Improving the quality of drug error reporting

Improvement proposals and actions in medication error reports: Quality and strength: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

Medication errors (MEs) are a significant source of preventable harm in patient care. Voluntary incident reporting and ME reporting systems are essential for managing medication safety. Analyzing aggregated ME reports instead of individual reports can reveal organizational risks. Organizational culture influences reporting activity and the effectiveness of safety improvements depends on their system-focus. This study uses aggregated ME reports to investigate the ME management process and reporting culture in medication safety. It aims to create a hierarchy for ME improvement actions and analyze their strength and management flow in aggregated reports.

Methods

A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted to review improvement proposals and actions of ME reports in a Finnish tertiary hospital in 2017-2021. The improvement proposals and actions were categorized into strength classes during three stages: reporter proposals, manager proposals, and documented actions. The report management flow was analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics and the chi-squared test for categorical variables in the statistical analysis.

Results

A new strength classification hierarchy was created with three classes and corresponding numerical values: "strong (3)," "medium (2)," and "weak (1)" Additionally, categories for "no action (0)" and "vague (0)" were included. Out of 5463 ME reports analyzed, improvement proposals and actions were predominantly weak, ranging from 23.4% to 54.2% across different stages of the management process. A significant proportion had no action included (20.5-49.1%) or were vague (4.2-20.6%).

Conclusion

Analyzing the strength of improvement proposals and actions in aggregated ME reports provides new insights into reporting culture and the ME management. The new combined strength classification hierarchy is a suitable tool for this analysis.

Perceptions of U.S. and U.K. Incident Reporting Systems: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to evaluate the extent, range, and nature of the literature that concerns healthcare providers' perceptions following the use of incident reporting systems (IRSs) in the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (U.K.). Literature was compared describing providers' perceptions of reporting patient safety incidents using IRSs from healthcare systems built on public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit insurers in the U.S., with providers' perceptions using an IRS within a universal government supported healthcare system in the U.K.

METHODS

This scoping review searched literature from 4 electronic databases, producing 4863 articles between January 2010 to March 2023.

RESULTS

Eleven U.S. and 8 U.K. articles met the inclusion criteria. Providers described system and individual barriers when using IRSs. The U.S. providers described more concerns regarding individual barriers (fear of punitive response or retaliation, feel incapable or shamed, unsure of what constitutes a patient safety incident, and concerned about litigation) than providers in the U.K. Both countries had similar responses regarding system barriers, except for U.K. providers who were more concerned than the U.S. about damage to professional culture. Providers in both countries believed incident reporting was ineffective and time consuming with hospital leaders seldom acknowledging or integrating improvement measures based on reported incidents.

CONCLUSIONS

Sustainable improvements in patient care must be driven by hospital leadership who create just cultures where reporting of safety concerns is encouraged and respected within nonpunitive milieus.

Enhanced Free-Text Search for Aggregated Medication Error Report Analysis and Risk Detection

OBJECTIVES

Detecting medication errors (MEs) and learning from them are the key elements of medication safety management in health care. While the aggregation of the data and learning across the ME reports could help detect and manage organizational risks, the inconsistent and partly missing structural data complicate the analysis. The objective of this study was to examine whether an analysis of free-text data of aggregated ME reports could contribute to the detection of organizational risks.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of ME reports from a patient safety incident reporting system in a tertiary hospital 2017-2021. Clustering of characteristics and variables of ME reports with an enhanced free-text search of the 10 most frequent active substances (TOP10) related to ME reports using Microsoft Excel. Validity analysis of the four most frequent active substances of the search results (TOP4). Evaluation of the possible impact of the enhanced free-text search method on ME report analysis and risk detection.

RESULTS

The enhanced free-text search increased significantly the number of relevant ME reports of TOP10 active substances from 698 reports to 1578 reports. The validity of the enhanced free-text search results in TOP4 active substances was more than 74%. The enhanced free-text search revealed also new ME findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced free-text search can contribute to the aggregate analysis of clustered ME reports and to the improvement of ME risk detection. The enhanced free-text search method enables more comprehensive analysis of the free-text data with commonly available software and provides new insights into medication safety improvement.

