What are we doing when we double check?

Enhancing cervical cancer cytology screening via artificial intelligence innovation

A double-check process helps prevent errors and ensures quality control. However, it may lead to decreased personal accountability, reduced effort, and declining quality checks. Introducing an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system in such scenarios could effectively address the risk of oversights. This study introduces an innovative AI-integrated workflow for cervical cytology screening that substantially improves efficiency and reduces the burden on cytologists. The AI model prioritizes cases for review based on anomaly scores and streamlines the first screening process to approximately 10 s per case. The model enhances the identification of high-risk cases via detailed microscopic observation, high anomaly scores cases, and a targeted review of low-score cases. The workflow highlights its capability for rapid, accurate, and less labor-intensive evaluations, demonstrating the potential to transform cervical cancer screening. This study highlights the importance of AI in modern medical diagnostics, particularly in areas with a high demand for accuracy and efficiency.

Are two-person checks more effective than one-person checks for safety critical tasks in high-consequence industries outside of healthcare? A systematic review

Double-checking has been used in high-consequence industries for decades. We aimed to determine the strength of the evidence-base regarding the effectiveness of double-checking which underpins its widespread adoption. We searched for quantitative studies of the effectiveness of two-person checking in industry sectors, excluding healthcare. We performed a systematic literature search across six databases and hand-searched key journals. We completed a narrative synthesis and quality assessment of the nine studies identified. Most studies were of fair quality. Two examined the use of two-person checks in aviation, three investigated tasks in chemical manufacturing, and four studies in psychology involved proofreading and visual search tasks. All studies found that the performance of two-people checking was not superior to that of one-person in detecting errors. Further research to compare the effectiveness of different checking processes along with factors which may support optimisation of safety checks in high-consequence industries is required.

Medication dose calculation errors and other numeracy mishaps in hospitals: Analysis of the nature and enablers of incident reports

AIMS

To investigate medication dose calculation errors and other numeracy mishaps in hospitals and examine mechanisms and enablers which lead to such errors.

DESIGN

A retrospective study using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of the nature and enablers of reported incidents.

METHODS

Medication dose calculation errors and other numeracy mishaps were identified from medication-related incidents reported to the Norwegian Incident Reporting System in 2016 and 2017. The main outcome measures were medications and medication classes involved, severity of harm, outcome, and error enablers.

RESULTS

In total, we identified 100 numeracy errors, of which most involved intravenous administration route (n = 70). Analgesics were the most commonly reported drug class and morphine was the most common individual medication. Overall, 78 incidents described patient harm. Frequent mechanisms were 10- or 100-fold errors, mixing up units, and incorrect strength/rate entered into infusion pumps. The most frequent error enablers were: double check omitted or deviated (n = 40), lack of safety barriers to intercept prescribing errors (n = 25), and emergency/stress (n = 21).

CONCLUSION

Numeracy errors due to lack of or improper safeguards occurred during all medication management stages. Dose miscalculation after dilution of intravenous solutions, infusion pump programming, and double-checking were identified as unsafe practices. We discuss measures to prevent future calculation and numeracy errors.

IMPACT

Our analysis of medication dose calculation errors and other numeracy mishaps demonstrates the need for improving safety steps and increase standardization for medication management procedures. We discuss organizational, technological, and educational measures to prevent harm from numeracy errors.

Challenges and Potential Solutions for Patient Safety in an Infectious-Agent-Isolation Environment: A Study of 484 COVID-19-Related Event Reports Across 94 Hospitals

