A cross-sectional mixed methods study protocol to generate learning from patient safety incidents reported from general practice

Multiple points of system failure underpin continuous subcutaneous infusion safety incidents in palliative care: A mixed methods analysis

BACKGROUND

About 25% of palliative medication incidents involve continuous subcutaneous infusions. Complex structural and human factor issues make these risk-prone interventions. Detailed analysis of how this safety-critical care can be improved has not been undertaken. Understanding context, contributory factors and events leading to incidents is essential.

AIMS

(1) Understand continuous subcutaneous infusion safety incidents and their impact on patients and families; (2) Identify targets for system improvements by learning from recurrent events and contributory factors.

DESIGN

Following systematic identification and stratification by degree of harm, a mixed methods analysis of palliative medication incidents involving continuous subcutaneous infusions comprising quantitative descriptive analysis using the PatIent SAfety (PISA) classification system and qualitative narrative analysis of free-text reports.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Palliative medication incidents (n = 7506) reported to the National Reporting and Learning System, England and Wales (2016-2021).

RESULTS

About 1317/7506 incidents involved continuous subcutaneous infusions with 943 (72%) detailing harms. Primary incidents (most proximal to patient outcomes) leading to inappropriate medication use (including not using medication when it was needed) were underpinned by breakdowns in three major medication processes: monitoring and supply (405, 31%), administration (383, 29%) and prescribing (268, 20%). Recurring contributory factors included discontinuity of care within and between settings, inadequate time, inadequate staffing and unfamiliarity with protocols. Psychological harms for patients and families were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

System infrastructure is needed to enable timely supply of medication and equipment, effective coordinated use of continuous subcutaneous infusions, communication and continuity of care. Training is needed to improve incident descriptions so these pinpoint precise targets for safer care.

The Nature of Adverse Events in Dentistry

OBJECTIVES

Learning from clinical data on the subject of safety with regards to patient care in dentistry is still largely in its infancy. Current evidence does not provide epidemiological estimates on adverse events (AEs) associated with dental care. The goal of the dental practice study was to quantify and describe the nature and severity of harm experienced in association with dental care, and to assess for disparities in the prevalence of AEs.

METHODS

Through a multistaged sampling procedure, we conducted in-depth retrospective review of patients' dental and medical records.

RESULTS

We discovered an AE proportion of 1.4% (95% CI, 1.1% to 1.8). At least two-thirds of the detected AEs were preventable. Eight percent of patients who experienced harm due to a dental treatment presented only to their physician and not to the dentist where they originally received care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most studies of AEs have focused on hospital settings, our results show that they also occur in ambulatory care settings. Extrapolating our data, annually, at least 3.3 million Americans experience harm in relation to outpatient dental care, of which over 2 million may be associated with an error.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Measurement is foundational in enabling learning and improvement. A critical first step in preventing errors and iatrogenic harm in dentistry is to understand how often these safety incidents occur, what type of incidents occur, and what the consequences are in terms of patient suffering, and cost to the healthcare system.

Patient safety incidents in endoscopy: a human factors analysis of nonprocedural significant harm incidents from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS)

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in understanding and reducing the risk of endoscopic procedures, there is little consideration of the safety of the wider endoscopy service. Patient safety incidents (PSIs) still occur. We sought to identify nonprocedural PSIs (nPSIs) and their causative factors from a human factors perspective and generate ideas for safety improvement.

METHODS

Endoscopy-specific PSI reports were extracted from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS). A retrospective, cross-sectional human factors analysis of data was performed. Two independent researchers coded data using a hybrid thematic analysis approach. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) was used to code contributory factors. Analysis informed creation of driver diagrams and key recommendations for safety improvement in endoscopy.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2019, 1181 endoscopy-specific PSIs of significant harm were reported across England and Wales, with 539 (45.6%) being nPSIs. Five categories accounted for over 80% of all incidents, with "follow-up and surveillance" being the largest (23.4% of all nPSIs). From the free-text incident reports, 487 human factors codes were identified. Decision-based errors were the most common act prior to PSI occurrence. Other frequent preconditions to incidents were focused on environmental factors, particularly overwhelmed resources, patient factors, and ineffective team communication. Lack of staffing, standard operating procedures, effective systems, and clinical pathways were also contributory. Seven key recommendations for improving safety have been made in response to our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first national-level human factors analysis of endoscopy-specific PSIs. This work will inform safety improvement strategies and should empower individual services to review their approach to safety.

Unsafe care in residential settings for older adults: a content analysis of accreditation reports

Residents of aged care services can experience safety incidents resulting in preventable serious harm. Accreditation is a commonly used strategy to improve the quality of care; however, narrative information within accreditation reports is not generally analysed as a source of safety information to inform learning. In Australia, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (ACQSC), the sector regulator, undertakes over 500 accreditation assessments of residential aged care services against eight national standards every year. From these assessments, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission generates detailed Site Audit Reports. In over one-third (37%) of Site Audit Reports, standards relating to Personal and Clinical Care (Standard 3) are not being met. The aim of this study was to identify the types of resident Safety Risks that relate to Personal and Clinical Care Standards not being met during accreditation or re-accreditation. These data could inform priority setting at policy, regulatory, and service levels. An analytical framework was developed based on the World Health Organization's International Classification for Patient Safety and other fields including Clinical Issue (the issue related to the incident impacting the resident, e.g. wound/skin or pain). Information relating to safety incidents in the Site Audit Reports was extracted, and a content analysis undertaken using the analytical framework. Clinical Issue and the International Classification for Patient Safety-based classification were combined to describe a clinically intuitive category ('Safety Risks') to describe ways in which residents could experience unsafe care, e.g. diagnosis/assessment of pain. The resulting data were descriptively analysed. The analysis included 65 Site Audit Reports that were undertaken between September 2020 and March 2021. There were 2267 incidents identified and classified into 274 types of resident Safety Risks. The 12 most frequently occurring Safety Risks account for only 32.3% of all incidents. Relatively frequently occurring Safety Risks were organisation management of infection control; diagnosis/assessment of pain, restraint, resident behaviours, and falls; and multiple stages of wounds/skin management, e.g. diagnosis/assessment, documentation, treatment, and deterioration. The analysis has shown that accreditation reports contain valuable data that may inform prioritization of resident Safety Risks in the Australian residential aged care sector. A large number of low-frequency resident Safety Risks were detected in the accreditation reports. To address these, organizations may use implementation science approaches to facilitate evidence-based strategies to improve the quality of care delivered to residents. Improving the aged care workforces' clinical skills base may address some of the Safety Risks associated with diagnosis/assessment and wound management.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Family role in paediatric safety incidents: a retrospective study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare-associated harm is an international public health issue. Children are particularly vulnerable to this with 15%-35% of hospitalised children experiencing harm during medical care. While many factors increase the risk of adverse events, such as children's dependency on others to recognise illness, children have a unique protective factor in the form of their family, who are often well placed to detect and prevent unsafe care. However, families can also play a key role in the aetiology of unsafe care.We aim to explore the role of families, guardians and parents in paediatric safety incidents, and how this may have changed during the pandemic, to learn how to deliver safer care and codevelop harm prevention strategies across healthcare settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a retrospective study inclusive of an exploratory data analysis and thematic analysis of incident report data from the Learning from Patient Safety Events service (formerly National Reporting and Learning System), using the established PatIent SAfety classification system. Reports will be identified by using specific search terms, such as *parent* and *mother*, to capture narratives with explicit mention of parental involvement, inclusive of family members with parental and informal caregiver responsibilities.Paediatricians and general practitioners will characterise the reports and inter-rater reliability will be assessed. Exploratory descriptive analysis will allow the identification of types of incidents involving parents, contributing factors, harm outcomes and the specific role of the parents including inadvertent contribution to or mitigation of harm.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by Cardiff University Research Ethics Committee (SMREC 22/32). Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, presented at international conferences and presented at stakeholder workshops.