Adverse Event Reporting Priorities: An Integrative Review

OBJECTIVES

Adverse events remain the third leading cause of death in hospitals today, after heart disease and cancer. However, adverse events remain underreported. The purpose of this integrative review is to synthesize adverse event reporting priorities in acute care hospitals from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research articles.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of articles was conducted using nursing, medicine, and communication databases between January 1, 1999, and May 3, 2021. The literature was described using standard reporting criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria. Four key priorities emerged: understanding and reducing barriers, improving perceptions of adverse event reporting within healthcare hierarchies, improving organizational culture, and improving outcomes measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

A paucity of literature on adverse event reporting within acute care hospital settings was found. Perceptions of fear of blaming and retaliation, lack of feedback, and comfort level of challenging someone more powerful present the greatest barriers to adverse event reporting. Based on qualitative studies, obtaining trusting relationships and sustaining that trust, especially in hierarchical healthcare systems, are difficult to achieve. Given that patient safety training is a common strategy clinically to improve organizational culture, only 4 published articles examined its effectiveness. Further research in acute care hospitals is needed on all 4 key priorities. The findings of this review may ultimately be used by clinicians and researchers to reduce adverse events and develop future research questions.

Perceptions of key informants on the provision of cervical cancer prevention and control programme in Uganda: implication for cervical cancer policy

Background

Uganda has one of the highest burdens of cervical cancer globally. In 2010 the Ugandan Ministry of Health launched the Strategic Plan for Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control with the hope of developing cervical cancer policy in Uganda. This study explored the beliefs of senior key informants in Uganda about cervical cancer prevention, the control programme, and the relevance of cervical cancer policy.

Methods

We conducted 15 key informant interviews with participants from six organisations across Northern and Central Uganda. Participants were drawn from district local government health departments, St. Mary’s Hospital Lacor, Uganda Nurses and Midwifery Council, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and Ministry of Health in Kampala, Uganda. The interview recordings were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Seven themes emerged relating to the cervical cancer prevention and control programmes in Uganda: (1) policy frameworks for cervical cancer, (2) operationalising cervical cancer prevention and control, (3) financial allocation and alignment, (4) human resources and capability, (5) essential supplies and vaccines, (6) administrative data and resource distribution, and (7) cervical cancer services.

Conclusions

The key informants perceive that the lack of a cervical cancer policy in Uganda is hindering cervical cancer prevention and control programmes. Therefore, the Ministry of Health and stakeholders need to work together in coming up with an effective policy framework that will accelerate efforts towards cervical cancer prevention and control in Uganda.

Medication errors among Iranian emergency nurses: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Medication errors (MEs) made by nurses are the most common errors in emergency departments (EDs). Identifying the factors responsible for MEs is crucial in designing optimal strategies for reducing such occurrences. The present study aimed to review the literature describing the prevalence and factors affecting MEs among emergency ward nurses in Iran.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases, including the Scientific Information Database, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, for scientific studies conducted among emergency ward nurses in Iran. The studies were restricted to full-text, peer-reviewed studies published from inception to December 2019, in the Persian and English languages, that evaluated MEs among emergency ward nurses in Iran.

RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the nurses (58.9%) had committed MEs only once. The overall mean rate of MEs was 46.2%, and errors made during drug administration accounted for 41.7% of MEs. The most common type of administration error was drug omission (17.8%), followed by administering drugs at the wrong time (17.5%) and at an incorrect dosage (10.6%). The lack of an adequate nursing workforce during shifts and improper nurse-patient ratios were the most critical factors affecting the occurrence of MEs by nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increased attention on patient safety in Iran, MEs by nurses remain a significant concern in EDs. Therefore, nurse managers and policy-makers must take adequate measures to reduce the incidence of MEs and their potential negative consequences.

