A mixed-methods analysis of patient safety incidents involving opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine in community-based care in England and Wales

Analysis of applying a patient safety taxonomy to patient and clinician-reported incident reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruption to healthcare delivery worldwide causing medical services to adapt their standard practices. Learning how these adaptations result in unintended patient harm is essential to mitigate against future incidents. Incident reporting and learning system data can be used to identify areas to improve patient safety. A classification system is required to make sense of such data to identify learning and priorities for further in-depth investigation. The Patient Safety (PISA) classification system was created for this purpose, but it is not known if classification systems are sufficient to capture novel safety concepts arising from crises like the pandemic. We aimed to review the application of the PISA classification system during the COVID-19 pandemic to appraise whether modifications were required to maintain its meaningful use for the pandemic context.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study integrating two phases in an exploratory, sequential design. This included a comparative secondary analysis of patient safety incident reports from two studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, where we coded patient-reported incidents from the UK and clinician-reported incidents from France. The findings were presented to a focus group of experts in classification systems and patient safety, and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resultant transcript.

RESULTS

We identified five key themes derived from the data analysis and expert group discussion. These included capitalising on the unique perspective of safety concerns from different groups, that existing frameworks do identify priority areas to investigate further, the objectives of a study shape the data interpretation, the pandemic spotlighted long-standing patient concerns, and the time period in which data are collected offers valuable context to aid explanation. The group consensus was that no COVID-19-specific codes were warranted, and the PISA classification system was fit for purpose.

CONCLUSIONS

We have scrutinised the meaningful use of the PISA classification system's application during a period of systemic healthcare constraint, the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these constraints, we found the framework can be successfully applied to incident reports to enable deductive analysis, identify areas for further enquiry and thus support organisational learning. No new or amended codes were warranted. Organisations and investigators can use our findings when reviewing their own classification systems.

Defining avoidable healthcare-associated harm in prisons: A mixed-method development study

BACKGROUND

Reducing avoidable healthcare-associated harm is a global health priority. Progress in evaluating the burden and aetiology of avoidable harm in prisons is limited compared with other healthcare sectors. To address this gap, this study aimed to develop a definition of avoidable harm to facilitate future epidemiological studies in prisons.

METHODS

Using a sequential mixed methods study design we first characterised and reached consensus on the types and avoidability of patient harm in prison healthcare involving analysis of 151 serious prison incidents reported to the Strategic Executive Information System (StEIS) followed by in-depth nominal group (NG) discussions with four former service users and four prison professionals. Findings of the NG discussions and StEIS analysis were then synthesised and discussed among the research team and study oversight groups to develop an operational definition of avoidable harm in prison healthcare which was subsequently tested and validated using prison patient safety incident report data derived from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS).

RESULTS

Analysis of StEIS incident reports and NG discussions identified important factors influencing avoidable harm which reflected the unique prison setting, including health care delivery issues and constraints associated with the secure environment which limited access to care. These findings informed the development of a new working two-tier definition of avoidable harm using appropriate and timely intervention, which included an additional assessment of harm avoidability taking into the account the prison regime and environment. The definition was compatible with the NRLS incident report narratives and illustrated how the prison environment may influence identification of avoidable harm and judgements of avoidability.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a working definition of avoidable harm in prison health care that enables consideration of caveats associated with prison environments and systems. Our definition enables future studies of the safety of prison healthcare to standardise outcome measurement.

Patient safety culture awareness among healthcare providers in a tertiary hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Patient safety is a serious concern in the health care industry. To enhance patient safety, healthcare providers are expected to minimize accidental harm to patients and enhance the quality of patient-centered care. The main objective of this study is to explore the awareness of the patient safety culture among healthcare providers. It is further intended to assess key fields and factors that hinder patient safety adoption and determine the effects of demographic factors on healthcare providers' awareness of patient safety culture. This study applied a cross-sectional quantitative design. It was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The participants consisted of all healthcare providers working in a specific tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. A random sampling technique was applied in this study. The study sample size was 409 participants. A valid and reliable questionnaire was used to collect the required data. The T-tests, ANOVA. And regression was used. The study found that there is a moderate level of patient safety culture awareness among healthcare providers. Moreover, the findings also revealed that the age group “31–40” showed statistically different awareness levels as compared to the “more than 50 years' age group” (p = 0.012). Also, this study has found that gender and education have a significant influence on the awareness level of patient safety culture while position and work area have no influence on the awareness level of patient safety culture among healthcare providers. Managers in healthcare institutions should develop speeder response plans and make them part of the patient safety culture. Institutions offering bachelor's degrees and postgraduate in nursing should pay more attention to the subject of patient safety. The government healthcare sector, together with the private healthcare sector, should continuously train healthcare providers on patient safety procedures to improve the patient safety culture. Healthcare providers should be encouraged to report errors made during diagnosis or treatments to avoid them in the future.

