Senior nurses' perceptions of junior nurses' incident reporting: A qualitative study

AIM

To develop an understanding of senior nurses' ranking and perceptions of incident reporting by junior nurses.

BACKGROUND

Nurses must be encouraged to report incidents to nursing management. It is important to ascertain how senior nurses perceive their concerns, as it is crucial to ensuring that patient safety is managed.

METHOD

Qualitative study. Four focus groups explored senior nurses' perceptions of risks identified by nurses from a live incident reporting database. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged demonstrating the differences in opinions in relation to the classification of events by senior and non-senior nurses. Senior nurses held the view that some junior nurses use incident reporting to 'vent frustration.'

CONCLUSION

There is a mismatch between senior nurses' and junior nurses' perceptions of safety incidents. Nurses need to develop the writing style and use language that red flags incidents when reporting incidents. Senior nurses need to create a positive culture where risk from incident reporting is used to improve patient safety and subsequently a positive work environment. Implications for Nursing Management Our research identified the need for joint training to promote a shared understanding among nurses as to how incident report should be completed to promote patient safety.

Developing a targeted, theory-informed implementation intervention using two theoretical frameworks to address health professional and organisational factors: a case study to improve the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department

Background

Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED), variations in practice exist. Interventions designed to implement recommended behaviours can reduce this variation. Using theory to inform intervention development is advocated; however, there is no consensus on how to select or apply theory. Integrative theoretical frameworks, based on syntheses of theories and theoretical constructs relevant to implementation, have the potential to assist in the intervention development process. This paper describes the process of applying two theoretical frameworks to investigate the factors influencing recommended behaviours and the choice of behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery for an implementation intervention.

Methods

A stepped approach was followed: (i) identification of locally applicable and actionable evidence-based recommendations as targets for change, (ii) selection and use of two theoretical frameworks for identifying barriers to and enablers of change (Theoretical Domains Framework and Model of Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations) and (iii) identification and operationalisation of intervention components (behaviour change techniques and modes of delivery) to address the barriers and enhance the enablers, informed by theory, evidence and feasibility/acceptability considerations. We illustrate this process in relation to one recommendation, prospective assessment of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) by ED staff using a validated tool.

Results

Four recommendations for managing mild traumatic brain injury were targeted with the intervention. The intervention targeting the PTA recommendation consisted of 14 behaviour change techniques and addressed 6 theoretical domains and 5 organisational domains. The mode of delivery was informed by six Cochrane reviews. It was delivered via five intervention components : (i) local stakeholder meetings, (ii) identification of local opinion leader teams, (iii) a train-the-trainer workshop for appointed local opinion leaders, (iv) local training workshops for delivery by trained local opinion leaders and (v) provision of tools and materials to prompt recommended behaviours.

Conclusions

Two theoretical frameworks were used in a complementary manner to inform intervention development in managing mild traumatic brain injury in the ED. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the developed intervention is being evaluated in a cluster randomised trial, part of the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) program.

How do emergency physicians make discharge decisions?

Background

One of the most important decisions that emergency department (ED) physicians make is patient disposition (admission vs discharge).

Objectives

To determine how ED physicians perceive their discharge decisions for high-acuity patients and the impact on adverse events (adverse outcomes associated with healthcare management).

Methods

We conducted a real-time survey of staff ED physicians discharging consecutive patients from high-acuity areas of a tertiary care ED. We asked open-ended questions about rationale for discharge decisions and use of clinical judgement versus evidence. We searched for 30-day flagged outcomes (deaths, unscheduled admissions, ED or clinic visits). Three trained blinded ED physicians independently reviewed these for adverse events and preventability. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We used descriptive statistics and 95% CIs.

Results

We interviewed 88.9% (32/36) of possible ED physicians for 366 discharge decisions. Respondents were mostly male (71.9%) and experienced (53.1% >10 years). ED physicians stated they used clinical judgement in 87.6% of decisions and evidence in 12.4%. There were 69 flagged outcomes (18.8%) and 10 adverse events (2.7%, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.5%). All adverse events were preventable (1 death, 4 admissions, 5 return ED visits). No significant associations occurred between decision-making rationale and adverse events.