Quality patient care: challenges and opportunities

There are several interlocking elements integral to the delivery of safe patient care, including clinical governance, efficient communication, teamwork, risk assessment, inter-professional education and effective leadership. Each element can be challenging to understand, develop, or act on, but it is essential that nurses use these as opportunities to ensure their specialty or service delivers safe and high-quality care. This article discusses each of these elements and its relationship to quality patient care, with specific reference to the role of children's nurses.

Inter-rater reliability of medication error classification in a voluntary patient safety incident reporting system HaiPro in Finland

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are common in healthcare. Medication error reporting systems can be established for learning from medication errors and risk prone processes, and their data can be analysed and used for improving medication processes in healthcare organisations. However, data reliability testing is crucial to avoid biases in data interpretation and misleading findings informing patient safety improvement.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the inter-rater reliability of medication error classifications in a voluntary patient safety incident reporting system (HaiPro) widely used in Finland, and to explore reported medication errors and their contributing factors.

METHOD

The data consisted of medication errors (n = 32 592), including near misses, reported by 36 Finnish healthcare organisations in 2007-2009. The reliability of the original classifications was tested by an independent researcher reclassifying a random sample of errors (1%, n = 288) based on narratives. The inter-rater reliability of agreement (κ) of the classifications was calculated to describe the degree of conformity between the researcher and the original data classifiers. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the medication errors.

RESULTS

The inter-rater reliability between the researcher and the original data classifiers was acceptable (κ ≥ 0.41) in 11 of 42 (26%) medication error classes. Thus, these errors could be pooled from different healthcare units for the exploration of medication errors at the level of all reporting organisations. Contributing factors were identified in 48% (n = 137) of the medication error narratives in the random sample (n = 288). The most commonly reported errors were dispensing errors (34%, n = 10 906), administration errors 25% (n = 7972), and documentation errors 17% (n = 5641).

CONCLUSIONS

The data classified by different classifiers can be pooled for some of the medication error classes. Consistency of the classification and the quality of narratives need improvement, as well as reporting and classification of contributing factors to provide high quality information on medication errors.

Exploring healthcare professionals' perceptions of medication errors in an adult oncology department in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study

Objective

Adverse events which result from medication errors are considered to be one of the most frequently encountered patient safety issues in clinical settings. We undertook a qualitative investigation to identify and explore factors relating to medication error in an adult oncology department in Saudi Arabia from the perspective of healthcare professionals.

Methods

This was a qualitative study conducted in an adult oncology department in Saudi Arabia. After obtaining required ethical approvals and written consents from the participants, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were carried out for data collection. A stratified purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit medical doctors, pharmacists, and nurses. NVivo Pro version 11 was used for data analyses. Inductive thematic analysis was adopted in the primary coding of data while secondary coding of data was carried out deductively applying the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC) framework.

Result

The total number of participants were 38. Majority of the participants were nurses (n = 24), females (n = 30), and not of Saudi nationality (n = 31) with an average age of 36 years old. Causes of medication errors were categorized into 6 themes. These causes were related teamwork across units, staffing, handover of medication related information, accepted behavioural norms, frequency of events reported, and non-punitive response to error.

Conclusion

There were numerous causes for medication errors in the adult oncology department. This means substantive improvement in medication safety is likely to require multiple, inter-relating, complex interventions. More research should be conducted to examine context-specific interventions that may have the potential to improve medication safety in this and similar departments.

Development of a theoretical framework of factors affecting patient safety incident reporting: a theoretical review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

The development and implementation of incident reporting systems within healthcare continues to be a fundamental strategy to reduce preventable patient harm and improve the quality and safety of healthcare. We sought to identify factors contributing to patient safety incident reporting.

