Patient safety in dermatologic surgery

Implementing patient safety and quality improvement in dermatology. Part 1: Patient safety science

Patient safety (PS) and quality improvement (QI) have gained momentum over the last decade and are becoming more integrated into medical training, physician reimbursement, maintenance of certification, and practice improvement initiatives. While PS and QI are often lumped together, they differ in that PS is focused on preventing adverse events while QI is focused on continuous improvements to improve outcomes. The pillars of health care as defined by the 1999 Institute of Medicine report "To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System" are safety, timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and patient-centered care. Implementing a safety culture is dependent on all levels of the health care system. Part 1 of this CME will provide dermatologists with an overview of how PS fits into our current health care system and will include a focus on basic QI/PS terminology, principles, and processes. This article also outlines systems for the reporting of medical errors and sentinel events and the steps involved in a root cause analysis.

The role of surface-guided radiation therapy for improving patient safety

Emerging data indicates SGRT could improve safety and quality by preventing errors in its capacity as an independent system in the treatment room. The aim of this work is to investigate the utility of SGRT in the context of safety and quality. Three incident learning systems (ILS) were reviewed to categorize and quantify errors that could have been prevented with SGRT: SAFRON (International Atomic Energy Agency), UW-ILS (University of Washington) and AvIC (Skåne University Hospital). A total of 849/9737 events occurred during the pre-treatment review/verification and treatment stages. Of these, 179 (21%) events were predicted to have been preventable with SGRT. The most common preventable events were wrong isocentre (43%) and incorrect accessories (34%), which appeared at comparable rates among SAFRON and UW-ILS. The proportion of events due to wrong accessories was much smaller in the AvIC ILS, which may be attributable to the mandatory use of SGRT in Sweden. Several case scenarios are presented to demonstrate that SGRT operates as a valuable complement to other quality-improvement tools routinely used in radiotherapy. Cases are noted in which SGRT itself caused incidents. These were mostly related to workflow issues and were of low severity. Severity data indicated that events with the potential to be mitigated by SGRT were of higher severity for all categories except wrong accessories. Improved vendor integration of SGRT systems within the overall workflow could further enhance its clinical utility. SGRT is a valuable tool with the potential to increase patient safety and treatment quality in radiotherapy.

Human surface anatomy terminology for dermatology: a Delphi consensus from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration

BACKGROUND

There is no internationally vetted set of anatomic terms to describe human surface anatomy.

OBJECTIVE

To establish expert consensus on a standardized set of terms that describe clinically relevant human surface anatomy.

METHODS

We conducted a Delphi consensus on surface anatomy terminology between July 2017 and July 2019. The initial survey included 385 anatomic terms, organized in seven levels of hierarchy. If agreement exceeded the 75% established threshold, the term was considered 'accepted' and included in the final list. Terms added by the participants were passed on to the next round of consensus. Terms with <75% agreement were included in subsequent surveys along with alternative terms proposed by participants until agreement was reached on all terms.

RESULTS

The Delphi included 21 participants. We found consensus (≥75% agreement) on 361/385 (93.8%) terms and eliminated one term in the first round. Of 49 new terms suggested by participants, 45 were added via consensus. To adjust for a recently published International Classification of Diseases-Surface Topography list of terms, a third survey including 111 discrepant terms was sent to participants. Finally, a total of 513 terms reached agreement via the Delphi method.

CONCLUSIONS

We have established a set of 513 clinically relevant terms for denoting human surface anatomy, towards the use of standardized terminology in dermatologic documentation.

Pacemakers, Deep Brain Stimulators, Cochlear Implants, and Nerve Stimulators: A Review of Common Devices Encountered in the Dermatologic Surgery Patient

BACKGROUND

In dermatologic and procedural surgery settings, there are commonly encountered devices in patients. Safe surgical planning requires familiarity with these devices.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current implanted devices in patients and recommendations for surgical planning around these devices.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A comprehensive review using PubMed and published device recommendations was performed, searching for those most relevant to dermatologic surgery.

RESULTS

Devices such as pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators, deep brain stimulators, cochlear implants, and various nerve stimulators are potential devices that may be encountered in patients and specific recommendations exist for each of these devices.

