Informatics opportunities to involve patients in hospital safety: a conceptual model

Nurse judgements of hospitalized patients' safety concerns are affected by patient, nurse and event characteristics: A factorial survey experiment

AIM

To test the influences of patient, safety event and nurse characteristics on nurse judgements of credibility, importance and intent to report patients' safety concerns.

DESIGN

Factorial survey experiment.

METHODS

A total of 240 nurses were recruited and completed an online survey including demographic information and responses to eight factorial vignettes consisting of unique combinations of eight patient and event factors. Hierarchical multivariate analysis was used to test influences of vignette factors and nurse characteristics on nurse judgements.

RESULTS

The intraclass coefficients for nurse judgements suggest that the variation among nurses exceeded the influence of contextual vignette factors. Several significant sources of nurse variation were identified, including race/ethnicity, suggesting a complex relationship between nurses' characteristics and their potential biases, and the influence of personal and patient factors on nurses' judgements, including the decision to report safety concerns.

CONCLUSION

Nurses are key players in the system to manage patient safety concerns. Variation among nurses and how they respond to scenarios of patient safety concerns highlight the need for nurse-level intervention.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE

Complex factors influence nurses' judgement, interpretation and reporting of patients' safety concerns.

IMPACT

Understanding nurse judgement regarding patient-expressed safety concerns is critical for designing processes and systems that promote reporting. Multiple event and patient characteristics (type of event and apparent harm, and patient gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and communication approach) as well as participant characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, years of experience and primary hospital area) impacted participants' judgements of credibility, degree of concern and intent to report. These findings will help guide patient safety nurse education and training.

REPORTING METHOD

STROBE guidelines.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Members of the public, including patient advocates, were involved in content validation of the vignette scenarios, norming photographs used in the factorial survey and testing the survey functionality.

Inviting patients to identify diagnostic concerns through structured evaluation of their online visit notes

BACKGROUND

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates patients' access to their electronic health record (EHR) notes. To our knowledge, no previous work has systematically invited patients to proactively report diagnostic concerns while documenting and tracking their diagnostic experiences through EHR-based clinician note review.

OBJECTIVE

To test if patients can identify concerns about their diagnosis through structured evaluation of their online visit notes.

METHODS

In a large integrated health system, patients aged 18-85 years actively using the patient portal and seen between October 2019 and February 2020 were invited to respond to an online questionnaire if an EHR algorithm detected any recent unexpected return visit following an initial primary care consultation ("at-risk" visit). We developed and tested an instrument (Safer Dx Patient Instrument) to help patients identify concerns related to several dimensions of the diagnostic process based on notes review and recall of recent "at-risk" visits. Additional questions assessed patients' trust in their providers and their general feelings about the visit. The primary outcome was a self-reported diagnostic concern. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was predicted by instrument variables.

RESULTS

Of 293 566 visits, the algorithm identified 1282 eligible patients, of whom 486 responded. After applying exclusion criteria, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-one patients (12.2%) identified a diagnostic concern. Patients were more likely to report a concern if they disagreed with statements "the care plan the provider developed for me addressed all my medical concerns" [odds ratio (OR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-4.87) and "I trust the provider that I saw during my visit" (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.71) and agreed with the statement "I did not have a good feeling about my visit" (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-2.01).

CONCLUSION

Patients can identify diagnostic concerns based on a proactive online structured evaluation of visit notes. This surveillance strategy could potentially improve transparency in the diagnostic process.

Feeling better on hemodialysis: user-centered design requirements for promoting patient involvement in the prevention of treatment complications

OBJECTIVE

Hemodialysis patients frequently experience dialysis therapy sessions complicated by intradialytic hypotension (IDH), a major patient safety concern. We investigate user-centered design requirements for a theory-informed, peer mentoring-based, informatics intervention to activate patients toward IDH prevention.

METHODS

We conducted observations (156 hours) and interviews (n = 28) with patients in 3 hemodialysis clinics, followed by 9 focus groups (including participatory design activities) with patients (n = 17). Inductive and deductive analyses resulted in themes and design principles linked to constructs from social, cognitive, and self-determination theories.

RESULTS

Hemodialysis patients want an informatics intervention for IDH prevention that collapses distance between patients, peers, and family; harnesses patients' strength of character and resolve in all parts of their life; respects and supports patients' individual needs, preferences, and choices; and links "feeling better on dialysis" to becoming more involved in IDH prevention. Related design principles included designing for: depth of interpersonal connections; positivity; individual choice and initiative; and comprehension of connections and possible actions.