DESIGN

To facilitate improvements in incident reporting, a theoretical framework, encompassing factors that act as barriers and enablers ofreporting, was developed. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and PsycINFO were searched to identify relevant articles published between January 1980 and May 2014. A comprehensive search strategy including MeSH terms and keywords was developed to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted by three independent researchers; to ensure the accuracy of data extraction, all studies eligible for inclusion were rescreened by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 3049 potentially eligible articles; of these, 110 articles, including >29 726 participants, met the inclusion criteria. In total, 748 barriers were identified (frequency count) across the 110 articles. In comparison, 372 facilitators to incident reporting and 118 negative cases were identified. The top two barriers cited were fear of adverse consequences (161, representing 21.52% of barriers) and process and systems of reporting (110, representing 14.71% of barriers). In comparison, the top two facilitators were organisational (97, representing 26.08% of facilitators) and process and systems of reporting (75, representing 20.16% of facilitators).

CONCLUSION

A wide range of factors contributing to engagement in incident reporting exist. Efforts that address the current tendency to under-report must consider the full range of factors in order to develop interventions as well as a strategic policy approach for improvement.

Patient-reported safety incidents as a new source of patient safety data: an exploratory comparative study in an acute hospital in England

Objectives

To compare a new co-designed, patient incident reporting tool with three established methods of detecting patient safety incidents and identify if the same incidents are recorded across methods.

Method

Trained research staff collected data from inpatients in nine wards in one university teaching hospital during their stay. Those classified as patient safety incidents were retained. We then searched for patient safety incidents in the corresponding patient case notes, staff incident reports and reports to the Patient Advice and Liaison Service specific to the study wards.

Results

In the nine wards, 329 patients were recruited to the study, of which 77 provided 155 patient reports. From these, 68 patient safety incidents were identified. Eight of these were also identified from case note review, five were also identified in incident reports, and two were also found in the records of a local Patient Advice and Liaison Service. Reports of patients covered a range of events from their immediate environment, involving different health professionals and spanning the entire spectrum of care.

Conclusion

Patient safety incidents reported by patients are unlikely to be found through other established methods of incident detection. When hospitalized patients are asked about their care, they can provide a unique perspective on patient safety. Co-designed, real-time reporting could be a helpful addition to existing methods of gathering patient safety intelligence.

Integrating Data From the UK National Reporting and Learning System With Work Domain Analysis to Understand Patient Safety Incidents in Community Pharmacy

OBJECTIVES

To explore the combined use of a critical incident database and work domain analysis to understand patient safety issues in a health-care setting.

METHOD

A retrospective review was conducted of incidents reported to the UK National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) that involved community pharmacy between April 2005 and August 2010. A work domain analysis of community pharmacy was constructed using observational data from 5 community pharmacies, technical documentation, and a focus group with 6 pharmacists. Reports from the NRLS were mapped onto the model generated by the work domain analysis.

RESULTS

Approximately 14,709 incident reports meeting the selection criteria were retrieved from the NRLS. Descriptive statistical analysis of these reports found that almost all of the incidents involved medication and that the most frequently occurring error types were dose/strength errors, incorrect medication, and incorrect formulation. The work domain analysis identified 4 overall purposes for community pharmacy: business viability, health promotion and clinical services, provision of medication, and use of medication. These purposes were served by lower-order characteristics of the work system (such as the functions, processes and objects). The tasks most frequently implicated in the incident reports were those involving medication storage, assembly, or patient medication records.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining the insights from different analytical methods improves understanding of patient safety problems. Incident reporting data can be used to identify general patterns, whereas the work domain analysis can generate information about the contextual factors that surround a critical task.

Improving patient safety through the involvement of patients: development and evaluation of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing patient safety incidents and protecting them against unintended harm

Background

Estimates suggest that, in NHS hospitals, incidents causing harm to patients occur in 10% of admissions, with costs to the NHS of > £2B. About one-third of harmful events are believed to be preventable. Strategies to reduce patient safety incidents (PSIs) have mostly focused on changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with the role that patients can play in enhancing the safety of care being relatively unexplored. However, although the role and effectiveness of patient involvement in safety initiatives is unclear, previous work has identified a general willingness among patients to contribute to initiatives to improve health-care safety.

Aim

Our aim in this programme was to design, develop and evaluate four innovative approaches to engage patients in preventing PSIs: assessing risk, reporting incidents, direct engagement in preventing harm and education and training.