Patient safety in prisons: a multi-method analysis of reported incidents in England

OBJECTIVES

Prisoners use healthcare services three times more frequently than the general population with poorer health outcomes. Their distinct healthcare needs often pose challenges to safe healthcare provision. This study aimed to characterise patient safety incidents reported in prisons to guide practice improvement and identify health policy priorities.Design: We carried out an exploratory multi-method analysis of anonymised safety incidents from prisons.

SETTING

Safety incidents had been reported to the National Reporting and Learning System by prisons in England between April 2018 and March 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Reports were reviewed to identify any unintended or unexpected incident(s) which could have, or did, lead to harm for prisoners receiving healthcare.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Free-text descriptions were examined to identify the type and nature of safety incidents, their outcomes and harm severity. Analysis was contextualised with subject experts through structured workshops to explain relationships between the most common incidents and contributory factors.

RESULTS

Of 4112 reports, the most frequently observed incidents were medication-related (n = 1167, 33%), specifically whilst administering medications (n = 626, 54%). Next, were access-related (n = 559,15%), inclusive of delays in patients accessing healthcare professionals (n = 236, 42%) and managing medical appointments (n =  171, 31%). The workshops contextualised incidents involving contributing factors (n = 1529, 28%) into three key themes, namely healthcare access, continuity of care and the balance between prison and healthcare priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of improving medication safety and access to healthcare services for prisoners. We recommend staffing level reviews to ensure healthcare appointments are attended, and to review procedures for handling missed appointments, communication during patient transfers and medication prescribing.

Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Dentistry in England and Wales: A Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, there has been considerable international attention aimed at improving the safety of hospital care, and more recently, this attention has broadened to include primary medical care. In contrast, the safety profile of primary care dentistry remains poorly characterized.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe the types of primary care dental patient safety incidents reported within a national incident reporting database and understand their contributory factors and consequences.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods study, which involved analysis of a weighted randomized sample of the most severe incident reports from primary care dentistry submitted to England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System. Drawing on a conceptual literature-derived model of patient safety threats that we previously developed, we developed coding frameworks to describe and conduct thematic analysis of free text incident reports and determine the relationship between incident types, contributory factors, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 2000 reports sampled, 1456 were eligible for analysis. Sixty types of incidents were identified and organized across preoperative (40.3%, n = 587), intraoperative (56.1%, n = 817), and postoperative (3.6%, n = 52) stages. The main sources of unsafe care were delays in treatment (344/1456, 23.6%), procedural errors (excluding wrong-tooth extraction) (227/1456; 15.6%), medication-related adverse incidents (161/1456, 11.1%), equipment failure (90/1456, 6.2%) and x-ray related errors (87/1456, 6.0%). Of all incidents that resulted in a harmful outcome (n = 77, 5.3%), more than half were due to wrong tooth extractions (37/77, 48.1%) mainly resulting from distraction of the dentist. As a result of this type of incident, 34 of the 37 patients (91.9%) examined required further unnecessary procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Flaws in administrative processes need improvement because they are the main cause for patients experiencing delays in receiving treatment. Checklists and standardization of clinical procedures have the potential to reduce procedural errors and avoid overuse of services. Wrong-tooth extractions should be addressed through focused research initiatives and encouraging policy development to mandate learning from serious dental errors like never events.

Learning from diagnostic errors to improve patient safety when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: incorporating realist methodology into patient safety incident report analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing demand on emergency healthcare systems has prompted introduction of new healthcare service models including the provision of GP services in or alongside emergency departments. In England this led to a policy proposal and £100million (US$130million) of funding for all emergency departments to have co-located GP services. However, there is a lack of evidence for whether such service models are effective and safe. We examined diagnostic errors reported in patient safety incident reports to develop theories to explain how and why they occurred to inform potential priority areas for improvement and inform qualitative data collection at case study sites to further refine the theories.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods design using exploratory descriptive analysis to identify the most frequent and harmful sources of diagnostic error and thematic analysis, incorporating realist methodology to refine theories from an earlier rapid realist review, to describe how and why the events occurred and could be mitigated, to inform improvement recommendations. We used two UK data sources: Coroners' reports to prevent future deaths (30.7.13-14.08.18) and National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) patient safety incident reports (03.01.05-30.11.15).

RESULTS

Nine Coroners' reports (from 1347 community and hospital reports, 2013-2018) and 217 NRLS reports (from 13 million, 2005-2015) were identified describing diagnostic error related to GP services in or alongside emergency departments. Initial theories to describe potential priority areas for improvement included: difficulty identifying appropriate patients for the GP service; under-investigation and misinterpretation of diagnostic tests; and inadequate communication and referral pathways between the emergency and GP services. High-risk presentations included: musculoskeletal injury, chest pain, headache, calf pain and sick children.

CONCLUSION

Initial theories include the following topics as potential priority areas for improvement interventions and evaluation to minimise the risk of diagnostic errors when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a standardised initial assessment with streaming guidance based on local service provision; clinical decision support for high-risk conditions; and standardised computer systems, communication and referral pathways between emergency and GP services. These theories require refinement and testing with qualitative data collection from case study (hospital) sites.

