Tailoring "best-of-breed" safety classification for patient fall voluntary reporting

Patient safety classifications, taxonomies and ontologies, part 2: A systematic review on content coverage

BACKGROUND

Content coverage of patient safety ontology and classification systems should be evaluated to provide a guide for users to select appropriate ones for specific applications. In this review, we identified and compare content coverage of patient safety classifications and ontologies.

METHODS

We searched different databases and ontology/classification repositories to identify these classifications and ontologies. We included patient safety-related taxonomies, ontologies, classifications, and terminologies. We identified and extracted different concepts covered by these systems and mapped these concepts to international classification for patient safety (ICPS) and finally compared the content of these systems.

RESULTS

Finally, 89 papers (77 classifications or ontologies) were analyzed. Thirteen classifications have been developed to cover all medical domains. Among specific domain systems, most systems cover medication (16), surgery (8), medical devices (3), general practice (3), and primary care (3). The most common patient safety-related concepts covered in these systems include incident types (41), contributing factors/hazards (31), patient outcomes (29), degree of harm (25), and action (18). However, stage/phase (6), incident characteristics (5), detection (5), people involved (5), organizational outcomes (4), error type (4), and care setting (3) are some of the less covered concepts in these classifications/ontologies.

CONCLUSION

Among general systems, ICPS, World Health Organization's Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART), and Ontology of Adverse Events (OAE) cover most patient safety concepts and can be used as a gold standard for all medical domains. As a result, reporting systems could make use of these broad classifications, but the majority of their covered concepts are related to patient outcomes, with the exception of ICPS, which covers other patient safety concepts. However, the ICPS does not cover specialized domain concepts. For specific medical domains, MedDRA, NCC MERP, OPAE, ADRO, PPST, OCCME, TRTE, TSAHI, and PSIC-PC provide the broadest coverage of concepts. Many of the patient safety classifications and ontologies are not formally registered or available as formal classification/ontology in ontology repositories such as BioPortal. This study may be used as a guide for choosing appropriate classifications for various applications or expanding less developed patient safety classifications/ontologies. Furthermore, the same concepts are not represented by the same terms; therefore, the current study could be used to guide a harmonization process for existing or future patient safety classifications/ontologies.

Patient safety classification, taxonomy and ontology systems: A systematic review on development and evaluation methodologies

INTRODUCTION

Patient safety classifications/ontologies enable patient safety information systems to receive and analyze patient safety data to improve patient safety. Patient safety classifications/ontologies have been developed and evaluated using a variety of methods. The purpose of this review was to discuss and analyze the methodologies for developing and evaluating patient safety classifications/ontologies.

METHODS

Studies that developed or evaluated patient safety classifications, terminologies, taxonomies, or ontologies were searched through Google Scholar, Google search engines, National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) BioPortal, Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry and World Health Organization (WHO) websites and Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Science Direct. We updated our search on 30 February 2021 and included all studies published until the end of 2020. Studies that developed or evaluated classifications only for patient safety and provided information on how they were developed or evaluated were included. Systems with covered patient safety terms (such as ICD-10) but are not specifically developed for patient safety were excluded. The quality and the risk of bias of studies were not assessed because all methodologies and criteria were intended to be covered. In addition, we analyzed the data through descriptive narrative synthesis and compared and classified the development and evaluation methods and evaluation criteria according to available development and evaluation approaches for biomedical ontologies.

