Patient Reporting of Safety experiences in Organisational Care Transfers (PRoSOCT): a feasibility study of a patient reporting tool as a proactive approach to identifying latent conditions within healthcare systems

Content Analysis of Patient Safety Incident Reports for Older Adult Patient Transfers, Handovers, and Discharges: Do They Serve Organizations, Staff, or Patients?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze content of incident reports during patient transitions in the context of care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke.

METHODS

A structured search strategy identified incident reports involving patient transitions (March 2014-August 2014, January 2015-June 2015) within 2 National Health Service Trusts (in upper and lower quartiles of incident reports/100 admissions) in care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke. Content analysis identified the following: incident classifications; active failures; latent conditions; patient/relative involvement; and evidence of individual or organizational learning. Reported harm was interpreted with reference to National Reporting and Learning System criteria.

RESULTS

A total 278 incident reports were analyzed. Fourteen incident classifications were identified, with pressure ulcers the modal category (n = 101,36%), followed by falls (n = 32, 12%), medication (n = 31, 11%), and documentation (n = 29, 10%). Half (n = 139, 50%) of incident reports related to interunit/department/team transfers. Latent conditions were explicit in 33 (12%) reports; most frequently, these related to inadequate resources/staff and concomitant time pressures (n = 13). Patient/family involvement was explicit in 61 (22%) reports. Patient well-being was explicit in 24 (9%) reports. Individual and organizational learning was evident in 3% and 7% of reports, respectively. Reported harm was significantly lower than coder-interpreted harm (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Incident report quality was suboptimal for individual and organizational learning. Underreporting level of harm suggests reporter bias, which requires reducing as much as practicable. System-level interventions are warranted to encourage use of staff reflective skills, emphasizing joint ownership of incidents. Co-producing incident reports with other clinicians involved in the transition and patients/relatives could optimize organizational learning.

Patients' Conceptualizations of Responsibility for Healthcare: A Typology for Understanding Differing Attributions in the Context of Patient Safety

This study examines how patients conceptualize "responsibility" for their healthcare and make sense of the complex boundaries between patient and professional roles. Focusing on the specific case of patient safety, narrative methods were used to analyze semistructured interviews with 28 people recently discharged from hospital in England. We present a typology of attribution, which demonstrates that patients' attributions of responsibility to staff and/or to patients are informed by two dimensions of responsibility: basis and contingency. The basis of responsibility is the reason for holding an individual or group responsible. The contingency of responsibility is the extent to which that attribution is contextually situated. The article contributes to knowledge about responsibility in complex organizational environments and offers a set of conceptual tools for exploring patients' understanding of responsibility in such contexts. There are implications for addressing patient engagement in care, within and beyond the field of patient safety.

An analysis of messages sent between nurses and physicians in deteriorating internal medicine patients to help identify issues in failures to rescue

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate in patients who deteriorate and require transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU), how many have a critical text message communicating deterioration and what is the quality of this message? Is message quality, message response or the timeliness of rapid response team (RRT) activation related to death?

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all ICU transfers from General Internal Medicine (GIM) wards from January 2012 until August 2014. All critical messages (CM) in the 48h prior to ICU transfer were analyzed for RRT calling criteria, time to RRT activation, message quality, presence of vitals, and the quality and timeliness of physician response.

RESULTS

Of the 236 patients in the study, 93 (39%) had a CM in the 48h prior to ICU transfer. Within this subset, 76 patients did not have prior RRT activation and the median times from CM to RRT activation and CM to ICU transfer were 8.9 [IQR 2.9, 20.7] and 15.6 [IQR 9.0, 28.7] hours, respectively. Only 45% of messages contained 2 or more vitals and only 3% of messages contained Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendations (SBAR). Physician response was timely (3 [IQR 2, 17] min) but response quality was poor; nearly one quarter of responses only acknowledged receipt. Among message characteristics, only the number of SBAR elements was correlated with in-hospital survival (p=0.047).

CONCLUSION

Communication between nurses and physicians about critically ill patients could be improved. There appear to be significant gaps in the quality of messages, their responses, and delays in RRT activation.

PReSaFe: A model of barriers and facilitators to patients providing feedback on experiences of safety

Objective

The importance of involving patients in reporting on safety is increasingly recognized. Whilst studies have identified barriers to clinician incident reporting, few have explored barriers and facilitators to patient reporting of safety experiences. This paper explores patient perspectives on providing feedback on safety experiences.

Design/Participants

Patients (n=28) were invited to take part in semi‐structured interviews when given a survey about their experiences of safety following hospital discharge. Transcripts were thematically analysed using NVivo10.

Setting

Patients were recruited from four hospitals in the UK.

Results

Three themes were identified as barriers and facilitators to patient involvement in providing feedback on their safety experiences. The first, cognitive‐cultural, found that whilst safety was a priority for most, some felt the term was not relevant to them because safety was the “default” position, and/or because safety could not be disentangled from the overall experience of care. The structural‐procedural theme indicated that reporting was facilitated when patients saw the process as straightforward, but that disinclination or perceived inability to provide feedback was a barrier. Finally, learning and change illustrated that perception of the impact of feedback could facilitate or inhibit reporting.

Conclusions

When collecting patient feedback on experiences of safety, it is important to consider what may help or hinder this process, beyond the process alone. We present a staged model of prerequisite barriers and facilitators and hypothesize that each stage needs to be achieved for patients to provide feedback on safety experiences. Implications for collecting meaningful data on patients' safety experiences are considered.

Healthcare professional and patient codesign and validation of a mechanism for service users to feedback patient safety experiences following a care transfer: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a mechanism for patients to provide feedback on safety experiences following a care transfer between organisations.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using participatory methods (codesign workshops) and cognitive interviews. Workshop data were analysed concurrently with participants, and cognitive interviews were thematically analysed using a deductive approach based on the developed feedback mechanism.

PARTICIPANTS

Expert patients (n=5) and healthcare professionals (n=11) were recruited purposively to develop the feedback mechanism in 2 workshops. Workshop 1 explored principles underpinning safety feedback mechanisms, and workshop 2 included the practical development of the feedback mechanism. Final design and content of the feedback mechanism (a safety survey) were verified by workshop participants, and cognitive interviews (n=28) were conducted with patients.

RESULTS

Workshop participants identified that safety feedback mechanisms should be patient-centred, short and concise with clear signposting on how to complete, with an option to be anonymous and balanced between positive (safe) and negative (unsafe) experiences. The agreed feedback mechanism consisted of a survey split across 3 stages of the care transfer: departure, journey and arrival. Care across organisational boundaries was recognised as being complex, with healthcare professionals acknowledging the difficulty implementing changes that impact other organisations. Cognitive interview participants agreed the content of the survey was relevant but identified barriers to completion relating to the survey formatting and understanding of a care transfer.

CONCLUSIONS

Participatory, codesign principles helped overcome differences in understandings of safety in the complex setting of care transfers when developing a safety survey. Practical barriers to the survey's usability and acceptability to patients were identified, resulting in a modified survey design. Further research is required to determine the usability and acceptability of the survey to patients and healthcare professionals, as well as identifying how governance structures should accommodate patient feedback when relating to multiple health or social care providers.