Conclusions

Experienced ED physicians most often relied on clinical acumen rather than evidence-based guidelines when discharging patients from ED high-acuity areas. Neither approach was associated with adverse events. In order to improve the safety of discharge decisions, further research should focus on decision support solutions and feedback interventions.

Remote damage control resuscitation and the Solstrand Conference: defining the need, the language, and a way forward

Damage control resuscitation (DCR) is emerging as a standard practice in civilian and military trauma care. Primary objectives include resolution of immediate life threats followed by optimization of physiological status in the perioperative period. To accomplish this, DCR employs a unique hypotensive-hemostatic resuscitation strategy that avoids traditional crystalloid intravenous fluids in favor of early blood component use in ratios mimicking whole blood. The presence of uncontrolled major hemorrhage (UMH) coupled with a delay in access to hemostatic surgical intervention remains a primary contributor to preventable death in both combat and in many domestic settings, including rural areas and disaster sites. As a result, civilian and military emergency care leaders throughout the world have sought a means to project DCR principles forward of the traditional trauma resuscitation bay, into such remote environments as disaster scenes, rural health facilities, and the contemporary battlefield. After reflecting on experiences from past conflicts, defining current capability gaps, and examining available and potential solutions, a strategy for "remote damage control resuscitation" (RDCR) has been proposed. In order for RDCR to progress from concept to clinical strategy, it will be necessary to define existing gaps in knowledge and clinical capability; develop a lexicon so that investigators and operators may understand each other; establish coherent research and development agendas; and execute comprehensive investigations designed to predict, diagnose, and mitigate the consequences of hemorrhagic shock and acute traumatic coagulopathy before they become irreversible. This article seeks to introduce the concept of RDCR; to reinforce the importance of identifying and optimally managing UMH and the resulting shock state as part of a comprehensive approach to out-of-hospital stabilization and en route care; and to propose investigational strategies to enable the development and broad implementation of RDCR principles.

Building theories of knowledge translation interventions: use the entire menu of constructs

Background

In the ongoing effort to develop and advance the science of knowledge translation (KT), an important question has emerged around how theory should inform the development of KT interventions.

Discussion

Efforts to employ theory to better understand and improve KT interventions have until recently mostly involved examining whether existing theories can be usefully applied to the KT context in question. In contrast to this general theory application approach, we propose a ‘menu of constructs’ approach, where individual constructs from any number of theories may be used to construct a new theory. By considering the entire menu of available constructs, rather than limiting choice to the broader level of theories, we can leverage knowledge from theories that would never on their own provide a complete picture of a KT intervention, but that nevertheless describe components or mechanisms relevant to it. We can also avoid being forced to adopt every construct from a particular theory in a one-size-fits-all manner, and instead tailor theory application efforts to the specifics of the situation. Using audit and feedback as an example KT intervention strategy, we describe a variety of constructs (two modes of reasoning, cognitive dissonance, feed forward, desirable difficulties and cognitive load, communities of practice, and adaptive expertise) from cognitive and educational psychology that make concrete suggestions about ways to improve this class of intervention.

Summary

The ‘menu of constructs’ notion suggests an approach whereby a wider range of theoretical constructs, including constructs from cognitive theories with scope that makes the immediate application to the new context challenging, may be employed to facilitate development of more effective KT interventions.

Mapping out the emergency department disposition decision for high-acuity patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

There are sparse data on how emergency health professionals make the important decision of emergency department (ED) patient admission or discharge, also known as the disposition decision. This study seeks to create a process map, a visual step-by-step diagram, and highlight error-prone areas for disposition decisions for high-acuity or nonambulatory ED patients.

METHODS

We conducted 6 focus groups at an academic tertiary care ED: residents, social workers and registered nurses, registered nurses only, attending physicians, patient safety committee members, and consensus group from the 5 preceding groups. We asked participants to create a disposition decision process map and identify error-prone areas. We audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed the sessions for themes, using qualitative techniques.