CONCLUSION

Dermatologic surgeons' knowledge of implanted devices in patients is paramout to safe surgical procedures.

Medical Malpractice Issues in Dermatology: Clinical Safety and the Dermatologist

Clinical safety and medical liability are first-order concerns in today's medical practice. It is important to understand the circumstances under which medical acts fail to live up to the accepted standard of care and to recognize the impact that malpractice claims have on physicians. Practitioners must also grasp the concept of medical error, studying malpractice claims in order to identify the areas where improvement is needed. The risk of accusations of malpractice in dermatology is comparatively low, both in Spain and worldwide. However, a great variety of clinical scenarios in dermatology can potentially give rise to a claim, and malignant melanoma is most susceptible to risk. Dermatologists should know which actions during clinical consultation merit particular attention and care. Clinical practice carries inherent risk of malpractice claims, but taking certain recommended precautions can prevent them.

The Delivery Rates of Pathology Test Results to Patients: A Single-Center Experience in a Secondary Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Delivery of pathology reports to the patient is a key step in the biopsy pathway, which is important for patient safety in dermatology. Automated systems for facilitating such medical process began in 2010 in our hospital, sending short message service to scheduled patients.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the delivery of pathology reports to patients and investigate factors that influence this process and annual trends.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all outpatients (n=2,452) who underwent skin biopsy at our department of dermatology in 2009 and 2014. In each year group, we analyzed the proportion of revisiting patients in terms of year, sex, age, season, biopsy method and diagnosis.

RESULTS

In 2009, a smaller proportion of patients (205; 91.5%) who had undergone shave or excisional biopsy than of those who had undergone punch biopsy returned (781; 98.0%; p<0.001). This trend was not significant in 2014. Whereas there was no significant difference of return visit ratio between men and women in 2009, a higher proportion of women (754; 98.0%) than men (633; 95.6%) re-visited after skin biopsy to confirm their diagnosis in 2014 (p=0.008). Three patients with either a malignant tumor or suspected malignant lesion that required complete excision did not return to our clinic.

CONCLUSION

Pathology report delivery rates were fairly satisfactory, regardless of year, age, season, and diagnosis. Sex and biopsy method influenced the return visit ratio. More organized follow-up protocols are required to strengthen patient safety and prevent critical patient drop-out.

Addressing Practice Gaps in Cutaneous Surgery: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment

Importance

Cutaneous surgery is performed by otolaryngologists, plastic surgeons, oculoplastic surgeons, dermatologic surgeons, and some primary care physicians. Practice gaps exist among cutaneous surgeons, as do differences in how different physicians approach preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative decision-making.

Objective

To present the newest and best evidence to close common practice gaps in cutaneous surgery.

Evidence Review

We performed a detailed search of peer-reviewed publications that were identified through a search of PubMed/MEDLINE (January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2016) using the literature search terms "cutaneous surgery," "Mohs micrographic surgery," "plastic surgery," in combination with "safety," "cost," "anesthesia," "anti-coagulation," "bleeding," "pain," "analgesia," "anxiety," or "infection," among others. Bibliographies from these references, as well as meta-analyses, were also reviewed.

Findings

A total of 73 peer-reviewed studies, including randomized clinical trials, were selected to support the conclusions of the article. Levels of evidence were analyzed for selected studies using recommendations from the American Association of Plastic Surgeons based on guidelines from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Large cutaneous surgical resections can be done effectively and safely, taking steps to assure patient comfort under local anesthesia. Medically necessary anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication should be continued during cutaneous surgery. In preparation for surgery, patient anxiety and pain must be addressed. Music and anxiolytics limit anxiety, prevent cardiovascular compromise, and improve patient satisfaction. Cutaneous surgeons and support staff should carefully consider the dose and injection angle of local anesthetic. Postoperative opioids and topical antibiotics might cause harm to patients and should be avoided. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen provide adequate pain control with fewer adverse effects than opioid medications.

Conclusions and Relevance

Clinicians performing cutaneous surgery should understand the importance of patient safety and comfort, as guided by recent evidence.