Methods and results

We developed tools to report PSIs [patient incident reporting tool (PIRT)] and provide feedback on factors that might contribute to PSIs in the future [Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS)]. These were combined into a single instrument and evaluated in the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention using a randomised design. Although take-up of the intervention by, and retention of, participating hospital wards was 100% and patient participation was high at 86%, compliance with the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. We found no significant effect of the intervention on outcomes at 6 or 12 months. The ThinkSAFE project involved the development and evaluation of an intervention to support patients to directly engage with health-care staff to enhance their safety through strategies such as checking their care and speaking up to staff if they had any concerns. The piloting of ThinkSAFE showed that the approach is feasible and acceptable to users and may have the potential to improve patient safety. We also developed a patient safety training programme for junior doctors based on patients who had experienced PSIs recounting their own stories. This approach was compared with traditional methods of patient safety teaching in a randomised controlled trial. The study showed that delivering patient safety training based on patient narratives is feasible and had an effect on emotional engagement and learning about communication. However, there was no effect on changing general attitudes to safety compared with the control.

Conclusion

This research programme has developed a number of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing PSIs and protecting them against unintended harm. In our evaluations of these interventions we have been unable to demonstrate any improvement in patient safety although this conclusion comes with a number of caveats, mainly about the difficulty of measuring patient safety outcomes. Reflecting this difficulty, one of our recommendations for future research is to develop reliable and valid measures to help efficiently evaluate safety improvement interventions. The programme found patients to be willing to codesign, coproduce and participate in initiatives to prevent PSIs and the approaches used were feasible and acceptable. These factors together with recent calls to strengthen the patient voice in health care could suggest that the tools and interventions from this programme would benefit from further development and evaluation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07689702.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Double checking: a second look

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Double checking is a standard practice in many areas of health care, notwithstanding the lack of evidence supporting its efficacy. We ask in this study: 'How do front line practitioners conceptualize double checking? What are the weaknesses of double checking? What alternate views of double checking could render it a more robust process?'

METHOD

This is part of a larger qualitative study based on 85 semi-structured interviews of health care practitioners in general internal medicine and obstetrics and neonatology; thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was undertaken. Inductive and deductive themes are reported.

RESULTS

Weaknesses in the double checking process include inconsistent conceptualization of double checking, double (or more) checking as a costly and time-consuming procedure, double checking trusted as an accepted and stand-alone process, and double checking as preventing reporting of near misses. Alternate views of double checking that would render it a more robust process include recognizing that double checking requires training and a dedicated environment, Introducing automated double checking, and expanding double checking beyond error detection. These results are linked with the concepts of collective efficiency thoroughness trade off (ETTO), an in-family approach, and resilience.

CONCLUSION(S)

Double checking deserves more questioning, as there are limitations to the process. Practitioners could view double checking through alternate lenses, and thus help strengthen this ubiquitous practice that is rarely challenged.

Dispensing doctor practices and community pharmacies: exploring the quality of pharmaceutical services

AIMS

This research sought (a) to investigate the similarities and differences in how pharmaceutical services are provided by community pharmacies (CPs) and dispensing doctor practices (DPs) and (b) to identify the issues relevant to determining the quality of pharmaceutical services in these settings.

BACKGROUND

UK pharmaceutical services, including dispensing prescriptions and public health advice, can be provided from both (CP) and, in rural areas, (DP). While there is much similarity between CPs and DPs in the types of services provided, there is also the potential for variation in service quality across settings.

METHODS

A postal questionnaire of DPs and CPs in South West England was conducted to provide a descriptive overview of pharmaceutical services across the settings. A subsection of questionnaire respondent sites were selected to take part in case studies, which involved documentary analyses, observation and staff interviews.

FINDINGS

Survey response was 39% for CPs (52/134) and 48% (31/64) for DPs. There were three CP and four DP case study sites, with 17 staff interviews. More pharmacies than practices were open at the weekend and they had more staff trained above NVQ level 2. Both doctors and pharmacists saw themselves as medicines experts, as being accessible and having good relationships with patients. Workplace practices and organisational ethos varied both within and across settings, with good practice observed in both. Overall, CPs and DPs have much in common. Workplace culture and an evidence-based approach to checking prescriptions and error reporting need to be considered in future assessments of service quality.