Mixed-methods study protocol: do national reporting and learning system medication incidents in palliative care reflect patient and carer concerns about medication management and safety?

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 20% of serious safety incidents involving palliative patients relate to medication. These are disproportionately reported when patients are in their usual residence when compared with hospital or hospice. While patient safety incident reporting systems can support professional learning, it is unclear whether these reports encompass patient and carer concerns with palliative medications or interpersonal safety.

AIM

To explore and compare perceptions of (un)safe palliative medication management from patient, carer and professional perspectives in community, hospital and hospice settings.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use an innovative mixed-methods study design combining systematic review searching techniques with cross-sectional quantitative descriptive analysis and interpretative qualitative metasynthesis to integrate three elements: (1) Scoping review: multiple database searches for empirical studies and first-hand experiences in English (no other restrictions) to establish how patients and informal carers conceptualise safety in palliative medication management. (2)Medication incidents from the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System: identifying and characterising reports to understand professional perspectives on suboptimal palliative medication management. (3) Comparison of 1 and 2: contextualising with stakeholder perspectives.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Our team includes a funded patient and public involvement (PPI) collaborator, with experience of promoting patient-centred approaches in patient safety research. Funded discussion and dissemination events with PPI and healthcare (clinical and policy) professionals are planned.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Prospective ethical approval granted: Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Ref 19/28). Our study will synthesise multivoiced constructions of patient safety in palliative care to identify implications for professional learning and actions that are relevant across health and social care. It will also identify changing or escalating patterns in palliative medication incidents due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peer-reviewed publications, academic presentations, plain English summaries, press releases and social media will be used to disseminate to the public, researchers, clinicians and policy-makers.

Effectiveness of New Tools to Define an Up-to-Date Patient Safety Risk Map: A Primary Care Study Protocol

Background: Reducing incidents related to health care interventions to improve patient safety is a health policy priority. To strengthen a culture of safety, reporting incidents is essential. This study aims to define a patient safety risk map using the description and analysis of incidents within a primary care region with a prior patient safety improvement strategy organisationally developed and promoted. Methods: The study will be conducted in two phases: (1) a cross-sectional descriptive observational study to describe reported incidents; and (2) a quasi-experimental study to compare reported incidents. The study will take place in the Camp de Tarragona Primary Care Management (Catalan Institute of Health). In Phase 1, all reactive notifications collected within one year (2018) will be analysed; during Phase 2, all proactive notifications of the second and third weeks of June 2019 will be analysed. Adverse events will also be assessed. Phases 1 and 2 will use a digital platform and the proactive tool proSP to notify and analyse incidents related to patient safety. Expected Results: To obtain an up-to-date, primary care patient safety risk map to prioritise strategies that result in safer practices.

Patient Safety Incidents and Adverse Events in Ambulatory Dental Care: A Systematic Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

There have been efforts to understand the epidemiology of iatrogenic harm in hospitals and primary care and to improve the safety of care provision. There has in contrast been very limited progress in relation to the safety of ambulatory dental care.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of the range and frequencies of existing evidence on patient safety incidents and adverse events in ambulatory dentistry.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles reporting events that could have or did result in unnecessary harm in ambulatory dental care. We extracted and synthesized data on the types and frequencies of patient safety incidents and adverse events.

RESULTS

Forty articles were included. We found that the frequencies varied very widely between studies; this reflected differences in definitions, populations studied, and sampling strategies. The main 5 PSIs we identified were errors in diagnosis and examination, treatment planning, communication, procedural errors, and the accidental ingestion or inhalation of foreign objects. However, little attention was paid to wider organizational issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient safety research in dentistry is immature because current evidence cannot provide reliable estimates on the frequency of patient safety incidents in ambulatory dental care or the associated disease burden. Well-designed epidemiological investigations are needed that also investigate contributory factors.

Medication Safety in Mental Health Hospitals: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Incidents Reported to the National Reporting and Learning System

BACKGROUND

Medication safety incidents commonly occur in mental health hospitals. There is a need to improve the understanding of the circumstances that are thought to have played a part in the origin of these incidents to design safer systems to improve patient safety.

AIM

This study aimed to undertake a mixed-methods analysis of medication safety incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System in England and Wales in 2010 to 2017.

METHOD

Quantitative analyses of anonymized medication safety incidents occurring in mental health hospitals that were reported to the National Reporting and Learning System during an 8-year period were undertaken to characterize their type, severity, and the medication(s) involved. Second, a content analysis of the free-text reports associated with all incidents of at least moderate harm severity was undertaken to identify the underlying contributory factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 94,134 medication incident reports were examined, of which 10.4% (n = 9811) were reported to have resulted in harm. The 3 most frequent types of reported medication incidents involved omission of medication (17,302; 18.3%), wrong frequency (11,882; 12.6%), and wrong/unclear dose of medication (10,272; 10.9%). Medicines from the central nervous system (42,609; 71.0%), cardiovascular (4537; 7.6%), and endocrine (3669; 6.1%) medication classes were the most frequently involved with incidents. Failure to follow protocols (n = 93), lack of continuity of care (n = 92), patient behaviors (n = 62), and lack of stock (n = 51) were frequently reported as contributory factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication incidents pose an enduring threat to patient safety in mental health hospitals. This study has identified important targets that can guide the tailored development of remedial interventions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of two cross sectional studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients from Australian and English primary care settings.

MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Composition and risk assessment of perioperative patient safety incidents reported by anesthesiologists from 2009 to 2019: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Background

Patient safety incident (PSI) reporting has been an important means of improving patient safety and enhancing organizational quality control. Reports of anesthesia-related incidents are of great value for analysis to improve perioperative patient safety. However, the utilization of incident data is far from sufficient, especially in developing countries such as China.

Methods

All PSIs reported by anesthesiologists in a Chinese academic hospital between September 2009 and August 2019 were collected from the incident reporting system. We reviewed the freeform text reports, supplemented with information from the patient medical record system. Composition analysis and risk assessment were performed.

Results

In total, 847 PSIs were voluntarily reported by anesthesiologists during the study period among 452,974 anesthetic procedures, with a reported incidence of 0.17%. Patients with a worse ASA physical status were more likely to be involved in a PSI. The most common type of incident was related to the airway (N = 208, 27%), followed by the heart, brain and vascular system (N = 99, 13%) and pharmacological incidents (N = 79, 10%). Those preventable incidents with extreme or high risk were identified through risk assessment to serve as a reference for the implementation of more standard operating procedures by the department.

