Humanizing harm: Using a restorative approach to heal and learn from adverse events

Humanising processes after harm part 2: compounded harm experienced by patients and their families after safety incidents

Background

Healthcare organisations risk harming patients and their families twofold. First, through the physical, emotional and/or financial harm caused by safety incidents themselves, and second, through the organisational response to incidents. The former is well-researched and targeted by interventions. However, the latter, termed 'compounded harm' is rarely acknowledged.

Aims

We aimed to explore the ways compounded harm is experienced by patients and their families as a result of organisational responses to safety incidents and propose how this may be reduced in practice.

Methods

We used framework analysis to qualitatively explore data derived from interviews with 42 people with lived or professional experience of safety incident responses. This comprised 18 patients/relatives, 16 investigators, seven healthcare staff and one legal staff. People with lived and professional experience also helped to shape the design, conduct and findings of this study.

Findings

We identified six ways that patients and their families experienced compounded harm because of incident responses. These were feeling: (1) powerless, (2) inconsequential, (3) manipulated, (4) abandoned, (5) de-humanised and (6) disoriented.

Discussion

It is imperative to reduce compounded harm experienced by patients and families. We propose three recommendations for policy and practice: (1) the healthcare system to recognise and address epistemic injustice and equitably support people to be equal partners throughout investigations and subsequent learning to reduce the likelihood of patients and families feeling powerless and inconsequential; (2) honest and transparent regulatory and organisational cultures to be fostered and enacted to reduce the likelihood of patients and families feeling manipulated; and (3) the healthcare system to reorient towards providing restorative responses to harm which are human centred, relational and underpinned by dignity, safety and voluntariness to reduce the likelihood of patients and families feeling abandoned, de-humanised and disoriented.

Cultivating the conditions for care: it's all about trust

This perspective article shares the viewpoints of two long-standing patient safety advocates who have participated first-hand in the evolution of patient engagement in healthcare quality and safety. Their involvement is motivated by a rejection of the common cruelty of institutional betrayal that compounds harm when patient safety fails. The advocates have sought to understand how it can be that fractured trust spreads so predictably after harm, just when it most needs strengthening. Instead, the abandonment of trust upends healthcare values and effectiveness at interpersonal, systemic and structural levels. They argue that authentic care (healthcare that is truly caring) transcends mere service delivery, thus embodying an inviolable commitment to mutual well-being, compassion and generosity. The advocates identify the influence of social determinants, such as culture, identity, and socioeconomic status, as critical to trust formation, where pathogenic vulnerability exacerbates existing inequalities and further impedes trust. The advocates call for a shift from transactional to relational, trust-based interactions that explore the potential for mobilizing restorative justice principles to repair harm and rebuild trust, enabling dialogue, mutual understanding and systemic improvement. Trust, they assert, is born in relationships, not transactions. The bureaucratic, legal and resource constraints that often impair meaningful interactions, also cause moral distress to healthcare providers and poor care quality for patients. They argue that central to the current healthcare crisis is the fundamental need for genuine connection and trust, framing this as both a practical necessity and a confirmation of humanity as intrinsic to healthcare. The advocates envision a future where patient engagement is integral to patient safety to prioritize epistemic justice, mutual respect and compassionate care, to restore healthcare as a cohesive, supportive and deeply human endeavor. They query what contributions a restorative approach could make to centre trust as necessary for cultivating the conditions for care in our healthcare system.

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.

Restorative Just Culture: An Exploration of the Enabling Conditions for Successful Implementation

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Restorative responses to staff involved in incidents are becoming recognized as a rigorous and constructive alternative to retributive forms of 'just culture'. However, actually achieving restoration in mostly retributive working environments can be quite difficult. The conditions for the fair and successful application of restorative practices have not yet been established. In this article, we explore possible commonalities in the conditions for success across multiple cases and industries.

METHODS

In an exploratory review we analysed published and unpublished cases to discover enabling conditions.

RESULTS

We found eight enabling conditions-leadership response, leadership expectations, perspective of leadership, 'tough on content, soft on relationships', public and media attention, regulatory or judicial attention to the incident, second victim acknowledgement, and possible full-disclosure setting-whose absence or presence either hampered or fostered a restorative response.

CONCLUSIONS

The enabling conditions seemed to coagulate around leadership qualities, media and judicial attention resulting in leadership apprehension or unease linked to their political room for maneuver in the wake of an incident, and the engagement of the 'second victim'. These three categories can possibly form a frame within which the application of restorative justice can have a sustainable effect. Follow-up research is needed to test this hypothesis.

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.

External inspection approaches and involvement of stakeholders' views in inspection following serious incidents - a qualitative mixed methods study from the perspectives of regulatory inspectors

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to gain knowledge about how external inspections following serious incidents are played out in a Norwegian hospital context from the perspective of the inspectors, and whether stakeholders' views are involved in the inspection.

METHODS

Based on a qualitative mixed methods design, 10 government bureaucrats and inspectors situated at the National Board of Health Supervision and three County Governors in Norway, were strategically recruited, and individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Key official government documents were selected, collected, and thematically analyzed along with the interview data.

