Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Patient Safety Incident Reporting in Intensive Care Units

OBJECTIVES

Patient safety incident reporting in our institution's intensive care units (ICUs) had fallen 30% below national benchmarks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Underreporting diminishes awareness of risks and precludes organizational learning from near misses. We aimed to increase the ICU number of patient safety incident reports by 30% from 27 to 35 reports/1000 patient-days without negatively impacting culture of safety as measured by patient-care staff surveys.

METHODS

Single-institution prospective interventional study with 9 ICUs receiving a multifaceted intervention developed using quality improvement methodology during February-April 2022. Study intervention involved creation of patient safety peer-leadership role, feedback process, interactive dashboards for patient safety data, and education resources accessible via quick response codes. Primary outcome was patient safety incident reports/1000 patient-days. Intensive care unit patient-care staff culture of safety was assessed with surveys.

RESULTS

Intensive care unit patient safety incident reporting increased by 48% after intervention (40 versus 27 reports/1000 patient-days [ P = 0.136]). Near misses were the most common incident report. Intensive care unit patient-care staff ratings of patient safety did not change; 80% rated patient safety as good or better after intervention versus 78% at baseline ( P = 0.465). However, significant improvement was observed for subcomponents related to learning culture and support for staff involved in patient safety incidents. Most reports (>80%) were submitted by nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

This multifaceted quality improvement intervention increased patient safety incident reporting in the ICUs. Increases in ratings of learning culture and support for staff underline the importance of a well-functioning patient safety incident reporting system in an institutional culture of safety.

Professional attitudes toward incident reporting: can we measure and compare improvements in patient safety culture?

Objective

To establish categories of professionals' attitudes toward incident reporting by analyzing the trends in incident reporting while accounting for general risk indicators.

Design

The incident reporting system was evaluated over 6 years. Reporting rates, stratified by year and profession, were estimated using the non-mandatory reported events/full-time equivalent (NM-IR/FTE) rate. Other indicators were collected using the hospital's official database. Staff attitudes toward self-reporting were analyzed. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed.

Setting

A 1000-bed Italian academic hospital.

Participants

Staff of the hospital (over 3200 professionals).

Interventions

None.

Main outcome measures

NM-IT/FTE rates, self-reported rates, patient complaints/praises, work accidents among professionals and 30-day readmissions.

Results

The overall reporting rate was 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.46) among doctors and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.39-0.41) among nurses. Between 2010 and 2015, only the doctors' reporting rate increased significantly (P = 0.04), from 0.29 (95% CI: 0.25-0.34) to 0.67 (95% CI: 0.60-0.73). Patient complaints decreased from 384 to 224 (P < 0.001) and work accidents decreased from 296 to 235 (P = 0.01), while other indicators remained constant. Multivariable logistic regression showed that self-reporting was more likely among nurses than doctors (odds ratio: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.31-1.73) and for severe events than near misses (odds ratio: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.11-2.87).

Conclusions

Because the doctors' reporting rates increased during the study period, doctors may be more likely to report adverse events than nurses, although nurses reported more events. Incident reporting trends and other routinely collected risk indicators may be useful to improve our understanding and measurement of patient safety issues.