Barriers to the reporting of medication administration errors and near misses: an interview study of nurses at a psychiatric hospital

Medication administration errors and near misses are common including in mental health settings. Nurses should report all errors and near misses so that lessons can be learned and future mistakes avoided. We interviewed 50 nurses to find out if they would report an error that a colleague had made or if they would report a near-miss that they had. Less than half of nurses said they would report an error made by a colleague or a near-miss involving themselves. Nurses commonly said they would not report the errors or near misses because there was a good excuse for the error/near miss, because they lacked knowledge about whether it was an error/near miss or how to report it, because they feared the consequences of reporting it, or because reporting it was too much work. Mental health nurses mostly report similar reasons for not reporting errors and near misses as nurses working in general medical settings. We have not seen another study where nurses would not report an error or near miss because they thought there was a good excuse for it. Training programmes and policies should address all the reasons that prevent reporting of errors and near misses. Medication errors are a common and preventable cause of patient harm. Guidance for nurses indicates that all errors and near misses should be immediately reported in order to facilitate the development of a learning culture. However, medication errors and near misses have been under-researched in mental health settings. This study explored the reasons given by psychiatric nurses for not reporting a medication error made by a colleague, and the perceived barriers to near-miss reporting. We presented 50 nurses with clinical vignettes about error and near-miss reporting and interviewed them about their likely actions and about their views and perceptions. Less than half of participants would report an error made by a colleague (48%) or a near-miss involving themselves (40%). Thematic analysis revealed common themes for both not reporting an error or a near-miss were knowledge, fear, burden of work, and excusing the error. The first three themes are similar to results obtained from research in general medical settings, but the fourth appears to be novel. Many mental health nurses are not yet fully convinced of the need to report all errors and near misses, and that improvements could be made by increasing knowledge while reducing fear, burden of work, and excusing of errors.

Medication safety: using incident data analysis and clinical focus groups to inform educational needs

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Medication-related safety incidents are a source of concern to patients, policy makers and clinicians. The role of education in improving safety-critical practices in health care is poorly appreciated. This pilot study aimed to initiate collective discussion among professional groups of clinical staff about a range of medicine-related patient safety issues which were identified from a local incident reporting system. In engaging staff to collectively reflect on reported medication incidents we attempted to uncover a deeper understanding of local contextual issues and potential educational needs.

METHODS

A mixed method study was conducted involving categorical analysis of 1058 medication incident reports (Phase 1) and the use of three mixed focus groups of clinical staff (Phase 2) in three acute hospitals in one locality in NHS Scotland.

RESULTS

Focus group transcript analysis produced four main themes (e.g. the medical role) and 12 related sub-themes (e.g. pharmacological education and skill mix for administration of medicines) concerning medication-related practices and possible educational interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

While it is necessary to review reported incident data and disseminate the educational messages for the improvement of quality, this traditional risk management process is inadequate on its own. Reporting systems can be enhanced by collective examination of reported information about medicines by local clinical teams. We identified a strong message from the focus groups for learning about each other and from each other, and that the method piloted may be an important inter-professional mechanism for improvement.

Medication incident reporting in residential aged care facilities: limitations and risks to residents' safety

BACKGROUND

Medication incident reporting (MIR) is a key safety critical care process in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Retrospective studies of medication incident reports in aged care have identified the inability of existing MIR processes to generate information that can be used to enhance residents' safety. However, there is little existing research that investigates the limitations of the existing information exchange process that underpins MIR, despite the considerable resources that RACFs' devote to the MIR process. The aim of this study was to undertake an in-depth exploration of the information exchange process involved in MIR and identify factors that inhibit the collection of meaningful information in RACFs.