Opioids in the United Kingdom: safety and surveillance during COVID-19

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Opioid use is prevalent in the United Kingdom and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic it had been recognized that the safety of opioids was an important issue to be monitored by the UK medicines regulatory agency. With the emergence of COVID-19, this requirement has been even greater. This review was undertaken to determine the impact of the pandemic on safety and surveillance of opioids in the United Kingdom.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the surveillance of opioids in the United Kingdom continued, although primary research was often conducted with data prior to the pandemic. Of those studies that were conducted while the pandemic was ongoing, access to opioids (or opioid substitution therapy) and the subsequent effect on patient safety was the main theme.

SUMMARY

In the United Kingdom, changes in accessibility to the healthcare system and how healthcare providers operated during the COVID-19 pandemic may have had unintended consequences on use and safety of opioids, due to the shift in focus to preventing COVID-19 from overwhelming the healthcare system. The findings from this review support the need to continue surveillance in the United Kingdom, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid utilization and safety.

A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Medication Safety Incidents Reported in Neonatal and Children's Intensive Care

BACKGROUND

Critically ill neonates and paediatric patients may be at a greater risk of medication-related safety incidents than those in other clinical areas.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the nature of, and contributory factors associated with, medication-related safety incidents reported in neonatal and paediatric intensive care units (ICUs).

METHODS

We carried out a mixed-methods analysis of anonymised medication safety incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System that involved children (aged ≤ 18 years) admitted to ICUs across England and Wales over a 9-year period (2010-2018). Data were analysed descriptively, and free-text descriptions of harmful incidents were examined to explore potential contributory factors associated with incidents.

RESULTS

In total, 25,567 eligible medication-related incident reports were examined. Incidents commonly occurred during the medicines administration (n = 13,668 [53.5%]) and prescribing stages (n = 7412 [29%]). The most commonly implicated error types were drug omission (n = 4812 [18.8%]) and dosing errors (n = 4475 [17.5%]). Neonates were commonly involved in reported incidents (n = 12,235 [47.9%]). Anti-infectives (n = 6483 [25.4%]) were the medications most commonly associated with incidents and commonly involved neonates. Incidents that were reported to have caused patient harm accounted for 12.2% (n = 3129) and commonly involved neonates (n = 1570/3129 [50.2%]). Common contributing factors to harmful incidents included staff-related factors (68.7%), such as failure to follow protocols or errors in documentation, which were often associated with working conditions, inadequate guidelines, and design of systems and protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Neonates were commonly involved in medication-related incidents reported in children's intensive care settings. Improvements in staffing and workload, design of systems and processes, and the use of anti-infective medications may reduce this risk.

Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement in safety has shown positive effects in preventing or reducing adverse events and potential safety risks. Capturing and utilising patient-reported safety incident data can be used for service learning and improvement.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to characterise the nature of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of two cross sectional studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients from Australian and English primary care settings.

MEASURES

Patients' self-reported experiences of safety incidents were captured using the validated Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety questionnaire. Qualitative responses to survey items were analysed and categorised using the Primary Care Patient Safety Classification System. The frequency and type of safety incidents, contributory factors, and patient and system level outcomes are presented.

RESULTS

A total of 1329 patients (n=490, England; n=839, Australia) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 5.3% (n=69) of patients reported a safety incident over the preceding 12 months. The most common incident types were administration incidents (n=27, 31%) (mainly delays in accessing a physician) and incidents involving diagnosis and assessment (n=16, 18.4%). Organisation of care accounted for 27.6% (n=29) of the contributory factors identified in the safety incidents. Staff factors (n=13, 12.4%) was the second most commonly reported contributory factor. Where an outcome could be determined, patient inconvenience (n=24, 28.6%) and clinical harm (n=21, 25%) (psychological distress and unpleasant experience) were the most frequent.

CONCLUSIONS

The nature and outcomes of patient-reported incidents differ markedly from those identified in studies of staff-reported incidents. The findings from this study emphasise the importance of capturing patient-reported safety incidents in the primary care setting. The patient perspective can complement existing sources of safety intelligence with the potential for service improvement.

Patients' knowledge, awareness, and attitude regarding patient safety at a teaching hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Aims:

Our primary objective is to investigate the baseline status of patients' awareness, knowledge, and attitudes to patient safety. The secondary objective of this research is to determine factors that influence patients' knowledge regarding patient safety.

Methods:

We performed a cross-sectional study with a targeted sample of 410 patients at King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Self-administered paper-based questionnaires were distributed to outpatient clinics on February 2, 2019 until March 20, 2019. Finally, the data were analyzed by (SPSS).

Results:

There were 450 questioners distributed, and 410 were completed and returned (91% response rate). Most of the patients were below the age of 50 (77.9%), 54.8%, of them were females, and almost half received higher education (54.1%). Among the respondents who are taking drugs, 21.6% do not have any knowledge about the side effects of their drugs, and 47.8% of patients said that their physicians do not tell them the side effects of their prescribed drugs. Whereas 20.7% of patients claimed that they experienced a medical error, 66.3% did not report the errors, and the reason was not knowing how to report or to whom in 54.4% of the patients. In regards of infection control, 47% of the participants misunderstood means to prevent the spread of the infections and how it could be transmitted.

Conclusion:

Patients' knowledge about patient safety need to be improved. We suggest educating the patients by providing training programs for patients, and we recommend further studies.