RESULTS

Forty-two stakeholders with clinical experience from 1 to 30 years participated. We found 9 dominant themes (ordered according to prevalence): triage, ED location of patient assessment, monitoring, diagnosis, departmental busyness, clinical gestalt, response to treatment, social work involvement, and patient and family communication. Groups identified overarching themes such as risk stratification and administrative policy. One group included dynamic elements such as interactions with consultants and handover. Participants described the following contributors to disposition error: triage, diagnostic error, communication error, ED location of patient assessment, and ED crowding.

CONCLUSION

Participants endorsed triage, diagnostic error, communication error, ED location of patient assessment, and ED crowding as the most important contributors to ED disposition decisionmaking errors. Understanding these factors in clinical decisionmaking is fundamental to improving future ED patient safety.

Educational and research advances stemming from the Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference in knowledge translation

The 2007 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference "Knowledge Translation in Emergency Medicine" yielded a number of initiatives in both education and research that directly reflected the conference's published objectives and recommendations. One research initiative, CONCERT, is a national consortium of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) investigators who set forth an effort designed to optimize COPD care through the identification of gaps between research and practice in diagnosis and management of the chronic and acute care aspects of this disease. In addition to CONCERT, educational programs designed to identify barriers to evidence implementation and to develop solutions to achieve uptake through multidisciplinary collaboration have emerged that reflect the impact of the consensus conference. This article describes these initiatives and highlights the potential for future innovative opportunities.

Improving child protection in the emergency department: a systematic review of professional interventions for health care providers

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of professional and organizational interventions aimed at improving medical processes, such as documentation or clinical assessments by health care providers, in the care of pediatric emergency department (ED) patients where abuse was suspected.

METHODS

A search of electronic databases, references, key journals, and conference proceedings was conducted and primary authors were contacted. Studies whose purpose was to evaluate a strategy aimed at improving ED clinical care of suspected abuse were included. Study methodologic quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted the data, and a second checked for completeness and accuracy.

RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria: one randomized controlled trial (RCT), one quasi-RCT, and four observational studies. Study quality ranged from modest (observational studies) to good (trials). Variation in study interventions and outcomes limited between-study comparisons. The quasi-RCT supported self-instructional education kits as a means to improve physician knowledge for both physical abuse (mean +/- standard deviation [SD] pretest score = 13.12 +/- 2.36; mean +/- SD posttest score = 18.16 +/- 1.64) and sexual abuse (mean +/- SD pretest score = 10.81 +/- 3.20; mean +/- SD posttest score = 18.45 +/- 1.79). Modest-quality observational studies evaluated reminder systems for physician documentation with similar results across studies. Compared to standard practice, chart checklists paired with an educational program increased physician consideration of nonaccidental burns in burn cases (59% increase), documentation of time of injury (36% increase), and documentation of consistency (53% increase) and compatibility (55% increase) of reported histories. Decisional flow charts for suspected physical abuse also increased documentation of nonaccidental physical injury (69.5% increase; p < 0.0001) and had a similar significant effect as checklists on increasing documentation of history consistency and compatibility (69.5 and 70.0% increases, respectively; p < 0.0001) when compared to standard practice. No improvements were noted in these studies for documentation of consultations or current status with child protective services. The introduction of a specialized team and crisis center to standardize practice had little effect on physician documentation, but did increase documentation of child protective services involvement (22.7% increase; p < 0.005) and discharge status (23.7% increase; p < 0.02). Referral to social services increased in one study following the introduction of a chart checklist (8.6% increase; p = 0.018). A recently conducted multisite RCT did not support observational findings, reporting no significant effect of educational sessions and/or a chart checklist on ED practices.

CONCLUSIONS

The small number of studies identified in this review highlights the need for future quality studies that address care of a vulnerable clinical population. While moderate-quality observational studies suggest that education and reminder systems increase clinical knowledge and documentation, these findings are not supported by a multisite randomized trial. The limited theoretical base for conceptualizing change in health care providers and the influence of the ED environment on clinical practice are limitations to this current evidence base.