Conclusions

This study describes the characteristics of 847 PSIs voluntarily reported by anesthesiologists within eleven years in a Chinese academic hospital. Airway incidents constitute the majority of incidents reported by anesthesiologists. Underreporting is common in China, and the importance of summarizing and utilizing anesthesia incident data should be scrutinized.

Incidence, nature and causes of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England: retrospective case note review

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England; describe and classify the associated patient safety incidents and generate suggestions to mitigate risks of ameliorable factors contributing to the incidents.

DESIGN

Retrospective case note review. Patients with significant health problems were identified and clinical judgements were made on avoidability and severity of harm. Factors contributing to avoidable harm were identified and recorded.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirteen general practitioners (GPs) undertook a retrospective case note review of a sample of 14 407 primary care patients registered with 12 randomly selected general practices from three regions in England (total list size: 92 255 patients).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidence of significant harm considered at least 'probably avoidable' and the nature of the safety incidents.

RESULTS

The rate of significant harm considered at least probably avoidable was 35.6 (95% CI 23.3 to 48.0) per 100 000 patient-years (57.9, 95% CI 42.2 to 73.7, per 100 000 based on a sensitivity analysis). Overall, 74 cases of avoidable harm were detected, involving 72 patients. Three types of incident accounted for more than 90% of the problems: problems with diagnosis accounted for 45/74 (60.8%) primary incidents, followed by medication-related problems (n=19, 25.7%) and delayed referrals (n=8, 10.8%). In 59 (79.7%) cases, the significant harm could have been identified sooner (n=48) or prevented (n=11) if the GP had taken actions aligned with evidence-based guidelines.

CONCLUSION

There is likely to be a substantial burden of avoidable significant harm attributable to primary care in England with diagnostic error accounting for most harms. Based on the contributory factors we found, improvements could be made through more effective implementation of existing information technology, enhanced team coordination and communication, and greater personal and informational continuity of care.

Characterising the types of paediatric adverse events detected by the global trigger tool – CareTrack Kids

Introduction

A common method of learning about adverse events (AEs) is by reviewing medical records using the global trigger tool (GTT). However, these studies generally report rates of harm. The aim of this study is to characterise paediatric AEs detected by the GTT using descriptive and qualitative approaches.

Methods

Medical records of children aged 0–15 were reviewed for presence of harm using the GTT. Records from 2012–2013 were sampled from hospital inpatients, emergency departments, general practice and specialist paediatric practices in three Australian states. Nurses undertook a review of each record and if an AE was suspected a doctor performed a verification review of a summary created by the nurse. A qualitative content analysis was undertaken on the summary of verified AEs.

Results

A total of 232 AEs were detected from 6,689 records reviewed. Over four-fifths of the AEs (193/232, 83%) resulted in minor harm to the patient. Nearly half (112/232, 48%) related to medication/intravenous (IV) fluids. Of these, 83% (93/112) were adverse drug reactions. Problems with medical devices/equipment were the next most frequent with nearly two-thirds (32/51, 63%) of these related to intravenous devices. Problems associated with clinical processes/procedures comprise one in six AEs (38/232, 16%), of which diagnostic problems (12/38, 32%) and procedural complications (11/38, 29%) were the most frequent.

Conclusion

Adverse drug reactions and issues with IVs are frequently identified AEs reflecting their common use in paediatrics. The qualitative approach taken in this study allowed AE types to be characterised, which is a prerequisite for developing and prioritising improvements in practice.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Opioid substitution treatment is used in many countries as an effective harm minimization strategy. There is a need for more information about patient safety incidents and the resulting harm relating to this treatment. We aimed to characterize patient safety incidents involving opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine in community-based care by: (i) identifying the sources and nature of harm and (ii) describing and interpreting themes to identify priorities to focus future improvement work.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study examining patient safety incident reports involving opioid substitution treatment with either methadone or buprenorphine in community-based care.

SETTING

Data submitted between 2005 and 2015 from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS), a national repository of patient safety incident reports from across England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2284 reports were identified involving patients receiving community-based opioid substitution treatment.

MEASUREMENTS

Incident type, contributory factors, incident outcome and severity of harm. Analysis involved data coding, processing and iterative generation of data summaries using descriptive statistical and thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Most risks of harm from opioid substitution treatment came from failure in one of four processes of care delivery: prescribing opioid substitution (n = 151); supervised dispensing (n = 248); non-supervised dispensing (n = 318); and monitoring and communication (n = 1544). Most incidents resulting in harm involved supervised or non-supervised dispensing (n = 91 of 127, 72%). Staff- (e.g. slips during task execution, not following protocols) and organization-related (e.g. poor working conditions or poor continuity of care between services) contributory factors were identified for more than half of incidents.

CONCLUSIONS

Risks of harm in delivering opioid substitute treatment in England and Wales appear to arise out of failures in four processes: prescribing opioid substitution, supervised dispensing, non-supervised dispensing and monitoring and communication.

What Safety Events Are Reported For Ambulatory Care? Analysis of Incident Reports from a Patient Safety Organization

INTRODUCTION

Health care staff document patient safety events using incident reporting systems, which are compiled within Patient Safety Organization databases. Researchers sought to describe the patterns and characteristics of incident reporting behaviors for ambulatory care from in-situ reporting systems from the United States.

METHODS

The team analyzed safety reports in ambulatory settings collected from a Patient Safety Organization comprising 400 hospital members in 10 states, from May 2012 to October 2018. All events involving moderate harm, severe harm, and death were included, as well as subsamples of events with missing harm, no harm, and mild harm. The team deductively coded incident types and if patient or caregiver challenges were involved. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of higher harm (severe harm and death) among safety events reported.

RESULTS

Of 2,701 events, there were 51 deaths, 159 severe harm events, 1,180 moderate harm, 926 mild harm, 384 no harm, and 1 unknown. Most were from outpatient subspecialty care, while 5.2% were from home/community, and 2.1% were from primary care. Medication-related events were most common (45.3%). In multivariate analysis, diagnostic errors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 11.5), patient/caregiver challenges (aOR 2.2), and events in the home/community (aOR 2.0) and in psychiatric settings (aOR 5.0) were associated with higher harm.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient reporting systems are limited for primary care and home/community settings, but ambulatory care systems report more harmful events related to diagnosis and patient and caregiver challenges. Improved standardization of reporting, focus on diagnosis, and novel approaches of safety reporting that engage patients will be necessary to improve capture of preventable events affecting patients and to develop system-level solutions.

