Putting the Patient in Patient Safety Investigations: Barriers and Strategies for Involvement

Factors Influencing the Willingness of Hospitalized Children's Parents to Engage in Patient Safety: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Hospitalized children's patient safety incidents can have a significant long-term impact on their physical, psychological, cognitive, and social development. Family-centered care emphasizes engaging parents, and parental involvement is an effective way to ensure child safety. This study aims to identify the factors influencing parents of children with hospitalization experiences in their willingness to engage in patient safety.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed 210 parents whose children had been hospitalized within the past one year in South Korea. We used a structured questionnaire including patient safety knowledge, patient safety literacy, children's hospitalization experience, and the willingness to engage in patient safety. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, chi-square test, analysis of variance, correlational analysis, and regression analysis.

Results

The willingness to engage in patient safety had significant positive correlations with patient safety knowledge (r=0.36, p<0.001) and patient safety literacy (r=0.24, p<0.001). The variables that had a statistically significant influence on the willingness to engage in patient safety were the birth order of the hospitalized child (β=0.41, p=0.014), patient safety knowledge (β=0.25, p<0.001), communication with the child (β= -0.25, p=0.018), and attention to safety and comfort (β=0.21, p=0.026).

Conclusion

This study found that the birth order of the hospitalized child, patient safety knowledge, and children's hospitalization experience are important factors in parents' willingness to engage in patient safety. The findings indicated the need to develop patient safety education programs for parents, considering the facilitators of and barriers to their willingness to engage in patient safety.

Humanizing processes after harm part 1: patient safety incident investigations, litigation and the experiences of those affected

Background

There is a growing international policy focus on involving those affected by healthcare safety incidents, in subsequent investigations. Nonetheless, there remains little UK-based evidence exploring how this relates to the experiences of those affected over time, including the factors influencing decisions to litigate.

Aims

We aimed to explore the experiences of patients, families, staff and legal representatives affected by safety incidents over time, and the factors influencing decisions to litigate.

Methods

Participants were purposively recruited via (i) communication from four NHS hospital Trusts or an independent national investigator in England, (ii) relevant charitable organizations, (iii) social media, and (iv) word of mouth to take part in a qualitative semi-structured interview study. Data were analyzed using an inductive reflexive thematic approach.

Findings

42 people with personal or professional experience of safety incident investigations participated, comprising patients and families (n = 18), healthcare staff (n = 7), legal staff (n = 1), and investigators (n = 16). Patients and families started investigation processes with cautious hope, but over time, came to realize that they lacked power, knowledge, and support to navigate the system, made clear in awaited investigation reports. Systemic fear of litigation not only failed to meet the needs of those affected, but also inadvertently led to some pursuing litigation. Staff had parallel experiences of exclusion, lacking support and feeling left with an incomplete narrative. Importantly, investigating was often perceived as a lonely, invisible and undervalued role involving skilled "work" with limited training, resources, and infrastructure. Ultimately, elusive "organizational agendas" were prioritized above the needs of all affected.

Conclusions

Incident investigations fail to acknowledge and address emotional distress experienced by all affected, resulting in compounded harm. To address this, we propose five key recommendations, to: (1) prioritize the needs of those affected by incidents, (2) overcome culturally engrained fears of litigation to re-humanize processes and reduce rates of unnecessary litigation, (3) recognize and value the emotionally laborious and skilled work of investigators (4) inform and support those affected, (5) proceed in ways that recognize and seek to reduce social inequities.

Involving Patients and/or Their Next of Kin in Serious Adverse Event Investigations: A Qualitative Study on Hospital Perspectives

BACKGROUND

The involvement of patients or next of kin (P/N) after a serious adverse event (SAE) is evolving. Beyond providing mandatory information, there is growing recognition of the need to incorporate their interests. This study explores practical manifestations of P/N involvement and identifies significant considerations for hospitals.

