Reporting and classification of patient safety events in a cardiothoracic intensive care unit and cardiothoracic postoperative care unit

Examining the impact of an asynchronous communication platform versus existing communication methods: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems revolve around intricate relations between humans and technology. System efficiency depends on information exchange that occur on synchronous and asynchronous platforms. Traditional synchronous methods of communication may pose risks to workflow integrity and contribute to inefficient service delivery and medical care.

AIM

To compare synchronous methods of communication to Medic Bleep, an instant messaging asynchronous platform, and observe its impact on clinical workflow, quality of work life and associations with patient safety outcomes and hospital core operations.

METHODS

Cohorts of healthcare professionals were followed using the Time Motion Study methodology over a 2-week period, using both the asynchronous platform and the synchronous methods like the non-cardiac pager. Questionnaires and interviews were conducted to identify staff attitudes towards both platforms.

RESULTS

A statistically significant figure (p<0.01) of 20.1 minutes' reduction in average task completion was seen with asynchronous communication, saving 58.8% of time when compared with traditional synchronous methods. In subcategory analysis for staff: doctors, nurses and midwifery categories, a p value of <0.0495 and <0.01 were observed; a mean time reduction with statistical significance was also seen in specific task efficiencies of 'To-Take-Out (TTO), patient review, discharge & patient transfer and escalation of care & procedure'. The platform was favoured with an average Likert value of 8.7; 67% found it easy to implement.

CONCLUSION

The asynchronous platform improved clinical communication compared with synchronous methods, contributing to efficiencies in workflow and may positively affect patient care.

Debunking the myth that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication

CONTEXT

Many articles, book chapters and presentations begin with a declaration that the majority of medical errors are attributed to communication. However, this statement may not be supported by the research reported in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify where errors are reported in the research literature.

METHODS

A systematised review was conducted of research articles over the last 20 years (1998-2018) indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) using term combinations: medical errors, research and communication. Inclusion was based on reported generalised primary research of medical error and the reported causes.

RESULTS

This systematised review resulted in 2881 research articles, which produced 42 that met the inclusion criteria. Although there was some overlap, three categories of errors were dominant in this research: errors of commission (20 articles; 47.6%), errors of omission (six articles; 14.2%) and errors through communication (four articles; 9.5%). There were 12 (28.5%) articles in which all three categories together significantly contributed to error. Of these 12 articles, errors of commission or omission were dominant in nine articles (21.4%) and errors of communication were prevalent in only three articles (7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The assertion that the majority of medical errors can be attributed to miscommunication is not supported by this systematic review. Overwhelmingly, most reported errors are attributed to errors of omission or commission. Intentionally or unintentionally providing misinformation may mislead patient safety initiatives, and research and funding agency priorities.

Interventions to improve reporting of medication errors in hospitals: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

In 2017, the World Health Organisation pledged to halve medication errors by 2022. In order to learn from medication errors and prevent their recurrence, it is essential that medication errors are reported when they occur.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies in which interventions were carried out in hospitals to improve medication error reporting, to summarise the findings of these studies, and to make recommendations for future investigations.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Web of Science, and CINAHL) was conducted from inception up to and including December 2018. Studies were included if they described an intervention aiming to increase the reporting of medication errors by healthcare providers in hospitals and excluded if there was no full-text English language version available, or if the reporting rate in the hospital prior to the intervention was not available. Data extracted from included studies were described using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Of 12,025 identified studies, seventeen were included in this review - fifteen uncontrolled before versus after studies, one survey and one non-equivalent group controlled trial. Five studies carried out a single intervention and twelve studies conducted multifaceted interventions. The most common intervention types were critical incident reporting, implemented in fifteen studies, and audit and feedback, implemented in seven studies. Other intervention types included educational materials, educational meetings, and role expansion and task shifting. As only one study compared a control and intervention group, the effectiveness of the different intervention types could not be evaluated.

CONCLUSION

This is the first review to address the evidence on medication error reporting in hospitals on a global scale. The review has identified interventions to improve medication error reporting that were implemented without evidence of their effectiveness. Due to the essential role played by incident reporting in learning from and preventing the recurrence of medication errors more research needs to be done in this area.

Improving patient safety through the involvement of patients: development and evaluation of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing patient safety incidents and protecting them against unintended harm

Background

Estimates suggest that, in NHS hospitals, incidents causing harm to patients occur in 10% of admissions, with costs to the NHS of > £2B. About one-third of harmful events are believed to be preventable. Strategies to reduce patient safety incidents (PSIs) have mostly focused on changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with the role that patients can play in enhancing the safety of care being relatively unexplored. However, although the role and effectiveness of patient involvement in safety initiatives is unclear, previous work has identified a general willingness among patients to contribute to initiatives to improve health-care safety.