Previous research has shown that patients in infectious-agent isolation are at greater risk for certain types of safety-related events. We conducted a study to explore the relationship between the various types of events that occur in an isolation environment and the associated factors, which may have implications for the likelihood of the event and severity of patient harm. We conducted a query of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System (PA-PSRS) database to identify event reports submitted by acute care hospitals between January 1 and September 30, 2020. We identified 484 relevant event reports from 94 hospitals for inclusion in our descriptive study (excluding near-miss events). We measured the frequency of relationship between categories of safety-related event types and 18 categories of associated factors. Among the seven categories of event types, the most frequently identified were skin integrity (141 of 484, 29%), falls (129 of 484, 27%), and medication-related (78 of 484, 16%). Across all 18 categories of associated factors, which had or may have had an influence on the event type, the most frequent were patient’s mental status (80 of 484, 17%), staff’s time to don personal protective equipment (62 of 484, 13%), and patient’s interference with equipment/supplies (45 of 484, 9%). Overall, our results revealed that the frequency of certain associated factors varied considerably from one event type to another, which indicates that the relation between event types and associated factors should guide selection of risk mitigation strategies. We encourage readers to leverage our results along with Table 9, which provides a list of challenges identified in an isolation environment and potential solutions. We envision hospital staff proactively and systematically using the information in our manuscript to facilitate their evaluation of the isolation environment and prioritization of risk mitigation strategies.

Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients

BACKGROUND

Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence.

METHODS

Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed-one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients' medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence.

RESULTS

For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65-1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65-1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54-0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57-0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations).

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings.

Medication incident recovery and prevention utilising an Australian community pharmacy incident reporting system: the QUMwatch study

PURPOSE

To identify factors in community pharmacy that facilitate error recovery from medication incidents (MIs) and explore medication safety prevention strategies from the pharmacist perspective.

METHODS

Thirty community pharmacies in Sydney, Australia, participated in a 30-month prospective incident reporting program of MIs classified in the Advanced Incident Management System (AIMS) and the analysis triangulated with case studies. The main outcome measures were the relative frequencies and patterns in MI detection, minimisation, restorative actions and prevention recommendations of community pharmacists.

RESULTS

Participants reported 1013 incidents with 831 recovered near misses and 165 purported patient harm. MIs were mainly initiated at the prescribing (68.2%) and dispensing (22.6%) stages, and most were resolved at the pharmacy (76.9%). Detection was efficient within the first 24 h in 54.6% of MIs, but 26.1% required one month or longer; 37.2% occurred after the patient consumed the medicine. The combination of specific actions/attributes (85.5%), appropriate interventions (81.6%) and effective communication (77.7%) minimised MIs. An array of remedial actions were conducted by participants including notification, referral, advice, modification of medication regimen, risk management and documentation corrections. Recommended prevention strategies involved espousal of medication safety culture (97.8%), better application of policies/procedures (84.6%) and improvements in healthcare providers' education (79.9%).

CONCLUSION

Incident reporting provided insights on the human and organisational factors involved in the recovery of MIs in community pharmacy. Optimising existing safeguards and redesigning certain structures and processes may enhance the resilience of the medication use system in primary care.

What do double-check routines actually detect? An observational assessment and qualitative analysis of identified inconsistencies

OBJECTIVES

Double checking is used in oncology to detect medication errors before administering chemotherapy. The objectives of the study were to determine the frequency of detected potential medication errors, i.e., mismatching information, and to better understand the nature of these inconsistencies.

DESIGN

In observing checking procedures, field noteswere taken of all inconsistencies that nurses identified during double checking the order against the prepared chemotherapy.

SETTING

Oncological wards and ambulatory infusion centres of three Swiss hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Nurses' double checking was observed.

OUTCOME MEASURES

In a qualitative analysis, (1) a category system for the inconsistencies was developed and (2) independently applied by two researchers.

RESULTS

In 22 (3.2%) of 690 observed double checks, 28 chemotherapy-related inconsistencies were detected. Half of them related to non-matching information between order and drug label, while the other half was identified because the nurses used their own knowledge. 75% of the inconsistencies could be traced back to inappropriate orders, and the inconsistencies led to 33 subsequent or corrective actions.

CONCLUSIONS

In double check situations, the plausibility of the medication is often reviewed. Additionally, they serve as a correction for errors and that are made much earlier in the medication process, during order. Both results open up new opportunities for improving the medication process.