed promise but the literature was dominated by small, potentially unrepresentative samples. CONCLUSIONS: The literature related to sleep-related/fatigue-management interventions for nurses and midwives is fragmented and lacks cohesion. Further empirical work is warranted with a view to developing comprehensive Fatigue Risk Management Systems to protect against fatigue in nurses, midwives, and other shift working healthcare staff.

Safety of patients with mental disorders: a collective construction of strategies.

OBJECTIVE: to describe risk management implementation in the safety of patients with mental disorders through action research. METHOD: an action research carried out with a multidisciplinary team from a reference hospital in mental health in Southeast Brazil. RESULTS: three strategies considered as managerial technologies for the mentally ill patient were developed: risk management diagram for patient safety; patient safety protocols; and textual proposal of software for internal management of incident notifications. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: this action research allowed a collective discussion by the whole multidisciplinary team, enabling strategy drafting for risk management implementation and improvement of care quality in the safety of patients with mental disorders at the study site.

Trends in Health Care-Associated Infection Prevention Practices in US Veterans Affairs Hospitals From 2005 to 2017.

Importance: Health care-associated infection (HAI) is associated with substantial harm. To reduce HAI, the largest integrated health care system in the United States-the Veterans Health Administration-was an early adopter of infection prevention policies and initiatives. Whether these efforts translated into increased use of practices to prevent HAI in Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals is unknown. Objective: To evaluate changes over time in infection prevention practices and the perception of the importance of infection prevention to hospital leadership. Design, Settings, and Participants: For this survey study, every 4 years between 2005 and 2017, infection preventionists were surveyed at all VA hospitals on use of practices associated with common HAIs, including central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and (beginning in 2013) Clostridioides difficile infection. Data analysis was performed from February 1, 2019, to July 1, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported regular use of key infection prevention practices and perceived importance of infection prevention to hospital leadership. Results: Between 2005 and 2017, 320 total surveys were completed with response rates ranging from 59% (73 of 124) in 2017 to 80% (95 of 119) in 2005. Use of 12 different infection prevention practices increased. Since 2013, 92% (69 of 75) to 100% of VA hospitals reported regular use of key infection prevention practices for C difficile infection and CLABSI. In contrast, adoption of many practices to prevent CAUTI, although increasing, have lagged. Despite reported increases in the use of some practices for VAP such as semirecumbent positioning (89% [79 of 89] in 2005 vs 97% [61 of 63] in 2017, P = .007 for trend) and subglottic secretion drainage (23% [19 of 84] in 2005 vs 65% [40 of 62] in 2017, P < .001), use of other key practices such as daily interruptions of sedation (85% [55 of 65] in 2009 vs 87% [54 of 62] in 2017, P = .66) and early mobilization (81% [52 of 64] in 2013 vs 82% [51 of 62] in 2017, P = .88) has not increased. Antibiotic stewardship programs are now reported in nearly every VA hospital (97% [71 of 73]); however, some hospitals report practices for microbiologic testing for HAIs (eg, 22% [16 of 72] report routine urine culture testing in 2017) that could also contribute to antibiotic overuse. Conclusions and Relevance: From 2005 to 2017, reported use of 12 different infection prevention practices increased in VA hospitals. Areas for continued improvement of infection prevention practices appear to include CAUTI, certain VAP practices, and diagnostic stewardship for HAI. The reported adoption of many infection prevention practices in VA hospitals was higher than in non-VA hospitals. As hospitals continue to merge and health systems become increasingly integrated, these successes could help inform patient safety broadly.

Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim of our study is to apply the MORECare classifications on reported attrition rates in trials. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and attrition classifications retrospectively applied. Four databases, EMBASE; Medline, CINHAL and PsychINFO, were searched for randomised controlled trials of palliative care populations from 01.01.2010 to 08.10.2016. This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to randomised controlled trials in palliative care, from January 1990 to early October 2016. We ran random-effect models with and without moderators and descriptive statistics to calculate rates of missing data. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen trials showed a total attrition of 29% (95% CI 28 to 30%). We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to the 91 papers that contained sufficient information. The main reason for attrition was attrition due to death with a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random. We did not observe significant differences in missing data between total attrition in non-cancer patients (26%; 95% CI 18-34%) and cancer patients (24%; 95% CI 20-29%). There was significantly more missing data in outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22-36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10-23%). We noted increased attrition in trials with longer durations. CONCLUSION: Reporting the cause of attrition is useful in helping to understand trial results. Prospective reporting using the MORECare classifications should improve our understanding of future trials.