Aim

Our aim in this programme was to design, develop and evaluate four innovative approaches to engage patients in preventing PSIs: assessing risk, reporting incidents, direct engagement in preventing harm and education and training.

Methods and results

We developed tools to report PSIs [patient incident reporting tool (PIRT)] and provide feedback on factors that might contribute to PSIs in the future [Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS)]. These were combined into a single instrument and evaluated in the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention using a randomised design. Although take-up of the intervention by, and retention of, participating hospital wards was 100% and patient participation was high at 86%, compliance with the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. We found no significant effect of the intervention on outcomes at 6 or 12 months. The ThinkSAFE project involved the development and evaluation of an intervention to support patients to directly engage with health-care staff to enhance their safety through strategies such as checking their care and speaking up to staff if they had any concerns. The piloting of ThinkSAFE showed that the approach is feasible and acceptable to users and may have the potential to improve patient safety. We also developed a patient safety training programme for junior doctors based on patients who had experienced PSIs recounting their own stories. This approach was compared with traditional methods of patient safety teaching in a randomised controlled trial. The study showed that delivering patient safety training based on patient narratives is feasible and had an effect on emotional engagement and learning about communication. However, there was no effect on changing general attitudes to safety compared with the control.

Conclusion

This research programme has developed a number of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing PSIs and protecting them against unintended harm. In our evaluations of these interventions we have been unable to demonstrate any improvement in patient safety although this conclusion comes with a number of caveats, mainly about the difficulty of measuring patient safety outcomes. Reflecting this difficulty, one of our recommendations for future research is to develop reliable and valid measures to help efficiently evaluate safety improvement interventions. The programme found patients to be willing to codesign, coproduce and participate in initiatives to prevent PSIs and the approaches used were feasible and acceptable. These factors together with recent calls to strengthen the patient voice in health care could suggest that the tools and interventions from this programme would benefit from further development and evaluation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07689702.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

An analysis of near misses identified by anesthesia providers in the intensive care unit

Background

Learning from adverse events and near misses may reduce the incidence of preventable errors. Current literature on adverse events and near misses in the ICU focuses on errors reported by nurses and intensivists. ICU near misses identified by anesthesia providers may reveal critical events, causal mechanisms and system weaknesses not identified by other providers, and may differ in character and causality from near misses in other anesthesia locations.

Methods

We analyzed events reported to our anesthesia near miss reporting system from 2009 to 2011. We compared causative mechanisms of ICU near misses with near misses in other anesthesia locations.

Results

A total of 1,811 near misses were reported, of which 22 (1.2 %) originated in the ICU. Five causal mechanisms explained over half of ICU near misses. Compared to near misses from other locations, near misses from the ICU were more likely to occur while on call (45 % vs. 19 %, p = 0.001), and were more likely to be associated with airway management (50 % vs. 12 %, p < 0.001). ICU near misses were less likely to be associated with equipment issues (23 % vs. 48 %, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

A limited number of causal mechanisms explained the majority of ICU near misses, providing targets for quality improvement. Errors associated with airway management in the ICU may be underappreciated. Specialist consultants can identify systems weaknesses not identified by critical care providers, and should be engaged in the ICU patient safety movement.

A review of the use of human factors classification frameworks that identify causal factors for adverse events in the hospital setting

Various human factors classification frameworks have been used to identified causal factors for clinical adverse events. A systematic review was conducted to identify human factors classification frameworks that identified the causal factors (including human error) of adverse events in a hospital setting. Six electronic databases were searched, identifying 1997 articles and 38 of these met inclusion criteria. Most studies included causal contributing factors as well as error and error type, but the nature of coding varied considerably between studies. The ability of human factors classification frameworks to provide information on specific causal factors for an adverse event enables the focus of preventive attention on areas where improvements are most needed. This review highlighted some areas needing considerable improvement in order to meet this need, including better definition of terms, more emphasis on assessing reliability of coding and greater sophistication in analysis of results of the classification. Practitioner Summary: Human factors classification frameworks can be used to identify causal factors of clinical adverse events. However, this review suggests that existing frameworks are diverse, limited in their identification of the context of human error and have poor reliability when used by different individuals.

Human Factors in Critical Care Medical Environments

The purpose of this chapter on human factors in critical care medical environments is to provide a systematic review of the human factors and ergonomics contributions that led to significant improvements in patient safety over the last five decades. The review will focus on issues that contributed to patient injury and fatalities and how human factors and ergonomics can improve performance of providers in critical care. Given the complexity of critical care delivery, a review needs to cover a wide range of subjects. In this review, I take a sociotechnical systems perspective on critical care and discuss the people, their technical and nontechnical skills, the importance of teamwork, technology, and ergonomics in this complex environment. After a description of the importance of a safety climate, the chapter will conclude with a summary on how human factors and ergonomics can improve quality in critical care delivery.

Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to develop a 'contributory factors framework' from a synthesis of empirical work which summarises factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods systematic review of the literature was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Medline, PsycInfo, ISI Web of knowledge, CINAHL and EMBASE), article reference lists, patient safety websites, registered study databases and author contacts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included that reported data from primary research in secondary care aiming to identify the contributory factors to error or threats to patient safety.

RESULTS

1502 potential articles were identified. 95 papers (representing 83 studies) which met the inclusion criteria were included, and 1676 contributory factors extracted. Initial coding of contributory factors by two independent reviewers resulted in 20 domains (eg, team factors, supervision and leadership). Each contributory factor was then coded by two reviewers to one of these 20 domains. The majority of studies identified active failures (errors and violations) as factors contributing to patient safety incidents. Individual factors, communication, and equipment and supplies were the other most frequently reported factors within the existing evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has culminated in an empirically based framework of the factors contributing to patient safety incidents. This framework has the potential to be applied across hospital settings to improve the identification and prevention of factors that cause harm to patients.

2010 Survey on cell phone use while performing cardiopulmonary bypass

Cell phone use in the U.S. has increased dramatically over the past decade and text messaging among adults is now mainstream. In professions such as perfusion, where clinical vigilance is essential to patient care, the potential distraction of cell phones may be especially problematic. However, the extent of this as an issue is currently unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) determine the frequency of cell phone use in the perfusion community, and (2) to identify concerns and opinions among perfusionists regarding cell phone use. In October 2010, a link to a 19-question survey (surveymonkey.com) was posted on the AmSECT (PerfList) and Perfusion.com (PerfMail) forums. There were 439 respondents. Demographic distribution is as follows; Chief Perfusionist (30.5%), Staff Perfusionist (62.0%), and Other (7.5%), with age ranges of 20-30 years (14.2%), 30-40 years (26.5%), 40-50 years (26.7%), 50-60 years (26.7%), >60 years (5.9%). The use of a cell phone during the performance of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was reported by 55.6% of perfusionists. Sending text messages while performing CPB was acknowledged by 49.2%, with clear generational differences detected when cross-referenced with age groups. For smart phone features, perfusionists report having accessed e-mail (21%), used the internet (15.1%), or have checked/posted on social networking sites (3.1%) while performing CPB. Safety concerns were expressed by 78.3% who believe that cell phones can introduce a potentially significant safety risk to patients. Speaking on a cell phone and text messaging during CPB are regarded as "always an unsafe practice" by 42.3% and 51.7% of respondents, respectively. Personal distraction by cell phone use that negatively affected performance was admitted by 7.3%, whereas witnessing another perfusionist distracted with phone/text while on CPB was acknowledged by 33.7% of respondents. This survey suggests that the majority of perfusionists believe cell phones raise significant safety issues while operating the heart-lung machine. However, the majority also have used a cell phone while performing this activity. There are clear generational differences in opinions on the role and/or appropriateness of cell phones during bypass. There is a need to further study this issue and, perhaps, to establish consensus on the use of various communication modes within the perfusion community.

The use of wireless e-mail to improve healthcare team communication

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of using wireless e-mail for clinical communication in an intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN

The authors implemented push wireless e-mail over a GSM cellular network in a 26-bed ICU during a 6-month study period. Daytime ICU staff (intensivists, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, clerical staff, and ICU leadership) used handheld devices (BlackBerry, Research in Motion, Waterloo, ON) without dedicated training. The authors recorded e-mail volume and used standard methods to develop a self-administered survey of ICU staff to measure wireless e-mail impact.

MEASUREMENTS

The survey assessed perceived impact of wireless e-mail on communication, team relationships, staff satisfaction and patient care. Answers were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale; favorable responses were categorized as Likert responses 5, 6, and 7.

RESULTS

Staff sent 5.2 (1.9) and received 8.9 (2.1) messages (mean [SD]) per day during 5 months of the 6-month study period; usage decreased after study completion. Most (106/125 [85%]) staff completed the questionnaire. The majority reported that wireless e-mail improved speed (92%) and reliability (92%) of communication, improved coordination of ICU team members (88%), reduced staff frustration (75%), and resulted in faster (90%) and safer (75%) patient care; Likert responses were significantly different from neutral (p < 0.001 for all). Staff infrequently (18%) reported negative effects on communication. There were no reports of radiofrequency interference with medical devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Interdisciplinary ICU staff perceived wireless e-mail to improve communication, team relationships, staff satisfaction, and patient care. Further research should address the impact of wireless e-mail on efficiency and timeliness of staff workflow and clinical outcomes.