Health and social care-associated harm amongst vulnerable children in primary care: mixed methods analysis of national safety reports

PURPOSE

Patient safety failures are recognised as a global threat to public health, yet remain a leading cause of death internationally. Vulnerable children are inversely more in need of high-quality primary health and social-care but little is known about the quality of care received. Using national patient safety data, this study aimed to characterise primary care-related safety incidents among vulnerable children.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional mixed methods study of a national database of patient safety incident reports occurring in primary care settings. Free-text incident reports were coded to describe incident types, contributory factors, harm severity and incident outcomes. Subsequent thematic analyses of a purposive sample of reports was undertaken to understand factors underpinning problem areas.

RESULTS

Of 1183 reports identified, 572 (48%) described harm to vulnerable children. Sociodemographic analysis showed that included children had child protection-related (517, 44%); social (353, 30%); psychological (189, 16%) or physical (124, 11%) vulnerabilities. Priority safety issues included: poor recognition of needs and subsequent provision of adequate care; insufficient provider access to accurate information about vulnerable children, and delayed referrals between providers.

CONCLUSION

This is the first national study using incident report data to explore unsafe care amongst vulnerable children. Several system failures affecting vulnerable children are highlighted, many of which pose internationally recognised challenges to providers aiming to deliver safe care to this at-risk cohort. We encourage healthcare organisations globally to build on our findings and explore the safety and reliability of their healthcare systems, in order to sustainably mitigate harm to vulnerable children.

A mixed methods analysis of lithium-related patient safety incidents in primary care

BACKGROUND

Lithium is a drug with a narrow therapeutic range and has been associated with a number of serious adverse effects. This study aimed to characterise primary care lithium-related patient safety incidents submitted to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) database with respect to incident origin, type, contributory factors and outcome. The intention was to identify ways to minimise risk to future patients by examining incidents with a range of harm outcomes.

METHODS

A mixed methods analysis of patient safety incident reports related to lithium was conducted. Data from healthcare organisations in England and Wales were extracted from the NRLS database. An exploratory descriptive analysis was undertaken to characterise the most frequent incident types, the associated chain of events and other contributory factors.

RESULTS

A total of 174 reports containing the term 'lithium' were identified. Of these, 41 were excluded and, from the remaining 133 reports, 138 incidents were identified and coded. Community pharmacies reported 100 incidents (96 dispensing related, two administration, two other), general practitioner (GP) practices filed 22 reports and 16 reports originated from other sources. A total of 99 dispensing-related incidents were recorded, 39 resulted from the wrong medication dispensed, 31 the wrong strength, 8 the wrong quantity and 21 other. A total of 128 contributory factors were identified overall; for dispensing incidents, the most common related to medication storage/packaging (n = 41), and 'mistakes' (n = 22), whereas no information regarding contributory factors was provided in 41 reports.

CONCLUSION

Despite the established link between medication packaging and the risk of dispensing errors, our study highlighted storage and packaging as the most commonly described contributory factors to dispensing errors. The absence of certain relevant data limited the ability to fully characterise a number of reports. This highlighted the need to include clear and complete information when submitting reports. This, in turn, may help to better inform the further development of interventions designed to reduce the risk of incidents and improve patient safety.

A qualitative content analysis of retained surgical items: learning from root cause analysis investigations

OBJECTIVE

To describe incidents of retained surgical items, including their characteristics and the circumstances in which they occur.

DESIGN

A qualitative content analysis of root cause analysis investigation reports.

SETTING

Public health services in Victoria, Australia, 2010-2015.

PARTICIPANTS

Incidents of retained surgical items as described by 31 root cause analysis investigation reports.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The type of retained surgical item, the length of time between the item being retained and detected and qualitative descriptors of the contributing factors and the circumstances in which the retained surgical items occurred.

RESULTS

Surgical packs, drain tubes and vascular devices comprised 68% (21/31) of the retained surgical items. Nearly one-quarter of the retained surgical items were detected either immediately in the post-operative period or on the day of the procedure (7/31). However, about one-sixth (5/31) were only detected after 6 months, with the longest period being 18 months. Contributing factors included complex or multistage surgery; the use of packs not specific to the purpose of the surgery; and design features of the surgical items.

CONCLUSION

Retained drains occurred in the post-operative phase where surgical counts are not applicable and clinician situational awareness may not be as great. Root cause analysis investigation reports can be a valuable means of characterizing infrequently occurring adverse events such as retained surgical items. They may detect incidents that are not detected by other data collections and can inform the design enhancements and development of technologies to reduce the impact of retained surgical items.

Characteristics, Opportunities, and Challenges of Osteopathy (COCO) in the Perceptions of Osteopaths in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: Protocol for a Comprehensive Mixed Methods Study

Background

Currently, the importance of osteopathy within the health care system is controversial. The training structures and the acknowledgment of the occupational profile strongly differ in the German-speaking territory.

Objective

This study aims to examine the characteristics of the osteopathic profession as well as the possibilities and challenges for osteopaths in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Methods

This study adopted a mixed methods design. The research topic will be examined based on qualitative and quantitative partial studies that will be conducted in parallel as well as sequentially. By applying different research methods and sample testing and by using standardized, validated measurement methods, we expect to be able to gain new insights into the work area of osteopathy.

Results

In November 2018, we started the research and data collection. Currently, we are conducting the first two partial studies. The planned duration of each of the partial study is 6-9 months. The project is scheduled to be completed in 2021.

Conclusions

This study will examine how osteopaths define themselves in comparison with professionals from other occupational profiles and how they describe the characteristics of their work. The identification of central issues is expected to help clarify the issues and define the profession. As such, the results might contribute to the conservation and improvement of the quality of osteopathic treatment.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/15399

Diagnostic error in the emergency department: learning from national patient safety incident report analysis

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic error occurs more frequently in the emergency department than in regular in-patient hospital care. We sought to characterise the nature of reported diagnostic error in hospital emergency departments in England and Wales from 2013 to 2015 and to identify the priority areas for intervention to reduce their occurrence.

