Adverse event reviews in healthcare: what matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family

Factors influencing the nature of client complaint behaviour in the aftermath of adverse events

BACKGROUND

Negative veterinary client complaint behaviour poses wellbeing and reputational risks. Adverse events are one source of complaint. Identifying factors that influence adverse event-related complaint behaviour is key to mitigating detrimental consequences and harnessing information that can be used to improve service quality, patient safety and business sustainability.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with five veterinary client complainants and five veterinary client mediators. Qualitative content analysis of the transcripts was used to identify categories of capability, opportunity and motivation influencing client behaviour. One category of motivation identified focused on the desired outcomes of complainants. Two hundred and eighty resolved veterinary‒client mediation cases related to adverse events subsequently underwent content analysis to quantify these desired outcomes.

RESULTS

Client complaint behaviour was motivated by clients' emotional reactions, perceptions and beliefs and desire to achieve an outcome as a result, and was influenced by previous complaint experience, technological ability, self-confidence and broader organisational and societal factors. Although financial redress was the most commonly identified desired outcome, apology, honesty, accountability and prevention of future events were valued.

LIMITATIONS

Small data sets and interpretative analyses limit the generalisability of the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Proactively engaging clients in relation to adverse events is likely to reduce negative complaint behaviour and facilitate veterinary quality improvement.

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

Background

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

Aims

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

Methods

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

Findings

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

Discussion

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

Involving Patients and/or Their Next of Kin in Serious Adverse Event Investigations: A Qualitative Study on Hospital Perspectives

BACKGROUND

The involvement of patients or next of kin (P/N) after a serious adverse event (SAE) is evolving. Beyond providing mandatory information, there is growing recognition of the need to incorporate their interests. This study explores practical manifestations of P/N involvement and identifies significant considerations for hospitals.

METHODS

The data collection involved various qualitative research methods: 7 focus groups with 56 professionals from 37 hospitals, an interview with 2 representatives from the Dutch Association of Hospitals, and an interactive reflection seminar with over 60 participants from 34 hospitals. Before the focus groups, a brief questionnaire was sent out to survey participants' practices regarding into SAE investigations. After the study, another questionnaire was distributed to gather suggestions for future improvements and to identify their lessons learned. Thematic analysis was applied to the gathered data to identify key themes.

RESULTS

Hospitals are increasingly acknowledging the interests and perspectives of P/N, recognizing their potential contributions to organizational learning and improvement. P/N involvement following SAEs includes active participation in different stages of the investigation process, not just passive information dissemination. Important factors influencing involvement are the provision of (emotional) support, identification of needs, and transparency of the SAE investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study enhances understanding of evolving practices surrounding P/N involvement in the context of SAEs in Dutch hospitals. The findings highlight the importance of promoting meaningful involvement, recognizing the significance of P/N experiences, and fostering a culture of transparency and collaboration. By examining the dynamics of involvement, this research aims to inform policy development and facilitate the implementation of patient-centered approaches to post-SAE care.

Beyond the numbers: Classifying contributory factors and potentially avoidable adverse events in the gynaecology service of National Women's Health at Auckland District Health Board

BACKGROUND

Adverse events (AEs) during health care are common and may have long-term consequences for patients. Although there is a tradition of reviewing morbidity and mortality in gynaecology, there is no recommended system for reporting contributory factors and potential avoidability.

AIMS

To identify factors that contributed to AEs in the gynaecology service at National Women's Health at Auckland District Health Board and to determine potential avoidability, with the use of a multidisciplinary morbidity review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Contributory factors from a review of AEs in gynaecology services were identified and classified as organisational and/or management factors, personnel factors and barriers to patients accessing and engaging with care. Potential avoidability of the AE was also considered. A descriptive analysis of the morbidity review of patients who had an AE from 2019 to 2022 was undertaken.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three cases of AEs were reviewed and 77 (50.3%) were associated with contributory factors. Of all cases, 45 (29.4%) had organisational factors, 54 (35.3%) had personnel factors and patient factors resulting in barriers to care contributing to 11 (7.2%) cases. Sixty-five cases (42.5%) were classified as potentially avoidable. Of these 65 cases, 38 (58.5%) had organisational factors, 48 (73.8%) had personnel factors and nine (13.9%) had barriers to care.

CONCLUSIONS

The AE review process reported 50.3% of AEs had contributory factors that were classified as organisational, personnel and barriers to patients accessing care and that 42.5% of the AEs were potentially avoidable. These reviews can be used for making recommendations that potentially lead to improvements in gynaecology.

Patient perspectives on adverse event investigations in health care

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade attention has grown to give patients and next of kin (P/N) more substantial roles in adverse event investigations. Adverse event investigations occur after adverse events that resulted in death or severe injury. Few studies have focused on patient perspectives on their involvement in such investigations. The present study sets out to investigate how P/N and patient representatives (client councils and the Patient Federation Netherlands) view the involvement of P/N in adverse event investigations, particularly whether and why they want to involved, and how they want to shape their involvement.

METHODS

The study features qualitative data on three levels: interviews with P/N (personal), focus groups with representatives of client councils (institutional), and an interview with the Patient Federation Netherlands (national). Researchers used inductive, thematic analysis and validated the results through data source triangulation.

RESULTS

The initiative taken by the hospitals in this study provided P/N with the space to feel heard and a position as legitimate stakeholder. P/N appreciated the opportunity to choose whether and how they wanted to be involved in the investigation as stakeholders. P/N emphasized the need for hospitals to learn from the investigations, but for them the investigation was also part of a more encompassing relationship. P/N's views showed the inextricable link between the first conversation with the health care professional and the investigation, and the ongoing care after the investigation was finalized. Hence, an adverse event investigation is part of a broader experience when understood from a patient perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

An adverse event investigation should be considered as part of an existing relationship between P/N and hospital that starts before the investigation and continues during follow up care. It is crucial for hospitals to take the initiative in the investigation and in the involvement of P/N. P/N motivations for involvement can be understood as driven by agency or communion. Agentic motivations include being an active participant by choice, while communion motivations include the need to be heard.