RESULTS

We identified 84 articles that met all of the inclusion criteria, resulting in 70 classifications/ontologies, nine of which were for the general medical domain. The most papers were published in 2010 and 2011, with 8 and 7 papers, respectively. The United States (50) and Australia (23) have the most studies. The most commonly used methods for developing classifications/ontologies included the use of existing systems (for expanding or mapping) (44) and qualitative analysis of event reports (39). The most common evaluation methods were coding or classifying some safety report samples (25), quantitative analysis of incidents based on the developed classification (24), and consensus among physicians (16). The most commonly applied evaluation criteria were reliability (27), content and face validity (9), comprehensiveness (6), usability (5), linguistic clarity (5), and impact (4), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the weaknesses and strengths of the development/evaluation methods, it is advised that more than one method for development or evaluation, as well as evaluation criteria, should be used. To organize the processes of developing classification/ontologies, well-established approaches such as Methontology are recommended. The most prevalent evaluation methods applied in this domain are well fitted to the biomedical ontology evaluation methods, but it is also advised to apply some evaluation approaches such as logic, rules, and Natural language processing (NLP) based in combination with other evaluation approaches. This research can assist domain researchers in developing or evaluating domain ontologies using more complete methodologies. There is also a lack of reporting consistency in the literature and same methods or criteria were reported with different terminologies.

Enhancing Patient Safety Event Reporting. A Systematic Review of System Design Features

OBJECTIVES

Electronic patient safety event reporting (e-reporting) is an effective mechanism to learn from errors and enhance patient safety. Unfortunately, the value of e-reporting system (a software or web server based platform) in patient safety research is greatly overshadowed by low quality reporting. This paper aims at revealing the current status of system features, detecting potential gaps in system design, and accordingly proposing suggestions for future design and implementation of the system.

METHODS

Three literature databases were searched for publications that contain informative descriptions of e-reporting systems. In addition, both online publicly accessible reporting forms and systems were investigated.

RESULTS

48 systems were identified and reviewed. 11 system design features and their frequencies of occurrence (Top 5: widgets (41), anonymity or confidentiality (29), hierarchy (20), validator (17), review notification (15)) were identified and summarized into a system hierarchical model.

CONCLUSIONS

The model indicated the current e-reporting systems are at an immature stage in their development, and discussed their future development direction toward efficient and effective systems to improve patient safety.

Towards the creation of a flexible classification scheme for voluntarily reported transfusion and laboratory safety events

BACKGROUND

Transfusion and clinical laboratory services are high-volume activities involving complicated workflows across both ambulatory and inpatient environments. As a result, there are many opportunities for safety lapses, leading to patient harm and increased costs. Organizational techniques such as voluntary safety event reporting are commonly used to identify and prioritize risk areas across care settings. Creation of functional, standardized safety data structures that facilitate effective exploratory examination is therefore essential to drive quality improvement interventions. Unfortunately, voluntarily reported adverse event data can often be unstructured or ambiguously defined.

RESULTS

To address this problem, we sought to create a "best-of-breed" patient safety classification for data contained in the Duke University Health System Safety Reporting System (SRS). Our approach was to implement the internationally recognized World Health Organization International Classification for Patient Safety Framework, supplemented with additional data points relevant to our organization. Data selection and integration into the hierarchical framework is discussed, as well as placement of the classification into the SRS. We evaluated the impact of the new SRS classification on system usage through comparisons of monthly average report rates and completion times before and after implementation. Monthly average inpatient transfusion reports decreased from 102.1 ± 14.3 to 91.6 ± 11.2, with the proportion of transfusion reports in our system remaining consistent before and after implementation. Monthly average transfusion report rates in the outpatient and homecare environments were not significantly different. Significant increases in clinical lab report rates were present across inpatient and outpatient environments, with the proportion of lab reports increasing after implementation. Report completion times increased modestly but not significantly from a practical standpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

A common safety vocabulary can facilitate integration of information from disparate systems and processes to permit meaningful measurement and interpretation of data to improve safety within and across organizations. Formation of a "best-of-breed" classification for voluntary reporting necessitates an internal examination of localized data needs and workflow in order to design a product that enables comprehensive data capture. A team of clinical, safety, and information technology experts is necessary to integrate the data structures into the reporting system. We have found that a "best-of-breed" patient safety classification provides a solid, extensible model for adverse event analysis, healthcare leader communication, and intervention identification.