METHODS

The data collection involved various qualitative research methods: 7 focus groups with 56 professionals from 37 hospitals, an interview with 2 representatives from the Dutch Association of Hospitals, and an interactive reflection seminar with over 60 participants from 34 hospitals. Before the focus groups, a brief questionnaire was sent out to survey participants' practices regarding into SAE investigations. After the study, another questionnaire was distributed to gather suggestions for future improvements and to identify their lessons learned. Thematic analysis was applied to the gathered data to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Hospitals are increasingly acknowledging the interests and perspectives of P/N, recognizing their potential contributions to organizational learning and improvement. P/N involvement following SAEs includes active participation in different stages of the investigation process, not just passive information dissemination. Important factors influencing involvement are the provision of (emotional) support, identification of needs, and transparency of the SAE investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study enhances understanding of evolving practices surrounding P/N involvement in the context of SAEs in Dutch hospitals. The findings highlight the importance of promoting meaningful involvement, recognizing the significance of P/N experiences, and fostering a culture of transparency and collaboration. By examining the dynamics of involvement, this research aims to inform policy development and facilitate the implementation of patient-centered approaches to post-SAE care.

Involvement in serious incident investigations: a qualitative documentary analysis of NHS trust policies in England

BACKGROUND

The considered shift from individual blame and sanctions towards a commitment to system-wide learning from incidents in healthcare has led to increased understanding of both the moral and epistemic importance of involving those affected. It is important to understand whether and how local policy describes and prompts involvement with a view to understanding the policy landscape for serious incident investigations in healthcare. This study aimed to explore the way in which involvement of those affected by serious incidents is represented in incident investigation policy documents across acute and mental health services in the English NHS, and to identify guidance for more effective construction of policy for meaningful involvement.

METHODS

We conducted a documentary analysis of 43 local serious incident investigation policies to explore the way in which involvement in serious incident investigations is represented in policy documents across acute and mental health services in the NHS in England.

RESULTS

Three headline findings were generated. First, we identified involvement as a concept was conspicuous by its absence in policy documents. Direct reference to support or involvement of those affected by serious incidents was lacking. Even where involvement and support were recognised as important, this was described as a passive process rather than there being moral or epistemic justification for more active contribution to learning. Second, learning from serious incidents was typically described as a high priority but the language used was unclear and 'learning' was more often positioned as construction of an arbitrary set of recommendations rather than a participatory process of deconstruction and reconstruction of specific systems and processes. Third, there was an emphasis placed on a just and open culture but paradoxically this was reinforced by expected compliance, positioning investigations as a tool through which action is governed rather than an opportunity to learn from and with the experiences and expertise of those affected.

CONCLUSIONS

More effective representation in policy of the moral and epistemic reasons for stakeholder involvement in serious incident investigations may lead to better understanding of its importance, thus increasing potential for organisational learning and reducing the potential for compounded harm. Moreover, understanding how structural elements of policy documents were central to the way in which the document is framed and received is significant for both local and national policy makers to enable more effective construction of healthcare policy documents to prompt meaningful action.

Improving health system responses when patients are harmed: a protocol for a multistage mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

At least 10% of hospital admissions in high-income countries, including Australia, are associated with patient safety incidents, which contribute to patient harm ('adverse events'). When a patient is seriously harmed, an investigation or review is undertaken to reduce the risk of further incidents occurring. Despite 20 years of investigations into adverse events in healthcare, few evaluations provide evidence of their quality and effectiveness in reducing preventable harm.This study aims to develop consistent, informed and robust best practice guidance, at state and national levels, that will improve the response, learning and health system improvements arising from adverse events.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The setting will be healthcare organisations in Australian public health systems in the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. We will apply a multistage mixed-methods research design with evaluation and in-situ feasibility testing. This will include literature reviews (stage 1), an assessment of the quality of 300 adverse event investigation reports from participating hospitals (stage 2), and a policy/procedure document review from participating hospitals (stage 3) as well as focus groups and interviews on perspectives and experiences of investigations with healthcare staff and consumers (stage 4). After triangulating results from stages 1-4, we will then codesign tools and guidance for the conduct of investigations with staff and consumers (stage 5) and conduct feasibility testing on the guidance (stage 6). Participants will include healthcare safety systems policymakers and staff (n=120-255) who commission, undertake or review investigations and consumers (n=20-32) who have been impacted by adverse events.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH02007 and 2023/ETH02341).The research findings will be incorporated into best practice guidance, published in international and national journals and disseminated through conferences.