METHODS

A cross-sectional mixed-methods design using an exploratory descriptive analysis and thematic analysis of patient safety incident reports. Primary data were extracted from a national database of patient safety incidents. Reports were filtered for emergency department settings, diagnostic error (as classified by the reporter), from 2013 to 2015. These were analysed for the chain of events, contributory factors and harm outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 2288 cases of confirmed diagnostic error: 1973 (86%) delayed and 315 (14%) wrong diagnoses. One in seven incidents were reported to have severe harm or death. Fractures were the most common condition (44%), with cervical-spine and neck of femur the most frequent types. Other common conditions included myocardial infarctions (7%) and intracranial bleeds (6%). Incidents involving both delayed and wrong diagnoses were associated with insufficient assessment, misinterpretation of diagnostic investigations and failure to order investigations. Contributory factors were predominantly human factors, including staff mistakes, healthcare professionals' inadequate skillset or knowledge and not following protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Systems modifications are needed that provide clinicians with better support in performing patient assessment and investigation interpretation. Interventions to reduce diagnostic error need to be evaluated in the emergency department setting, and could include standardised checklists, structured reporting and technological investigation improvements.

An analysis of general practitioners' perspectives on patient safety incidents using critical incident technique interviews

BACKGROUND

General practitioners report difficulty in knowing how to improve patient safety.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse general practitioners' perspectives of contributing factors to patient safety incidents by collecting accounts of incidents, identifying the contributory factors to these incidents, assessing the impact and likelihood of occurrence of these incidents and examining whether certain categories of contributory factors were associated with the occurrence of high-risk incidents.

METHODS

Critical incident technique interviews were carried out with 30 general practitioners in Ireland about a patient safety incident they had experienced. The Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework was used to classify the contributory factors to incidents. Seven subject matter experts rated the impact and likelihood of occurrence of each incident.

RESULTS

A total of 26 interviews were analysed. Almost two-thirds of the patient safety incidents were rated as having a major-to-extreme impact on the patient, and over a third were judged as having at least a bimonthly likelihood of occurrence. The most commonly described active failures were 'Medication Error' (34.6%) and 'Diagnostic Error' (30.8%). 'Situational Domain' was identified as a contributory domain in all patient safety incidents. 'Communication' breakdown at both practice and other healthcare-provider interfaces (69.2%) was also a commonly cited contributory factor. There were no significant differences in the levels of risk associated with the contributory factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical incident technique interviews support the identification of contributory factors to patient safety incidents. There is a need to explore the use of the resulting data for quality and safety improvement in general practice.

Identifying 'avoidable harm' in family practice: a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study

Background

Health care-related harm is an internationally recognized threat to public health. The United Kingdom’s national health services demonstrate that upwards of 90% of health care encounters can be delivered in ambulatory settings. Other countries are transitioning to more family practice-based health care systems, and efforts to understand avoidable harm in these settings is needed.

Methods

We developed 100 scenarios reflecting a range of diseases and informed by the World Health Organization definition of ‘significant harm’. Scenarios included different types of patient safety incidents occurring by commission and omission, demonstrated variation in timeliness of intervention, and conditions where evidence-based guidelines are available or absent. We conducted a two-round RAND / UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study with a panel of family practitioners in England to define “avoidable harm” within family practice. Panelists rated their perceptions of avoidability for each scenario. We ran a k-means cluster analysis of avoidability ratings.

Results

Panelists reached consensus for 95 out of 100 scenarios. The panel agreed avoidable harm occurs when a patient safety incident could have been probably, or totally, avoided by the timely intervention of a health care professional in family practice (e.g. investigations, treatment) and / or an administrative process (e.g. referrals, alerts in electronic health records, procedures for following up results) in accordance with accepted evidence-based practice and clinical governance. Fifty-four scenarios were deemed avoidable, whilst 31 scenarios were rated unavoidable and reflected outcomes deemed inevitable regardless of family practice intervention. Scenarios with low avoidability ratings (1 s or 2 s) were not represented by the categories that were used to generate scenarios, whereas scenarios with high avoidability ratings (7 s 8 s or 9 s) were represented by these a priori categories.

Discussion

The findings from this RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method study define the characteristics and conditions that can be used to standardize measurement of outcomes for primary care patient safety.

Conclusion

We have developed a definition of avoidable harm that has potential for researchers and practitioners to apply across primary care settings, and bolster international efforts to design interventions to target avoidable patient safety incidents that cause the most significant harm to patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-0990-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Automated classification of primary care patient safety incident report content and severity using supervised machine learning (ML) approaches

Learning from patient safety incident reports is a vital part of improving healthcare. However, the volume of reports and their largely free-text nature poses a major analytic challenge. The objective of this study was to test the capability of autonomous classifying of free text within patient safety incident reports to determine incident type and the severity of harm outcome. Primary care patient safety incident reports (n=31333) previously expert-categorised by clinicians (training data) were processed using J48, SVM and Naïve Bayes.The SVM classifier was the highest scoring classifier for incident type (AUROC, 0.891) and severity of harm (AUROC, 0.708). Incident reports containing deaths were most easily classified, correctly identifying 72.82% of reports. In conclusion, supervised ML can be used to classify patient safety incident report categories. The severity classifier, whilst not accurate enough to replace manual processing, could provide a valuable screening tool for this critical aspect of patient safety.

Quality improvement priorities for safer out-of-hours palliative care: Lessons from a mixed-methods analysis of a national incident-reporting database

Background:

Patients receiving palliative care are often at increased risk of unsafe care with the out-of-hours setting presenting particular challenges. The identification of improved ways of delivering palliative care outside working hours is a priority area for policymakers.

Aim:

To explore the nature and causes of unsafe care delivered to patients receiving palliative care from primary-care services outside normal working hours.

Design:

A mixed-methods cross-sectional analysis of patient safety incident reports from the National Reporting and Learning System. We characterised reports, identified by keyword searches, using codes to describe what happened, underlying causes, harm outcome, and severity. Exploratory descriptive and thematic analyses identified factors underpinning unsafe care.

Setting/participants:

A total of 1072 patient safety incident reports involving patients receiving sub-optimal palliative care via the out-of-hours primary-care services.

Results:

Incidents included issues with: medications (n = 613); access to timely care (n = 123); information transfer (n = 102), and/or non-medication-related treatment such as pressure ulcer relief or catheter care (n = 102). Almost two-thirds of reports (n = 695) described harm with outcomes such as increased pain, emotional, and psychological distress featuring highly. Commonly identified contributory factors to these incidents were a failure to follow protocol (n = 282), lack of skills/confidence of staff (n = 156), and patients requiring medication delivered via a syringe driver (n = 80).

Conclusion:

Healthcare systems with primary-care-led models of delivery must examine their practices to determine the prevalence of such safety issues (communication between providers; knowledge of commonly used, and access to, medications and equipment) and utilise improvement methods to achieve improvements in care.

Patient safety in palliative care: A mixed-methods study of reports to a national database of serious incidents

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving palliative care are vulnerable to patient safety incidents but little is known about the extent of harm caused or the origins of unsafe care in this population.