RESULTS

Our findings overall demonstrate two overarching themes: Theme (1) Perspectives on different external inspection approaches of responding and involving stakeholders in external inspection following serious incidents, Theme (2) Inspectors' internal work practices versus external expectations. Documents and all participants reported a development towards new approaches in external inspection, with more policies and regulatory attention to sensible involvement of stakeholders. Involvement and interaction with patients and informal caregivers could potentially inform the case complexity and the inspector's decision-making process. However, stakeholder involvement was sometimes complex and challenging due to e.g., difficult communication and interaction with patients and/or informal caregivers, due to resource demands and/or the inspector's lack of experience and/or relevant competence, different perceptions of the principle of sound professional practice, quality, and safety. The inspectors considered balancing the formal objectives and expectations, with the expectations of the public and different stakeholders (i.e. hospitals, patients and/or informal caregivers) a challenging part of their job. This balance was seen as an important part of the continuous development of ensuring public trust and legitimacy in external inspection processes.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our study suggests that the regulatory system of external inspection and its available approaches of responding to a serious incident in the Norwegian setting is currently not designed to accommodate the complexity of needs from stakeholders at the levels of hospital organizations, patients, and informal caregivers altogether. Further studies should direct attention to how the wider system of accountability structures may support the internal work practices in the regulatory system, to better algin its formal objectives with expectations of the public.

Improving patient safety governance and systems through learning from successes and failures: qualitative surveys and interviews with international experts

Patient harm is a leading cause of global disease burden with considerable morbidity, mortality, and economic impacts for individuals, families, and wider society. Large bodies of evidence exist for strategies to improve safety and reduce harm. However, it is not clear which patient safety issues are being addressed globally, and which factors are the most (or least) important contributors to patient safety improvements. We aimed to explore the perspectives of international patient safety experts to identify: (1) the nature and range of patient safety issues being addressed, and (2) aspects of patient safety governance and systems that are perceived to provide value (or not) in improving patient outcomes. English-speaking Fellows and Experts of the International Society for Quality in Healthcare participated in a web-based survey and in-depth semistructured interview, discussing their experience in implementing interventions to improve patient safety. Data collection focused on understanding the elements of patient safety governance that influence outcomes. Demographic survey data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were coded, analysed thematically (inductive approach), and mapped deductively to the System-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes framework. Findings are presented as themes and a patient safety governance model. The study was approved by the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee. Twenty-seven experts (59% female) participated. Most hailed from Africa (n = 6, 22%), Australasia, and the Middle East (n = 5, 19% each). The majority were employed in hospital settings (n = 23, 85%), and reported blended experience across healthcare improvement (89%), accreditation (76%), organizational operations (64%), and policy (60%). The number and range of patient safety issues within our sample varied widely with 14 topics being addressed. Thematically, 532 textual segments were grouped into 90 codes (n = 44 barriers, n = 46 facilitators) and used to identify and arrange key patient safety governance actors and factors as a 'system' within the System-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes framework. Four themes for improved patient safety governance were identified: (1) 'safety culture' in healthcare organizations, (2) 'policies and procedures' to investigate, implement, and demonstrate impact from patient safety initiatives, (3) 'supporting staff' to upskill and share learnings, and (4) 'patient engagement, experiences, and expectations'. For sustainable patient safety governance, experts highlighted the importance of safety culture in healthcare organizations, national patient safety policies and regulatory standards, continuing education for staff, and meaningful patient engagement approaches. Our proposed 'patient safety governance model' provides policymakers and researchers with a framework to develop data-driven patient safety policy.

Support for healthcare workers and patients after medical error through mutual healing: another step towards patient safety

BACKGROUND

Medical errors, especially those resulting in patient harm, have a negative psychological impact on patients and healthcare workers (HCWs). Healing may be promoted if both parties are able to work together and explore the effect and outcome of the event from each of their perspectives. There is little existing research in this area, even though this has the potential to improve patient safety and wellness for both HCWs and patients.

METHODS

Using a patient-oriented research approach with constructive grounded theory methodology, we examined the potential for patients and HCWs to heal together after harm from a medical error. Individual interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. We conducted concurrent data collection and analysis according to grounded theory principles. With our findings, we created a framework and visual breakdown of the communication process between patients and HCWs.

RESULTS

Our findings suggest that, after a medical error causing harm, both patients and HCWs have feelings of empathy and respect towards each other that often goes unrecognised. Barriers to communication for patients were related to their perception that HCWs did not care about them, showed no remorse or did not admit to the error. For HCWs, communication barriers were related to feelings of blame or shame, and fear of professional and legal consequences. Patients reported needing open and transparent communications to help them heal, and HCWs required leadership and peer support, including training and space to talk about the event(s).

DISCUSSION

Our resulting framework suggests that if there was an opportunity for an open and purposeful conversation early or before increased emotional suffering, there might be an opportunity to bridge the barriers, and help patients and HCWs heal together. This, in turn, contributes to improved health quality and patient safety.