Actions for mitigating the negative effects of patient participation in patient safety: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Recent research within the context of Obstetrics shows the added value of patient participation in in-hospital patient safety. Notwithstanding these benefits, recent research within an Obstetrics department shows that four different negative effects of patient participation in patient safety have emerged. However, the approach to addressing these negative effects within the perspective of patient participation in patient safety is currently lacking. For this reason, the aim of this study is to generate an overview of actions that could be taken to mitigate the negative effects of patient participation in patient safety within an Obstetrics department.

METHODS

This study was conducted in the Obstetrics Department of a tertiary academic center. An explorative qualitative interview study included sixteen interviews with professionals (N = 8) and patients (N = 8). The actions to mitigate the negative effects of patient participation in patient safety, were analyzed and classified using a deductive approach.

RESULTS

Eighteen actions were identified that mitigated the negative effects of patient participation in patient safety within an Obstetrics department. These actions were categorized into five themes: 'structure', 'culture', 'education', 'emotional', and 'physical and technology'. These five categories reflect the current approach to improving patient safety which is primarily viewed from the perspective of professionals rather than of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the identified actions are linked to changing the culture to generate more patient-centered care and change the current reality, which looks predominantly from the perspective of the professionals and too little from that of the patients. Furthermore, none of the suggested actions fit within a sixth anticipated category, namely, 'politics'. Future research should explore ways to implement a patient-centered care approach based on these actions. By doing so, space, money and time have to be created to elaborate on these actions and integrate them into the organizations' structure, culture and practices.

Systematic review on the frequency and quality of reporting patient and public involvement in patient safety research

BACKGROUND

In recent years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has significantly increased; however, the reporting of PPI remains poor. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was developed to enhance the quality and consistency of PPI reporting. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in patient safety (PS) research using the GRIPP2 checklist.

METHODS

Searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2018 to December, 2023. Studies on PPI in PS research were included. We included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English were included. The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using the short form of the (GRIPP2-SF) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 8561 studies were retrieved from database searches, updates, and reference checks, of which 82 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Only 6.1% (n = 5) of the studies reported PPI as per the GRIPP2 checklist. Regarding the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting mainly due to failures in: critically reflecting on PPI in the study; reporting the aim of PPI in the study; and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Furthermore, it reveals a sub-optimal quality in PPI reporting following GRIPP2-SF items. Researchers, funders, publishers, and journals need to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be encouraged and supported as it helps future researchers to plan and report PPI more effectively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023450715).

Empowered patients and informal care-givers as partners?-a survey study of healthcare professionals' perceptions

BACKGROUND

More knowledge is needed regarding the perceptions of healthcare professionals when encountering empowered patients and informal caregivers in clinical settings. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals' attitudes towards and experiences of working with empowered patients and informal caregivers, and perception of workplace support in these situations.

METHODS

A multi-centre web survey was conducted using a non-probability sampling of both primary and specialized healthcare professionals across Sweden. A total of 279 healthcare professionals completed the survey. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and Thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Most respondents perceived empowered patients and informal caregivers as positive and had to some extent experience of learning new knowledge and skills from them. However, few respondents stated that these experiences were regularly followed-up at their workplace. Potentially negative consequences such as increased inequality and additional workload were, however, mentioned. Patients' engagement in the development of clinical workplaces was seen as positive by the respondents, but few had own experience of such engagement and considered it difficult to be achieved .