AIM

To quantify and qualitatively analyse serious incident reports in order to understand the causes and impact of unsafe care in a population receiving palliative care.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods approach was used. Following quantification of type of incidents and their location, a qualitative analysis using a modified framework method was used to interpret themes in reports to examine the underlying causes and the nature of resultant harms.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Reports to a national database of 'serious incidents requiring investigation' involving patients receiving palliative care in the National Health Service (NHS) in England during the 12-year period, April 2002 to March 2014.

RESULTS

A total of 475 reports were identified: 266 related to pressure ulcers, 91 to medication errors, 46 to falls, 21 to healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs), 18 were other instances of disturbed dying, 14 were allegations against health professions, 8 transfer incidents, 6 suicides and 5 other concerns. The frequency of report types differed according to the care setting. Underlying causes included lack of palliative care experience, under-resourcing and poor service coordination. Resultant harms included worsened symptoms, disrupted dying, serious injury and hastened death.

CONCLUSION

Unsafe care presents a risk of significant harm to patients receiving palliative care. Improvements in the coordination of care delivery alongside wider availability of specialist palliative care support may reduce this risk.

Nature of Blame in Patient Safety Incident Reports: Mixed Methods Analysis of a National Database

PURPOSE

A culture of blame and fear of retribution are recognized barriers to reporting patient safety incidents. The extent of blame attribution in safety incident reports, which may reflect the underlying safety culture of health care systems, is unknown. This study set out to explore the nature of blame in family practice safety incident reports.

METHODS

We characterized a random sample of family practice patient safety incident reports from the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System. Reports were analyzed according to prespecified classification systems to describe the incident type, contributory factors, outcomes, and severity of harm. We developed a taxonomy of blame attribution, and we then used descriptive statistical analyses to identify the proportions of blame types and to explore associations between incident characteristics and one type of blame.

RESULTS

Health care professionals making family practice incident reports attributed blame to a person in 45% of cases (n = 975 of 2,148; 95% CI, 43%-47%). In 36% of cases, those who reported the incidents attributed fault to another person, whereas 2% of those reporting acknowledged personal responsibility. Blame was commonly associated with incidents where a complaint was anticipated.

CONCLUSIONS

The high frequency of blame in these safety, incident reports may reflect a health care culture that leads to blame and retribution, rather than to identifying areas for learning and improvement, and a failure to appreciate the contribution of system factors in others' behavior. Successful improvement in patient safety through the analysis of incident reports is unlikely without achieving a blame-free culture.

Donaldson L, Carson-Stevens A. Sources of unsafe primary care for older adults: a mixed-methods analysis of patient safety incident reports

Background

older adults are frequent users of primary healthcare services, but are at increased risk of healthcare-related harm in this setting.

Objectives

to describe the factors associated with actual or potential harm to patients aged 65 years and older, treated in primary care, to identify action to produce safer care.

Design and Setting

a cross-sectional mixed-methods analysis of a national (England and Wales) database of patient safety incident reports from 2005 to 2013.

Subjects

1,591 primary care patient safety incident reports regarding patients aged 65 years and older.

Methods

we developed a classification system for the analysis of patient safety incident reports to describe: the incident and preceding chain of incidents; other contributory factors; and patient harm outcome. We combined findings from exploratory descriptive and thematic analyses to identify key sources of unsafe care.

Results

the main sources of unsafe care in our weighted sample were due to: medication-related incidents e.g. prescribing, dispensing and administering (n = 486, 31%; 15% serious patient harm); communication-related incidents e.g. incomplete or non-transfer of information across care boundaries (n = 390, 25%; 12% serious patient harm); and clinical decision-making incidents which led to the most serious patient harm outcomes (n = 203, 13%; 41% serious patient harm).

Conclusion

priority areas for further research to determine the burden and preventability of unsafe primary care for older adults, include: the timely electronic tools for prescribing, dispensing and administering medication in the community; electronic transfer of information between healthcare settings; and, better clinical decision-making support and guidance.

Patient-reported safety incidents in older patients with long-term conditions: a large cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence suggests that patient safety is a serious concern for older patients with long-term conditions. Despite this, there is a lack of research on safety incidents encountered by this patient group. In this study, we sought to examine patient reports of safety incidents and factors associated with reports of safety incidents in older patients with long-term conditions.

METHODS

The baseline cross-sectional data from a longitudinal cohort study were analysed. Older patients (n=3378 aged 65 years and over) with a long-term condition registered in general practices were included in the study. The main outcome was patient-reported safety incidents including availability and appropriateness of medical tests and prescription of wrong types or doses of medication. Binary univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were undertaken to examine factors associated with patient-reported safety incidents.

RESULTS

Safety incidents were reported by 11% of the patients. Four factors were significantly associated with patient-reported safety incidents in multivariate analyses. The experience of multiple long-term conditions (OR=1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13), a probable diagnosis of depression (OR=1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.74) and greater relational continuity of care (OR=1.28, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.52) were associated with increased odds for patient-reported safety incidents. Perceived greater support and involvement in self-management was associated with lower odds for patient-reported safety incidents (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that older patients with multimorbidity and depression are more likely to report experiences of patient safety incidents. Improving perceived support and involvement of patients in their care may help prevent patient-reported safety incidents.

Understanding the epidemiology of avoidable significant harm in primary care: protocol for a retrospective cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Most patient safety research has focused on specialist-care settings where there is an appreciation of the frequency and causes of medical errors, and the resulting burden of adverse events. There have, however, been few large-scale robust studies that have investigated the extent and severity of avoidable harm in primary care. To address this, we will conduct a 12-month retrospective cross-sectional study involving case note review of primary care patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct electronic searches of general practice (GP) clinical computer systems to identify patients with avoidable significant harm. Up to 16 general practices from 3 areas of England (East Midlands, London and the North West) will be recruited based on practice size, to obtain a sample of around 100 000 patients. Our investigations will include an 'enhanced sample' of patients with the highest risk of avoidable significant harm. We will estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm and express this as 'per 100 000 patients per year'. Univariate and multivariate analysis will be conducted to identify the factors associated with avoidable significant harm.

ETHICS/DISSEMINATION

The decision regarding participation by general practices in the study is entirely voluntary; the consent to participate may be withdrawn at any time. We will not seek individual patient consent for the retrospective case note review, but if patients respond to publicity about the project and say they do not wish their records to be included, we will follow these instructions. We will produce a report for the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme and several high-quality peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals. The study has been granted a favourable opinion by the East Midlands Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference 15/EM/0411) and Confidentiality Advisory Group approval for access to medical records without consent under section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 (reference 15/CAG/0182).

