Identification of serious and reportable events in home care: a Delphi survey to develop consensus

An International Perspective on Definitions and Terminology Used to Describe Serious Reportable Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Patients are unintentionally, yet frequently, harmed in situations that are deemed preventable. Incident reporting systems help prevent harm, yet there is considerable variability in how patient safety incidents are reported. This may lead to inconsistent or unnecessary patterns of incident reporting and failures to identify serious patient safety incidents. This systematic review aims to describe international approaches in relation to defining serious reportable patient safety incidents.

METHODS

Multiple electronic and gray literature databases were searched for articles published between 2009 and 2019. Empirical studies, reviews, national reports, and policies were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted because of study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 50 articles were included. There was wide variation in the terminology used to represent serious reportable patient safety incidents. Several countries defined a specific subset of incidents, which are considered sufficiently serious, yet preventable if appropriate safety measures are taken. Terms such as "never events," "serious reportable events," or "always review and report" were used. The following dimensions were identified to define a serious reportable patient safety incident: (1) incidents being largely preventable; (2) having the potential for significant learning; (3) causing serious harm or have the potential to cause serious harm; (4) being identifiable, measurable, and feasible for inclusion in an incident reporting system; and (5) running the risk of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in terminology and reporting systems between countries might contribute to missed opportunities for learning. International standardized definitions and blame-free reporting systems would enable comparison and international learning to enhance patient safety.

Prioritizing supports and services to help older adults age in place: A Delphi study comparing the perspectives of family/friend care partners and healthcare stakeholders

Background

Aging in place (AIP) is a policy strategy designed to help older adults remain in their community. While planners internationally have modified aspects of the older adult care continuum (e.g., home care, assisted living, nursing homes) to facilitate AIP, further improvements to community-based supports and services are also required. This study compared and constrasted the community-based factors (e.g., supports, services and personal strategies or characteristics) that family/friend care partners and healthcare stakeholders (i.e., planners/providers) view as most important to help older adults successfully AIP.

Methods

An initial list of factors shown to influence AIP was created from the academic literature. These factors were used to develop a Delphi survey implemented separately on care partners and healthcare stakeholders. Respondents rated the importance of each factor using a 10-point Likert Scale (1 = not important; 10 = absolutely critical). Consensus in each group was defined when at least 80% of participants scored a factor ≥8 (“very important”), with an interquartile range ≤2. Respondents suggested additional factors during Delphi round one.

Results

Care partners (N = 25) and healthcare stakeholders (N = 36) completed two and three Delphi rounds, respectively. These groups independently agreed that the following 3 (out of 27) factors were very important to help older adults age in place: keeping one’s home safe, maintaining strong inter-personal relationships, and coordinating care across formal providers. While healthcare stakeholders did not reach consensus on other factors, care partners agreed that 7 additional factors (e.g., access to affordable housing, having mental health programs) were important for AIP.

Conclusions

Compared to healthcare stakeholders, care partners felt that more and diverse community-based factors are important to support older adults to successfully AIP. Future research should replicate these findings in other jurisdictions, examine the availability and accessibility of the priority factors, and develop sustainable solutions to enhance their effectiveness.

Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application

OBJECTIVES

(1) To describe the epidemiology of patient safety (PS) incidents registered in an electronic notification system in primary care (PC) health centres; (2) to define a risk map; and (3) to identify the critical areas where intervention is needed.

DESIGN

Descriptive analytical study of incidents reported from 1 January to 31 December 2018, on the TPSC Cloud™ platform (The Patient Safety Company) accessible from the corporate website (Intranet) of the regional public health service.

SETTING

24 Catalan Institute of Health PC health centres of the Tarragona region (Spain).

PARTICIPANTS

Professionals from the PC health centres and a Patient Safety Functional Unit.

MEASUREMENTS

Data obtained from records voluntarily submitted to an electronic, standardised and anonymised form. Data recorded: healthcare unit, notifier, type of incident, risk matrix, causal and contributing factors, preventability, level of resolution and improvement actions.

RESULTS

A total of 1544 reports were reviewed and 1129 PS incidents were analysed: 25.0% of incidents did not reach the patient; 66.5% reached the patient without causing harm, and 8.5% caused adverse events. Nurses provided half of the reports (48.5%), while doctors reported more adverse events (70.8%; p < 0.01). Of the 96 adverse events, 46.9% only required observation, 34.4% caused temporary damage that required treatment, 13.5% required (or prolonged) hospitalization, and 5.2% caused severe permanent damage and/or a situation close to death. Notably, 99.2% were considered preventable. The main critical areas were: communication (27.8%), clinical-administrative management (25.1%), care delivery (23.5%) and medicines (18.4%); few incidents were related to diagnosis (3.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

PS incident notification applications are adequate for reporting incidents and adverse events associated with healthcare. Approximately 75% and 10% of incidents reach the patient and cause some damage, respectively, and most cases are considered preventable. Adequate and strengthened risk management of critical areas is required to improve PS.

Types and patterns of safety concerns in home care: client and family caregiver perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Drawing on interviews with home care clients and their family caregivers, we sought to understand how these individuals conceptualize safety in the provision and receipt of home care, how they promote safety in the home space and how their safety concerns differ from those of home support workers.

DESIGN

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with clients and family caregivers. The analysis included topic and analytical coding of participants' verbatim accounts.

SETTING

Interviews were completed in British Columbia, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Totally 82 clients and 55 caregivers participated.

RESULTS

Clients and family caregivers identified three types of safety concerns: physical, spatial and interpersonal. These concerns are largely multi-dimensional and intersectional. We present a conceptual model of client and caregiver safety concerns. We also examine the factors that intensify and mitigate safety concerns in the home.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of safety concerns, clients and family caregivers overwhelmingly prefer to receive care in the home setting. Spatial and physical concerns are the most salient. The financial burden of creating a safe care space should not be the client's alone to bear. The conceptualization and promotion of safety in home care must recognize the roles, responsibilities and perspectives of all of the actors involved, including workers, clients and their caregivers.