CONCLUSION

Overall positive attitudes of healthcare professionals are a fundamental prerequisite to the transition of the healthcare system recognizing empowered patients and informal caregivers as partners.

Explaining the negative effects of patient participation in patient safety: an exploratory qualitative study in an academic tertiary healthcare centre in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Although previous studies largely emphasize the positive effects of patient participation in patient safety, negative effects have also been observed. This study focuses on bringing together the separate negative effects that have been previously reported in the literature. This study set out to uncover how these negative effects manifest themselves in practice within an obstetrics department.

DESIGN

An exploratory qualitative interview study with 16 in-depth semistructured interviews. The information contained in the interviews was deductively analysed.

SETTING

The study was conducted in one tertiary academic healthcare centre in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (N=8) and professionals (N=8) from an obstetrics department.

RESULTS

The results of this study indicate that patient participation in patient safety comes in five different forms. Linked to these different forms, four negative effects of patient participation in patient safety were identified. These can be summarised as follows: patients' confidence decreases, the patient-professional relationship can be negatively affected, more responsibility can be demanded of the patient than they wish to accept and the professional has to spend additional time on a patient.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies and brings together four negative effects of patient participation in patient safety that have previously been individually identified elsewhere. In our interviews, there was a consensus among patients and professionals on five different forms of participation that would allow patients to positively participate in patient safety. Further studies should investigate ways to prevent and to mitigate the potential negative effects of patient participation.

A Practical Framework for Academics to Implement Public Engagement Interventions and Measure Their Impact

Academic institutions have shown an increased interest in the so-called third mission to offer an impactful contribution to society. Indeed, public engagement programs ensure knowledge transfer and help to inspire positive public discourse. We aimed to propose a comprehensive framework for academic institutions planning to implement a public engagement intervention and to suggest potential indicators to measure its impact. To inform the framework development, we searched the literature on public engagement, the third mission, and design theory in electronic databases and additional sources (e.g., academic recommendations) and partnered with a communication agency offering non-academic advice. In line with this framework, we designed a public engagement intervention to foster scientific literacy in Italian youth, actively involving them in the development of the intervention. Our framework is composed of four phases (planning/design, implementation, immediate impact assessment, and medium- and long-term assessment). Impact indicators were subdivided into outcome variables that were immediately describable (e.g., changed understanding and awareness of the target population) and measurable only in the medium or long run (e.g., adoption of the intervention by other institutions). The framework is expected to maximize the impact of public engagement interventions and ultimately lead to better reciprocal listening and mutual understanding between academia and the public.

Explaining the process of dealing with nursing errors in the emergency department: A grounded theory study

BACKGROUND

Errors are among the factors threatening patient safety. It is essential to understand how to deal with nursing errors in the emergency department. Thus, the present study aimed to explain the process of dealing with nursing errors in the emergency department.

METHOD

This qualitative study adopted Corbin and Strauss's (2008) grounded theory method. The data were collected by in-depth semi-structured interviews and field notes. Eighteen nurses, two doctors, and one patient companion participated in this study. The research setting was the emergency departments of five teaching hospitals in down tone of Tehran, Iran. The participants were selected by purposive sampling at first, and then by theoretical sampling.

RESULTS

Following the data analysis, four main categories of "reality shock", "formulating a situational response", "reactive measure", and "progress or regress" were extracted. The data analysis showed that "formulating a situational response" is the core category of the process of dealing with errors among nurses in the study emergency departments. The first step in the process of dealing with errors in ED was the reality shock, then nurses entered the stage of formulating a situational response, after that they entered the stage of "reactive measure" and finally they entered the stage of progress or regress.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

After an error occurs in the emergency department, nurses experience four stages during the process of dealing with nursing errors. When dealing with an error, nurses think about protecting the patients. However, some contextual factors direct the nurses towards protecting themselves rather than the patient. The decision-makers in the healthcare system can modify these contextual factors, provide in-service training, develop anonymous reporting systems, and establish a positive support environment, thus directing the nurses towards supporting the patients (in addition to trying to protect oneself).