Disclosure of Adverse Events and Medical Errors: A Framework for Anesthesiologists

Ethical disclosure of adverse events (AE) presents opportunities and challenges for physicians and has unique ramifications for anesthesiologists. AE disclosure is supported by patients, regulatory organizations, and physicians. Disclosure is part of a physician's ethical duty toward patients, supports fully informed patient decision making, and is a critical component of root cause analysis. Barriers to AE disclosure include disruption of the doctor-patient relationship, fear of litigation, and inadequate training. Apology laws intended to support disclosure and mitigate concern for adverse legal consequences have not fulfilled that initial promise. Training and institutional communication programs support physicians in providing competent, ethical AE disclosure.

Emergency room nurses' caring ability and its relationship with patient safety outcomes: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Nurse caring ability plays a crucial role in providing quality care and ensuring patient safety. However, further research is warranted to understand the specific impact of caring ability on patient safety in the emergency department.

AIM

This study has two-fold purposes: (a) to examine the association between nurses' demographic characteristics and their perceptions of their caring ability, and (b) to explore the relationship between nurses' caring ability and nursing care quality, as well as its impact on adverse patient events and missed care.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included a convenience sample of emergency room nurses working in select hospitals in the Philippines. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were performed to analyze the data.

RESULTS

A total of 164 out of the 200 emergency nurses invited responded to the survey. The mean score for the caring ability inventory was 67.89 out of 80. Nurses' demographic characteristics, including job status (working part-time) and hospital size (working in small and medium-sized hospitals), were associated with higher levels of caring ability. Higher levels of nurses' caring ability were associated with better nursing care quality (β = 0.259, p <.001), a reduction in adverse events (β = -0.169, p <.05), and a decrease in instances of missed care (β = -0.158, p <.01).

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the significance of nurses' characteristics in influencing nurse caring abilities. Additionally, the results underscore the importance of nurse caring ability in the emergency department and its association with nursing care quality and patient safety outcomes. Organizational strategies directed toward promoting and enhancing nurse caring ability in the emergency department can have positive implications for nursing practice, including improved nursing care quality, reduced adverse events, and decreased instances of missed care.

Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence to improve understanding of the processes and outcomes of redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the event and their families.

METHODS

We searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life-changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full-text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts.

FINDINGS

Fifty-three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty-one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes 'Transparency', 'Person-centered' and 'Trustworthy' represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, 'Restorative justice' encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life-changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress-reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress-reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life-changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review.

Planned improvement actions based on patient safety incident reports in Estonian hospitals: a document analysis

AIM

Aim of this study was to describe and analyse associations of incidents and their improvement actions in hospital setting.

METHODS

It was a retrospective document analysis of incident reporting systems' reports registered during 2018-2019 in two Estonian regional hospitals. Data were extracted, organised, quantified and analysed by statistical methods.

RESULTS

In total, 1973 incident reports were analysed. The most commonly reported incidents were related to patient violent or self-harming behaviour (n=587), followed by patient accidents (n=379), and 40% of all incidents were non-harm incidents (n=782). Improvement actions were documented in 83% (n=1643) of all the reports and they were focused on (1) direct patient care, (2) staff-related actions; (3) equipment and general protocols and (4) environment and organisational issues. Improvement actions were mostly associated with medication and transfusion treatment and targeted to staff. The second often associated improvement actions were related to patient accidents and were mostly focused on that particular patient's further care. Improvement actions were mostly planned for incidents with moderate and mild harm, and for incidents involving children and adolescents.

CONCLUSION

Patient safety incidents-related improvement actions need to be considered as a strategy for long-term development in patient safety in organisations. It is vital for patient safety that the planned changes related to the reporting will be documented and implemented more visibly. As a result, it will boost the confidence in managers' work and strengthens all staff's commitment to patient safety initiatives in an organisation.

Malpractice Claims and Incident Reporting: Two Faces of the Same Coin?

Incident reporting is an important method to identify risks because learning from the reports is crucial in developing and implementing effective improvements. A medical malpractice claims analysis is an important tool in any case. Both incident reports and claims show cases of damage caused to patients, despite incident reporting comprising near misses, cases where no event occurred and no-harm events. We therefore compare the two worlds to assess whether they are similar or definitively different. From 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2021, the claims database of Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS collected 843 claims. From 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021, the incident-reporting database collected 1919 events. In order to compare the two, we used IBNR calculation, usually adopted by the insurance industry to determine loss to a company and to evaluate the real number of adverse events that occurred. Indeed, the number of reported adverse events almost overlapped with the total number of events, which is indicative that incurred-but-not-reported events are practically irrelevant. The distribution of damage events reported as claims in the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 and related to incidents that occurred in the months of the same period, grouped by quarter, was then compared with the distribution of damage events reported as adverse events and sentinel events in the same period, grouped by quarter. The analysis of the claims database showed that the claims trend is slightly decreasing. However, the analysis of the reports database showed that, in the period 2020-2021, the reports trend was increasing. In our study, the comparison of the two, malpractice claims and incident reporting, documented many differences and weak areas of overlap. Nevertheless, this contribution represents the first attempt to compare the two and new studies focusing on single types of adverse events are, therefore, desirable.

A person, not a statistic

Sam Foster, Chief Nurse, Oxford University Hospitals, considers the importance of listening to patients and taking a person-centred approach in reviews of adverse events.