The Contribution of Sociotechnical Factors to Health Information Technology-Related Sentinel Events.

BACKGROUND: An understanding of how health information technology (health IT) can contribute to sentinel events is necessary to learn how to safely implement and use health IT. An analysis was conducted to explore how health IT may contribute to adverse events that result in death or severe harm to the patient. METHODS: For 3,375 de-identified sentinel events voluntarily reported to The Joint Commission between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2013, categorical and keyword queries were used to search for potential health IT-related events. Each of the identified events was reviewed on the basis of findings from root cause analyses (RCAs) to determine if health IT contributed to or caused the event, and if so, how and why. The contributing factors were classified using a composite of existing classification schemes. RESULTS: A total of 120 health IT-related sentinel events (affecting 125 patients) were identified. More than half resulted in patient death, 30% resulted in unexpected or additional care, and 11% resulted in permanent loss of function. The three most frequently identified event types were (1) medication errors, (2) wrong-site surgery (including the wrong side, wrong procedure, and wrong patient), and (3) delays in treatment. Contributing factors were most frequently associated with the human-computer interface, workflow and communication, and clinical content-related issues. CONCLUSIONS: The classification of health IT-related contributing factors indicates that health IT-related events are primarily associated with the sociotechnical dimensions of human-computer interface, workflow and communication, and clinical content. Improved identification of health IT-related contributing factors in the context of the sociotechnical dimensions may help software developers, device manufacturers, and end users in health care organizations proactively identify vulnerabilities and hazards, ultimately reducing the risk of harm to patients.

Association of a bundled intervention with surgical site infections among patients undergoing cardiac, hip, or knee surgery.

IMPORTANCE: Previous studies suggested that a bundled intervention was associated with lower rates of Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infections (SSIs) among patients having cardiac or orthopedic operations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the implementation of an evidence-based bundle is associated with a lower risk of S. aureus SSIs in patients undergoing cardiac operations or hip or knee arthroplasties. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty hospitals in 9 US states participated in this pragmatic study; rates of SSIs were collected for a median of 39 months (range, 39-43) during the preintervention period (March 1, 2009, to intervention) and a median of 21 months (range, 14-22) during the intervention period (from intervention start through March 31, 2014). INTERVENTIONS: Patients whose preoperative nares screens were positive for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) were asked to apply mupirocin intranasally twice daily for up to 5 days and to bathe daily with chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) for up to 5 days before their operations. MRSA carriers received vancomycin and cefazolin or cefuroxime for perioperative prophylaxis; all others received cefazolin or cefuroxime. Patients who were MRSA-negative and MSSA-negative bathed with CHG the night before and morning of their operations. Patients were treated as MRSA-positive if screening results were unknown. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was complex (deep incisional or organ space) S. aureus SSIs. Monthly SSI counts were analyzed using Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: After a 3-month phase-in period, bundle adherence was 83% (39% full adherence; 44% partial adherence). Overall, 101 complex S. aureus SSIs occurred after 28,218 operations during the preintervention period and 29 occurred after 14,316 operations during the intervention period (mean rate per 10,000 operations, 36 for preintervention period vs 21 for intervention period, difference, -15 [95% CI, -35 to -2]; rate ratio [RR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.92]). The rates of complex S. aureus SSIs decreased for hip or knee arthroplasties (difference per 10,000 operations, -17 [95% CI, -39 to 0]; RR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.80]) and for cardiac operations (difference per 10,000 operations, -6 [95% CI, -48 to 8]; RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.57]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this multicenter study, a bundle comprising S. aureus screening, decolonization, and targeted prophylaxis was associated with a modest, statistically significant decrease in complex S. aureus SSIs.

The perceived impact of public reporting hospital performance data: interviews with hospital staff.

OBJECTIVE: To assess perceptions about the value and impact of publicly reporting hospital performance measure data. DESIGN: Qualitative research. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Administrators, physicians, nurses and other front-line staff from 29 randomly selected Joint Commission-accredited hospitals reporting core performance measure data. METHODS: Structured focus-group interviews were conducted to gather hospital staff perceptions of the perceived impact of publicly reporting performance measure data. RESULTS: Interviews revealed six common themes. Publicly reporting data: (i) led to increased involvement of leadership in performance improvement; (ii) created a sense of accountability to both internal and external customers; (iii) contributed to a heightened awareness of performance measure data throughout the hospital; (iv) influenced or re-focused organizational priorities; (v) raised concerns about data quality and (vi) led to questions about consumer understanding of performance reports. Few differences were noted in responses based on hospitals' performance on the measures. CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting of performance measure data appears to motivate and energize organizations to improve or maintain high levels of performance. Despite commonly cited concerns over the limitations, validity and interpretability of publicly reported data, the heightened awareness of the data intensified the focus on performance improvement activities. As the healthcare industry has moved toward greater transparency and accountability, healthcare professionals have responded by re-prioritizing hospital quality improvement efforts to address newly exposed gaps in care.

Effectiveness of a bundled intervention of decolonization and prophylaxis to decrease Gram positive surgical site infections after cardiac or orthopedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate studies assessing the effectiveness of a bundle of nasal decolonization and glycopeptide prophylaxis for preventing surgical site infections caused by Gram positive bacteria among patients undergoing cardiac operations or total joint replacement procedures. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (1995 to 2011), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, CINAHL, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched to identify relevant studies. Pertinent journals and conference abstracts were hand searched. Study authors were contacted if more data were needed. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies that assessed nasal decolonization or glycopeptide prophylaxis, or both, for preventing Gram positive surgical site infections compared with standard care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing cardiac operations or total joint replacement procedures. DATA EXTRACTION AND STUDY APPRAISAL: Two authors independently extracted data from each paper and a random effects model was used to obtain summary estimates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black or the Cochrane scales. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q and I(2) statistics. RESULTS: 39 studies were included. Pooled effects of 17 studies showed that nasal decolonization had a significantly protective effect against surgical site infections associated with Staphylococcus aureus (pooled relative risk 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.50) when all patients underwent decolonization (0.40, 0.29 to 0.55) and when only S aureus carriers underwent decolonization (0.36, 0.22 to 0.57). Pooled effects of 15 prophylaxis studies showed that glycopeptide prophylaxis was significantly protective against surgical site infections related to methicillin (meticillin) resistant S aureus (MRSA) compared with prophylaxis using ß lactam antibiotics (0.40, 0.20 to 0.80), and a non-significant risk factor for methicillin susceptible S aureus infections (1.47, 0.91 to 2.38). Seven studies assessed a bundle including decolonization and glycopeptide prophylaxis for only patients colonized with MRSA and found a significantly protective effect against surgical site infections with Gram positive bacteria (0.41, 0.30 to 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical programs that implement a bundled intervention including both nasal decolonization and glycopeptide prophylaxis for MRSA carriers may decrease rates of surgical site infections caused by S aureus or other Gram positive bacteria.