Patient and caregiver factors in ambulatory incident reports: a mixed-methods analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patients and caregivers are the primary stakeholders in ambulatory safety, given they perform daily chronic disease self-management, medication administration and outpatient follow-up. However, little attention has been given to their role in adverse events. We identified themes related to patient and caregiver factors and challenges in ambulatory safety incident reports from a Patient Safety Organization.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of ambulatory incident reports submitted to the Collaborative Healthcare Patient Safety Organization, including 450 hospitals or clinic members in 13 US states. We included events that had patient and/or caregiver behavioural, socioeconomic and clinical factors that may have contributed to the event. Two members of the team independently coded patient/caregiver factors, with dual coding of 20% of events. We then conducted a 'frequent item set' analysis to identify which factors most frequently co-occurred. We applied inductive analysis to the most frequent sets to interpret themes. Our team included a diverse stakeholder advisory council of patients, caregivers and healthcare staff.

RESULTS

We analysed 522 incident reports and excluded 73 for a final sample of 449 events. Our co-occurrence analysis found the following three themes: (1) clinical advice may conflict with patient priorities; (2) breakdowns in communication and patient education cause medication adverse events and (3) patients with disabilities are vulnerable to the external environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory safety reports capture both structural and behavioural factors contributing to adverse events. Actionable takeaways include the following: improving clinician counselling of patients to convey medical advice to elicit priorities, enhanced education regarding medication adverse events and expanding safety precautions for patients with disabilities at home. Ambulatory safety reporting must include patients in reporting and event review for better mitigation of future harm.

Patient Safety in the Eyes of Aspiring Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review of Their Attitudes

A culture of safety is important for the delivery of safe, high-quality care, as well as for healthcare providers' wellbeing. This systematic review aimed to describe and synthesize the literature on patient safety attitudes of the next generation of healthcare workers (health professional students, new graduates, newly registered health professionals, resident trainees) and assess potential differences in this population related to years of study, specialties, and gender. We screened four electronic databases up to 20 February 2020 and additional sources, including weekly e-mailed search alerts up to 18 October 2020. Two independent reviewers conducted the search, study selection, quality rating, data extraction, and formal narrative synthesis, involving a third reviewer in case of dissent. We retrieved 6606 records, assessed 188 full-texts, and included 31 studies. Across articles, healthcare students and young professionals showed overwhelmingly positive patient safety attitudes in some areas (e.g., teamwork climate, error inevitability) but more negative perceptions in other domains (e.g., safety climate, disclosure responsibility). Women tend to report more positive attitudes. To improve safety culture in medical settings, health professions educators and institutions should ensure education and training on patient safety.

Promoting the Psychological Well-Being of Healthcare Providers Facing the Burden of Adverse Events: A Systematic Review of Second Victim Support Resources

Given the negative impact of adverse events on the wellbeing of healthcare providers, easy access to psychological support is crucial. We aimed to describe the types of support resources available in healthcare organizations, their benefits for second victims, peer supporters’ experiences, and implementation challenges. We also explored how these resources incorporate aspects of Safety I and Safety II. We searched six databases up to 19 December 2019 and additional literature, including weekly search alerts until 21 January 2021. Two reviewers independently performed all methodological steps (search, selection, quality assessment, data extraction, formal narrative synthesis). The 16 included studies described 12 second victim support resources, implemented between 2006 and 2017. Preliminary data indicated beneficial effects not only for the affected staff but also for the peer responders who considered their role to be challenging but gratifying. Challenges during program implementation included persistent blame culture, limited awareness of program availability, and lack of financial resources. Common goals of the support programs (e.g., fostering coping strategies, promoting individual resilience) are consistent with Safety II and may promote system resilience. Investing in second victim support structures should be a top priority for healthcare institutions adopting a systemic approach to safety and striving for just culture.