METHODS

The study was undertaken in three RACFs (part of a large non-profit organisation) in NSW, Australia. A total of 23 semi-structured interviews and 62 hours of observation sessions were conducted between May to July 2011. The qualitative data was iteratively analysed using a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

The findings highlight significant gaps in the design of the MIR artefacts as well as information exchange issues in MIR process execution. Study results emphasized the need to: a) design MIR artefacts that facilitate identification of the root causes of medication incidents, b) integrate the MIR process within existing information systems to overcome key gaps in information exchange execution, and c) support exchange of information that can facilitate a multi-disciplinary approach to medication incident management in RACFs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the advantages of viewing MIR process holistically rather than as segregated tasks, as a means to identify gaps in information exchange that need to be addressed in practice to improve safety critical processes.

Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to develop a 'contributory factors framework' from a synthesis of empirical work which summarises factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods systematic review of the literature was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Medline, PsycInfo, ISI Web of knowledge, CINAHL and EMBASE), article reference lists, patient safety websites, registered study databases and author contacts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included that reported data from primary research in secondary care aiming to identify the contributory factors to error or threats to patient safety.

RESULTS

1502 potential articles were identified. 95 papers (representing 83 studies) which met the inclusion criteria were included, and 1676 contributory factors extracted. Initial coding of contributory factors by two independent reviewers resulted in 20 domains (eg, team factors, supervision and leadership). Each contributory factor was then coded by two reviewers to one of these 20 domains. The majority of studies identified active failures (errors and violations) as factors contributing to patient safety incidents. Individual factors, communication, and equipment and supplies were the other most frequently reported factors within the existing evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has culminated in an empirically based framework of the factors contributing to patient safety incidents. This framework has the potential to be applied across hospital settings to improve the identification and prevention of factors that cause harm to patients.

Safety subcultures in health-care organizations and managing medical error

Leadership has been proposed as a key latent factor influencing the safety culture of an organization, the likelihood of errors occurring and the way in which these are managed. Therefore, when an error occurs, managers have an integral role to ensure that the most desirable outcomes are achieved for patients, health-care staff and their organization. Semistructured interviews were conducted in a large UK teaching hospital to explore the perspectives of staff who are tasked in some way with managing patient safety. Data from 26 transcripts were analysed using an adapted version of Spencer's (2003) qualitative framework, which revealed five primary themes. This paper reports findings from two overarching primary themes, described as being management and safety subcultures. These themes describe experiences of managing medical errors and the subgroup variations between professions, ranks and specialties in attitudes and behaviours towards error, and its management in a large National Health Service Trust. We discuss implications for health-care managers and health professionals in developing a stronger and more unified safety culture in their organizations, along with considerations for academic researchers when undertaking health services research.

Training and action for patient safety: embedding interprofessional education for patient safety within an improvement methodology

INTRODUCTION

Despite an explosion of interest in improving safety and reducing error in health care, one important aspect of patient safety that has received little attention is a systematic approach to education and training for the whole health care workforce. This article describes an evaluation of an innovative multiprofessional, team-based training program that embeds patient safety within quality improvement methods.

METHODS

Kirkpatrick's "levels of evaluation" model was adopted to evaluate the program in health organizations across one city in the north of England. Questionnaires were used to assess reaction of participants to the program (Level 1). Improvements in patient safety knowledge and patient safety culture (Level 2) were assessed using a 12-item multiple-choice questionnaire and a culture questionnaire. Interviews and project-specific quantitative measurements were used to assess changes in professional practice and patient outcomes (Levels 3 and 4).

RESULTS

All aspects of the program were positively received by participants. Few participants completed the MCQ at both time points, but those who did showed improvement in knowledge. There were some small but significant improvements in patient safety culture. Interviews revealed a number of additional benefits beyond the specific problems addressed. Most importantly, 8 of the 11 teams showed improvements in patient safety practices and/or outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This program is an example of interprofessional education in practice and demonstrates that team-based learning using quality improvement methods is feasible and can be effective in improving patient safety, but requires time and space for participants. Alignment with continuing education arrangements could support mainstream adoption of this approach within organizations.

