Identifying Factors Leading to Harm in English General Practices: A Mixed-Methods Study Based on Patient Experiences Integrating Structural Equation Modeling and Qualitative Content Analysis

Reconceptualizing Patient Safety Beyond Harm: Insights From a Mixed-Methods Qualitative Inquiry

BACKGROUND

Although patients' and care partners' perspectives on patient safety can guide health care learning and improvements, this information remains underutilized. Efforts to leverage this valuable data require challenging the narrow focus of safety as the absence of harm.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to gain a broader insight into how patients and care partners perceive and experience safety.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods approach that included a literature review and interviews and focus groups with patients, care partners, and health care providers. An emergent coding schema was developed from triangulation of the 2 data sets.

RESULTS

Two core themes-feeling unsafe and feeling safe-emerged that collectively represent a broader view of safety.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge from patients and care partners about feeling unsafe and safe needs to inform efforts to mitigate harm and promote safety, well-being, and positive outcomes and experiences.

Patient-reported outcome and experience domains for diagnostic excellence: a scoping review to inform future measure development

PURPOSE

"Diagnostic excellence," as a relatively new construct centered on the diagnostic process and its health-related outcomes, can be refined by patient reporting and its measurement. We aimed to explore the scope of patient-reported outcome (PRO) and patient-reported experience (PRE) domains that are diagnostically relevant, regardless of the future diagnosed condition, and to review the state of measurement of these patient-reported domains.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory analysis to identify these domains by employing a scoping review supplemented with internal expert consultations, 24-member international expert convening, additional environmental scans, and the validation of the domains' diagnostic relevance via mapping these onto patient diagnostic journeys. We created a narrative bibliography of the domains illustrating them with existing measurement examples.

RESULTS

We identified 41 diagnostically relevant PRO and PRE domains. We classified 10 domains as PRO, 28 as PRE, and three as mixed PRO/PRE. Among these domains, 19 were captured in existing instruments, and 20 were captured only in qualitative studies. Two domains were conceptualized during this exploratory analysis with no examples identified of capturing these domains. For 27 domains, patients and care partners report on a specific encounter; for 14 domains, reporting relates to an entire diagnostic journey over time, which presents particular measurement opportunities and challenges.

CONCLUSION

The multitude of PRO and PRE domains, if measured rigorously, would allow the diagnostic excellence construct to evolve further and in a manner that is patient-centered, prospectively focused, and concentrates on effectiveness and efficiency of diagnostic care on patients' well-being.

Feasibility of the SINERGIAPS ("Sinergias entre profesionales y pacientes para una Atención Primaria Segura") intervention for improving patient safety in primary care

AIM

The primary aim was to examine the feasibility of intervention delivery and of trial procedures. Secondary aims were to study the intervention uptake; its acceptability and perceived utility; and its potential to improve safety culture and avoidable hospital admissions.

METHODS

We conducted a 3-month, single-arm feasibility study in 10 primary care (PC) centres in Spain. Centres received information regarding patients' experiences of safety (through the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care [PREOS-PC] questionnaire), and were instructed to plan safety improvements based on that feedback. We used a bespoke online tool to recruit PC professionals, collect patient feedback, and deliver it to the centres, and to collect outcome data (patient safety culture [Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture, MOSPSC questionnaire]). We measured recruitment and follow-up rates and intervention uptake (based on the number of safety improvement plans registered). We conducted semistructured interviews with 9 professionals to explore the intervention acceptability and perceived utility.

RESULTS

Of 256 professionals invited, 120 (47%) agreed to participate, and 97 completed baseline and postintervention measures. Of 780 patients invited, 585 (75%) completed the PREOS-PC questionnaire. Five of 10 centres (50%) designed an improvement plan, providing 27 plans in total (range per centre, 1-14). The intervention was perceived as a novel strategy for improving safety, although the healthcare professionals identified several factors limiting its acceptability and utility: lack of feedback at the individual professional level; potentially unrepresentative sample of patients providing feedback; and number of educational materials deemed overwhelming.

DISCUSSION

It is feasible to deliver the proposed intervention so long as the identified limitations are addressed.

[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the changes introduced in response to the pandemic on patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care.

DESIGN

Prospective observational panel study (health center) based on two cross-sectional surveys.

SETTING

29 Primary Health Care centers from three Spanish health regions (Mallorca, Catalunya Central and Camp de Tarragona).

PARTICIPANTS

Random sample of patients visiting their centers before (n=2199 patients) and during the pandemic (n=1955 patients) MAIN MEASUREMENTS: We used the PREOS-PC questionnaire, a validated instrument which assesses patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care. We compared mean scores of the "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales in both periods, and built multilevel regression analyzes to study the variations in patient and center characteristics associated with worse levels of safety. A qualitative (content) analysis of patients' experiences during the pandemic was also performed.

RESULTS

The "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales scores significantly worsened during the COVID-19 period (92.65 to 88.81 (Cohen's d=0.27); and 96.92 to 79.97 (d=0.70), respectively). Patient and center characteristics associated to worsened scores were: women, people with a lower educational level, worse health status, more years assigned to the center, and health region.

CONCLUSIONS

During the pandemic, a perceptible worsening in patient safety perceived by patients treated in Primary Care has been observed, which has differentially affected patients according to their sociodemographic characteristics or health center profiles.

Rapid Design and Delivery of an Experience-Based Co-designed Mobile App to Support the Mental Health Needs of Health Care Workers Affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact Evaluation Protocol

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of health care workers' mental health and well-being for the successful function of the health care system. Few targeted digital tools exist to support the mental health of hospital-based health care workers, and none of them appear to have been led and co-designed by health care workers.

OBJECTIVE

RMHive is being led and developed by health care workers using experience-based co-design (EBCD) processes as a mobile app to support the mental health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to health care workers. We present a protocol for the impact evaluation for the rapid design and delivery of the RMHive mobile app.

METHODS

The impact evaluation will adopt a mixed methods design. Qualitative data from photo interviews undertaken with up to 30 health care workers and semistructured interviews conducted with up to 30 governance stakeholders will be integrated with qualitative and quantitative user analytics data and user-generated demographic and mental health data entered into the app. Analyses will address three evaluation questions related to engagement with the mobile app, implementation and integration of the app, and the impact of the app on individual mental health outcomes. The design and development will be described using the Mobile Health Evidence Reporting and Assessment guidelines. Implementation of the app will be evaluated using normalization process theory to analyze qualitative data from interviews combined with text and video analysis from the semistructured interviews. Mental health impacts will be assessed using the total score of the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ4) and subscale scores for the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Scale for anxiety. The PHQ4 will be completed at baseline and at 14 and 28 days.

RESULTS

The anticipated average use period of the app is 30 days. The rapid design will occur over four months using EBCD to collect qualitative data and develop app content. The impact evaluation will monitor outcome data for up to 12 weeks following hospital-wide release of the minimal viable product release. The study received funding and ethics approvals in June 2020. Outcome data is expected to be available in March 2021, and the impact evaluation is expected to be published mid-2021.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact evaluation will examine the rapid design, development, and implementation of the RMHive app and its impact on mental health outcomes for health care workers. Findings from the impact evaluation will provide guidance for the integration of EBCD in rapid design and implementation processes. The evaluation will also inform future development and rollout of the app to support the mental health needs of hospital-based health care workers more widely.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26168.