DISCUSSION

Findings advance the design of informatics interventions by presenting design requirements for outpatient safety and addressing key design opportunities for informatics to support patient involvement; these include incorporation of behavior change theories. Results also demonstrate the meaning of design choices for hemodialysis patients in the context of their experiences; this may have applicability to other populations with serious illnesses.

CONCLUSION

The resulting patient-facing informatics intervention will be evaluated in a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial in 28 hemodialysis facilities in 4 US regions.

Evaluation of electronic health record-integrated digital health tools to engage hospitalized patients in discharge preparation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of electronic health record (EHR)-integrated digital health tools comprised of a checklist and video on transitions-of-care outcomes for patients preparing for discharge.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

English-speaking, general medicine patients (>18 years) hospitalized at least 24 hours at an academic medical center in Boston, MA were enrolled before and after implementation. A structured checklist and video were administered on a mobile device via a patient portal or web-based survey at least 24 hours prior to anticipated discharge. Checklist responses were available for clinicians to review in real time via an EHR-integrated safety dashboard. The primary outcome was patient activation at discharge assessed by patient activation (PAM)-13. Secondary outcomes included postdischarge patient activation, hospital operational metrics, healthcare resource utilization assessed by 30-day follow-up calls and administrative data and change in patient activation from discharge to 30 days postdischarge.

RESULTS

Of 673 patients approached, 484 (71.9%) enrolled. The proportion of activated patients (PAM level 3 or 4) at discharge was nonsignificantly higher for the 234 postimplementation compared with the 245 preimplementation participants (59.8% vs 56.7%, adjusted OR 1.23 [0.38, 3.96], P = .73). Postimplementation participants reported 3.75 (3.02) concerns via the checklist. Mean length of stay was significantly higher for postimplementation compared with preimplementation participants (10.13 vs 6.21, P < .01). While there was no effect on postdischarge outcomes, there was a nonsignificant decrease in change in patient activation within participants from pre- to postimplementation (adjusted difference-in-difference of -16.1% (9.6), P = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

EHR-integrated digital health tools to prepare patients for discharge did not significantly increase patient activation and was associated with a longer length of stay. While issues uncovered by the checklist may have encouraged patients to inquire about their discharge preparedness, other factors associated with patient activation and length of stay may explain our observations. We offer insights for using PAM-13 in context of real-world health-IT implementations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NIH US National Library of Medicine, NCT03116074, clinicaltrials.gov.

Nurse Sensemaking for Responding to Patient and Family Safety Concerns

BACKGROUND

Hospitals need to prevent, respond to, and learn from safety risks and events perceived by patients and families, who in turn rely on nurses to respond to and report their safety concerns.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to describe the process by which bedside nurses evaluate and determine the appropriate response to safety concerns expressed by patients or their families.

METHODS

A qualitative design was employed. We recruited inpatient bedside nurses in an 811-bed Midwest academic medical center. Nurses provided demographic information and participated in semistructured interviews designed to elicit narratives related to evaluation and response to patient- or family-expressed safety concerns. Data analysis and interpretation were guided by grounded theory.

RESULTS

We enrolled 25 nurses representing 22 units. Based on these nurses' experiences, we developed a grounded theory explaining how nurses evaluate a patient or family safety concern. Nurses make sense of the patient's or family's safety concern in order to take action. Achieving this goal requires evaluation of the meaningfulness and reasonableness of the concern, as well as the potential effect of the concern on the patient. Based on this nursing evaluation, nurses respond in ways designed to (a) manage emotions, (b) immediately resolve concerns, (c) involve other team members, and (d) address fear or uncertain grounding in reality. Nurses reported routinely handling safety concerns at the bedside without use of incident reporting.

DISCUSSION

Safety requires an interpersonal and evaluative nursing process with actions responsive to patient and family concerns. Safety interventions designed to be used by nurses should be developed with the dynamic, cognitive, sensemaking nature of nurses' routine safety work in mind. Being sensitive to the vulnerability of patients, respecting patient and family input, and understanding the consequences of dismissing patient and family safety concerns are critical to making sense of the situation and taking appropriate action to maintain safety. Measuring patient safety or planning improvement based on patient or family expression of safety concerns would be a difficult undertaking using only standard approaches. A more complex approach incorporating direct patient engagement in data collection is necessary to gain a complete safety picture.