Patient involvement in patient safety: Protocol for developing an intervention using patient reports of organisational safety and patient incident reporting

BACKGROUND

Patients have the potential to provide a rich source of information on both organisational aspects of safety and patient safety incidents. This project aims to develop two patient safety interventions to promote organisational learning about safety - a patient measure of organisational safety (PMOS), and a patient incident reporting tool (PIRT) - to help the NHS prevent patient safety incidents by learning more about when and why they occur.

METHODS

To develop the PMOS 1) literature will be reviewed to identify similar measures and key contributory factors to error; 2) four patient focus groups will ascertain practicality and feasibility; 3) 25 patient interviews will elicit approximately 60 items across 10 domains; 4) 10 patient and clinician interviews will test acceptability and understanding. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic content analysis.To develop the PIRT 1) individual and then combined patient and clinician focus groups will provide guidance for the development of three potential reporting tools; 2) nine wards across three hospital directorates will pilot each of the tools for three months. The best performing tool will be identified from the frequency, volume and quality of reports. The validity of both measures will be tested. 300 patients will be asked to complete the PMOS and PIRT during their stay in hospital. A sub-sample (N = 50) will complete the PMOS again one week later. Health professionals in participating wards will also be asked to complete the AHRQ safety culture questionnaire. Case notes for all patients will be reviewed. The psychometric properties of the PMOS will be assessed and a final valid and reliable version developed. Concurrent validity for the PIRT will be assessed by comparing reported incidents with those identified from case note review and the existing staff reporting scheme. In a subsequent study these tools will be used to provide information to wards/units about their priorities for patient safety. A patient panel will provide steering to the research.

DISCUSSION

The PMOS and PIRT aim to provide a reliable means of eliciting patient views about patient safety. Both interventions are likely to have relevance and practical utility for all NHS hospital trusts.

Twelve tips for implementing a patient safety curriculum in an undergraduate programme in medicine

Patient safety is a major priority for health services. It is a multi-disciplinary problem and requires a multi-disciplinary solution; any education should therefore be a multi-disciplinary endeavour, from conception to implementation. The starting point should be at undergraduate level and medical education should not be an exception. It is apparent that current educational provision in patient safety lacks a systematic approach, is not linked to formal assessment and is detached from the reality of practice. If patient safety education is to be fit for purpose, it should link theory and the reality of practice; a human factors approach offers a framework to create this linkage. Learning outcomes should be competency based and generic content explicitly linked to specific patient safety content. Students should ultimately be able to demonstrate the impact of what they learn in improving their clinical performance. It is essential that the patient safety curriculum spans the entire undergraduate programme; we argue here for a spiral model incorporating innovative, multi-method assessment which examines knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. Students are increasingly learning from patient experiences, we advocate learning directly from patients wherever possible. Undergraduate provision should provide a platform for continuing education in patient safety, all of which should be subject to periodic evaluation with a particular emphasis on practice impact.

Medical error in the hospice setting: exploring the perspectives of management staff

This study explores the experiences of health professionals in managerial roles at various levels in child and adult hospice care in northern England, studying perspectives around managing medical error, the issues that arise, and the challenges faced. A multicentred, descriptive, exploratory design was adopted. The sample comprised 10 hospice managers (five deputy and five senior managers) from four hospices (two adult and two children's) in the north of England. Participants took part in individual semi-structured interviews, which lasted between 45-60 minutes each. Interviews were transcribed and analysed by a team of three researchers, including two health psychologists and one nurse using a qualitative analytic framework. Emerging themes appeared to be inter-related and were ultimately linked to two meta-concepts; underpinning and fundamental to the data, these issues were intrinsically tied to all emerging themes. Primary themes were defined by their explanatory power and regularity. Primary themes highlighted the impact of managing error on management teams at a professional and personal level, the challenges for error management in hospice settings, the use of error management tools, and the conceptualization of blame in these settings. The strong influence of the health-care setting in which an error takes place on the outcomes of an error event for the health professional, managers, health-care organizations, and ultimately patients was evident.