[Implementation of a form for adverse effect notification: results for the 1st year]

OBJECTIVES

To describe the introduction of an incident monitoring system by electronic reporting in the Complejo Hospitalario de Toledo (CHT) and to analyse the initial results.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

CHT is a public hospital with 750 beds, 59 for critical patients, an ambulatory surgery unit and three outpatient clinics. Access to the electronic reporting system is on the main screen of the hospital intranet. The reporting system is voluntary and confidential. It was introduced at the same time as setting up website on clinical safety and the provision of specific training on the subject.

RESULTS

A total of 62 reports were received on the electronic system over a period of 12 months (December 2006 to December 2007), of which 74.5% were reported by nursing staff. The service from where it was reported most often was Geriatrics (43.1%). Most of the incidents were classified by the notifiers themselves as "no injury" (64.7%) and as "avoidable" 92.2%. A total of 56.9% were related to care. Some reports led to the issuing of three documents of recommendations by the Quality Unit and the Pharmacy Department.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the notifications were incidents related to care and were reported by nurses. The reporting system can complement other tools in promoting a clinical safety culture and defining the risk profile of a health organisation.

Factors associated with reporting of medication errors by Israeli nurses

This study investigated medication error reporting among Israeli nurses, the relationship between nurses' personal views about error reporting, and the impact of the safety culture of the ward and hospital on this reporting. Nurses (n = 201) completed a questionnaire related to different aspects of error reporting (frequency, organizational norms of dealing with errors, and personal views on reporting). The higher the error frequency, the more errors went unreported. If the ward nurse manager corrected errors on the ward, error self-reporting decreased significantly. Ward nurse managers have to provide good role models.

A novel error-reporting tool in pediatric intensive care

Patient safety is a critical component of the U.S. healthcare system: thousands of people, including children, die or are injured yearly as a result of medical error. We designed and implemented a novel error-reporting tool for the pediatric intensive care unit. More errors were reported with the use of this paper-based tool than with the existing computerized error-reporting system. We also developed a scoring system to assess potential harm to the patient. The tool provided information about frequent and high-risk errors that guided successful improvements in patient care and safety and the achievement of measurable success.

Design and implementation of an ICU incident registry

Due to its complexity intensive care is vulnerable to errors. On the ICU adults of the AMC (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) the available registries used for error reporting did not give insight in the occurrence of unwanted events, and did not lead to preventive measures. Therefore, a new registry has been developed on the basis of a literature study on the various terms and definitions that refer to unintended events, and on the methods to register and monitor them. As this registry intends to provide an overall insight into errors, a neutral term ('incident') -- which does not imply guilt or blame -- has been sought together with a broad definition. The attributes of an incident further describe the unwanted event, but they should not form an impediment for the ICU nurses and physicians to report. The properties of a registry that contribute to making it accessible and user friendly have been determined. This has resulted in an electronic registry where incidents can be reported rapidly, voluntarily, anonymously and free of legal consequences. Evaluation is required to see if the new registry indeed provides the ICU management with the intended information on the current situation on incidents. For further refinement of the design, additional development and adjustments are required. However, we expect that the awareness of errors of the ICU personnel has already improved, forming the first step to increased patient safety.

Getting doctors to report medical errors: project DISCLOSE

BACKGROUND

Despite the number of patient safety incidents that occur in hospitals, physicians currently may not have the ideal incident reporting tools for easy disclosure. A study was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of a simplified paper incident reporting process for internal medicine physicians on uncovering patient safety incidents.

DESIGN

Thirty-nine internal medicine attending physicians were instructed to incorporate the use of a simplified paper incident reporting tool (DISCLOSE) into daily patient rounds during a three-month period. All physicians were surveyed at the conclusion of the three months.

RESULTS

Compared with physician reporting via the hospital's traditional incident reports from the same time period, a higher number (98 incidents versus 37; a 2.6-fold increase) of incidents were uncovered using the DISCLOSE reporting tool in a larger number of error categories (58 versus 14, a 4.1-fold increase). When reviewed and classified with a five-point harm scale, 41% of events were judged to have reached patients but not caused harm, 33% to have resulted in temporary harm, and 9% of reports, though not considered events, were to indicate a "risky situation." Surveyed physicians were more satisfied with the process of submitting incident reports using the new DISCLOSE tool.

DISCUSSION

A simplified incident reporting process at the point of care generated a larger number and breadth of physician disclosed error categories, and increased physician satisfaction with the process.