Patient Safety Incidents Involving Sick Children in Primary Care in England and Wales: A Mixed Methods Analysis

BACKGROUND

The UK performs poorly relative to other economically developed countries on numerous indicators of care quality for children. The contribution of iatrogenic harm to these outcomes is unclear. As primary care is the first point of healthcare contact for most children, we sought to investigate the safety of care provided to children in this setting.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We undertook a mixed methods investigation of reports of primary care patient safety incidents involving sick children from England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System between 1 January 2005 and 1 December 2013. Two reviewers independently selected relevant incident reports meeting prespecified criteria, and then descriptively analyzed these reports to identify the most frequent and harmful incident types. This was followed by an in-depth thematic analysis of a purposive sample of reports to understand the reasons underpinning incidents. Key candidate areas for strengthening primary care provision and reducing the risks of systems failures were then identified through multidisciplinary discussions. Of 2,191 safety incidents identified from 2,178 reports, 30% (n = 658) were harmful, including 12 deaths and 41 cases of severe harm. The children involved in these incidents had respiratory conditions (n = 387; 18%), injuries (n = 289; 13%), nonspecific signs and symptoms, e.g., fever (n = 281; 13%), and gastrointestinal or genitourinary conditions (n = 268; 12%), among others. Priority areas for improvement included safer systems for medication provision in community pharmacies; triage processes to enable effective and timely assessment, diagnosis, and referral of acutely sick children attending out-of-hours services; and enhanced communication for robust safety netting between professionals and parents. The main limitations of this study result from underreporting of safety incidents and variable data quality. Our findings therefore require further exploration in longitudinal studies utilizing case review methods.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights opportunities to reduce iatrogenic harm and avoidable child deaths. Globally, healthcare systems with primary-care-led models of delivery must now examine their existing practices to determine the prevalence and burden of these priority safety issues, and utilize improvement methods to achieve sustainable improvements in care quality.

Characterising the nature of primary care patient safety incident reports in the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System: a mixed-methods agenda-setting study for general practice

Background

There is an emerging interest in the inadvertent harm caused to patients by the provision of primary health-care services. To date (up to 2015), there has been limited research interest and few policy directives focused on patient safety in primary care. In 2003, a major investment was made in the National Reporting and Learning System to better understand patient safety incidents occurring in England and Wales. This is now the largest repository of patient safety incidents in the world. Over 40,000 safety incident reports have arisen from general practice. These have never been systematically analysed, and a key challenge to exploiting these data has been the largely unstructured, free-text data.

Aims

To characterise the nature and range of incidents reported from general practice in England and Wales (2005–13) in order to identify the most frequent and most harmful patient safety incidents, and relevant contributory issues, to inform recommendations for improving the safety of primary care provision in key strategic areas.

Methods

We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods evaluation of general practice patient safety incident reports. We developed our own classification (coding) system using an iterative approach to describe the incident, contributory factors and incident outcomes. Exploratory data analysis methods with subsequent thematic analysis was undertaken to identify the most harmful and most frequent incident types, and the underlying contributory themes. The study team discussed quantitative and qualitative analyses, and vignette examples, to propose recommendations for practice.

Main findings

We have identified considerable variation in reporting culture across England and Wales between organisations. Two-thirds of all reports did not describe explicit reasons about why an incident occurred. Diagnosis- and assessment-related incidents described the highest proportion of harm to patients; over three-quarters of these reports (79%) described a harmful outcome, and half of the total reports described serious harm or death (n = 366, 50%). Nine hundred and ninety-six reports described serious harm or death of a patient. Four main contributory themes underpinned serious harm- and death-related incidents: (1) communication errors in the referral and discharge of patients; (2) physician decision-making; (3) unfamiliar symptom presentation and inadequate administration delaying cancer diagnoses; and (4) delayed management or mismanagement following failures to recognise signs of clinical (medical, surgical and mental health) deterioration.

Conclusions

Although there are recognised limitations of safety-reporting system data, this study has generated hypotheses, through an inductive process, that now require development and testing through future research and improvement efforts in clinical practice. Cross-cutting priority recommendations include maximising opportunities to learn from patient safety incidents; building information technology infrastructure to enable details of all health-care encounters to be recorded in one system; developing and testing methods to identify and manage vulnerable patients at risk of deterioration, unscheduled hospital admission or readmission following discharge from hospital; and identifying ways patients, parents and carers can help prevent safety incidents. Further work must now involve a wider characterisation of reports contributed by the rest of the primary care disciplines (pharmacy, midwifery, health visiting, nursing and dentistry), include scoping reviews to identify interventions and improvement initiatives that address priority recommendations, and continue to advance the methods used to generate learning from safety reports.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Multicentre observational study of surgical system failures in aortic procedures and their effect on patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Vascular surgical care has changed dramatically in recent years with little knowledge of the impact of system failures on patient safety. The primary aim of this multicentre observational study was to define the landscape of surgical system failures, errors and inefficiency (collectively termed failures) in aortic surgery. Secondary aims were to investigate determinants of these failures and their relationship with patient outcomes.

METHODS

Twenty vascular teams at ten English hospitals trained in structured self-reporting of intraoperative failures (phase I). Failures occurring in open and endovascular aortic procedures were reported in phase II. Failure details (category, delay, consequence), demographic information (patient, procedure, team experience) and outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

There were strong correlations between the trainer and teams for the number and type of failures recorded during 88 procedures in phase I. In 185 aortic procedures, teams reported a median of 3 (i.q.r. 2-6) failures per procedure. Most frequent failures related to equipment (unavailability, failure, configuration, desterilization). Most major failures related to communication. Fourteen failures directly harmed 12 patients. Significant predictors of an increased failure rate were: endovascular compared with open repair (incidence rate ratio (IRR) for open repair 0·71, 95 per cent c.i. 0·57 to 0·88; P = 0·002), thoracic aneurysms compared with other aortic pathologies (IRR 2·07, 1·39 to 3·08; P < 0·001) and unfamiliarity with equipment (IRR 1·52, 1·20 to 1·91; P < 0·001). The major failure total was associated with reoperation (P = 0·011), major complications (P = 0·029) and death (P = 0·027).

CONCLUSION

Failure in aortic procedures is frequently caused by issues with team-working and equipment, and is associated with patient harm. Multidisciplinary team training, effective use of technology and new-device accreditation may improve patient outcomes.