Reporting and Learning Systems. Patient Safety. Wiley; 2010. pp. 75-95. [DOI: 10.1002/9781444323856.ch5]

Development of a survey to support assessment of safety learning systems

BACKGROUND

Patient safety learning systems play a critical role in supporting safety culture in healthcare organisations. A lack of explicit standards leads to inconsistent implementation across organisations, causing uncertainty about their roles and impact. Organisations can address inconsistent implementation by using a self-assessment tool based on agreed-on best practices. Therefore, we aimed to create a survey instrument to assess an organisation's approach to learning from safety events.

METHODS

The foundation for this work was a recent systematic review that defined features associated with the performance of a safety learning system. We organised features into themes and rephrased them into questions (items). Face validity was checked, which included independent pre-testing to ensure comprehensibility and parsimony. It also included clinical sensibility testing in which a representative sample of leaders in quality at a large teaching hospital (The Ottawa Hospital) answered two questions to judge each item for clarity and necessity. If more than 20% of respondents judged a question unclear or unnecessary, we modified or removed that question accordingly. Finally, we checked the internal consistency of the questionnaire using Cronbach's alpha.

RESULTS

We initially developed a 47-item questionnaire based on a prior systematic review. Pre-testing resulted in the modification of 15 of the questions, 2 were removed and 2 questions were added to ensure comprehensiveness and relevance. Face validity was assessed through yes/no responses, with over 80% of respondents confirming the clarity and 85% the necessity of each question, leading to the retention of all 47 questions. Data collected from the five-point responses (strongly disagree to strongly agree) for each question were used to assess the questionnaire's internal consistency. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.94, indicating a high internal consistency.

CONCLUSION

This self-assessment questionnaire is evidence-based and on preliminary testing is deemed valid, comprehensible and reliable. Future work should assess the range of survey responses in a large sample of respondents from different hospitals.

Management and reporting of safety incidents by residential care facilities in Ireland: A thematic analysis of statutory notifications

The prevention of safety incidents (SI) in health and social care settings is an ongoing undertaking. Limited research has been conducted on SIs outside of acute care. Internationally residential care facilities (RCFs) are typically regulated to promote quality and safeguarding. A part of this regulation is the statutory responsibility of RCFs to notify the regulator about SIs. Notifications include details surrounding SIs and are used to inform the regulatory monitoring approach. The recent development of the Database of Statutory Notifications from Social Care in Ireland facilitates in-depth analysis of notifications which can be used to inform the management of SIs and thus, improve quality and safety. The aim of this study was to analyse narratives provided in statutory notifications for older persons and people with disability, in order to identify current management of SIs, system vulnerabilities and reporting practices. A Qualitative Descriptive approach was taken. A random sample of notifications received in 2018 was drawn and stratified by service-type and notification-type. Data extraction was conducted against priori agreed target areas of management, system vulnerabilities and reporting practices. Inductive thematic analysis was used identifying two parent themes: 'chronology' and 'regulatory input'. 'Chronology' subthemes included 'pre-event', 'immediate response' and 'continued response'. Measures that are resident focused and follow policies and protocols in RCFs to prevent or mitigate the seriousness of SIs were evident in the immediate response and continued response. The actions taken in the immediate and continued response in turn became part of the pre-event of future SIs. Under 'regulatory input' subthemes included 'inaccurate reporting', 'lines of inquiry', 'requests for further information', 'identification of repetitive patterns' and 'satisfactory conclusion'. In conclusion, RCFs manage SIs with short and longer term actions focused on resident wellbeing. These actions in turn become part of the pre-event of future SIs. Regulatory input highlighted regulatory burden.

Human errors and their prevention in healthcare

Human errors form a significant portion of preventable mishaps in healthcare. Even the most competent clinicians are not immune to it. Errors in the perioperative period can often have grave consequences, and hence, perioperative clinicians need to be aware of the impact of human errors and how to minimize them. Errors are broadly classified into two kinds: latent and active errors. While active errors need to be addressed at the individual level, latent errors indicate organizational inadequacies. This review describes common errors in perioperative settings, the impact of such errors on healthcare, and preventive strategies to minimize such errors in daily patient care.

Prioritising recommendations following analyses of adverse events in healthcare: a systematic review

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify an appropriate method—a user-friendly and validated method—that prioritises recommendations following analyses of adverse events (AEs) based on objective features.

Data sources

The electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (Ovid) and ERIC (Ovid) were searched.

Study selection

Studies were considered eligible when reporting on methods to prioritise recommendations.

Data extraction

Two teams of reviewers performed the data extraction which was defined prior to this phase.

Results of data synthesis

Eleven methods were identified that are designed to prioritise recommendations. After completing the data extraction, none of the methods met all the predefined criteria. Nine methods were considered user-friendly. One study validated the developed method. Five methods prioritised recommendations based on objective features, not affected by personal opinion or knowledge and expected to be reproducible by different users.

Conclusion

There are several methods available to prioritise recommendations following analyses of AEs. All these methods can be used to discuss and select recommendations for implementation. None of the methods is a user-friendly and validated method that prioritises recommendations based on objective features. Although there are possibilities to further improve their features, the ‘Typology of safety functions’ by de Dianous and Fiévez, and the ‘Hierarchy of hazard controls’ by McCaughan have the most potential to select high-quality recommendations as they have only a few clearly defined categories in a well-arranged ordinal sequence.

A safety incident reporting system for primary care. A systematic literature review and consensus procedure by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care

Background: Incident reporting is widely used in both patient safety improvement programmes, and in research on patient safety.

Objective: To identify the key requirements for incident reporting systems in primary care; to develop an Internet-based incident reporting and learning system for primary care.

Methods: A literature review looking at the purpose, design and requirements of an incident reporting system (IRS) was used to update an existing incident reporting system, widely used in Germany. Then, an international expert panel with knowledge on IRS developed the criteria for the design of a new web-based incident reporting system for European primary care. A small demonstration project was used to create a web-based reporting system, to be made freely available for practitioners and researchers. The expert group compiled recommendations regarding the desirable features of an incident reporting system for European primary care. These features covered the purpose of reporting, who should be involved in reporting, the mode of reporting, design considerations, feedback mechanisms and preconditions necessary for the implementation of an IRS.

Results: A freely available web-based reporting form was developed, based on these criteria. It can be modified for local contexts. Practitioners and researchers can use this system as a means of recording patient safety incidents in their locality and use it as a basis for learning from errors.

Conclusion: The LINNEAUS collaboration has provided a freely available incident reporting system that can be modified for a local context and used throughout Europe.