Inpatient patient safety events in vulnerable populations: a retrospective cohort study

Active monitoring of antifungal adverse events in hospitalized patients based on Global Trigger Tool method

Background

The increasing prevalence of fungal infections necessitates broader use of antifungal medications. However, the prevalence of adverse drug events (ADEs) restricts their clinical application. This study aimed to develop a reliable ADEs trigger for antifungals to enable proactive ADEs monitoring, serving as a reference for ADEs prevention and control.

Methods

This investigation comprises two phases. Initially, the trigger was established via a literature review, extraction of relevant items, and refinement through Delphi expert consultation. Subsequently, the validity of the trigger was assessed by analyzing hospital records of antifungal drug users from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. The correlation between each trigger signal and ADEs occurrence was examined, and the sensitivity and specificity of the trigger were evaluated through the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Additionally, risk factors contributing to adverse drug events (ADEs) resulting from antifungal use were analyzed. Results: Twenty-one preliminary triggers were refined into 21 final triggers after one expert round. In the retrospective analysis, the positive trigger rate was 65.83%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 28.75%. The incidence of ADEs in inpatients was 28.75%, equating to 44.58 ADEs per 100 admissions and 33.04 ADEs per 1,000 patient days. Predominant ADEs categories included metabolic disturbances, gastrointestinal damage, and skin rashes. ADEs severity was classified into 36 cases at grade 1, 160 at grade 2, and 18 at grade 3. The likelihood of ADEs increased with longer stays, more positive triggers, and greater comorbidity counts.

Conclusion

This study underscores the effectiveness of the GTT in enhancing ADEs detection during antifungal medication use, thereby confirming its value as a monitoring tool.

Applying an equity lens to hospital safety monitoring: a critical interpretive synthesis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Hospital safety monitoring systems are foundational to how adverse events are identified and addressed. They are well positioned to bring equity-related safety issues to the forefront for action. However, there is uncertainty about how they have been, and can be, used to achieve this goal. We will undertake a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to examine how equity is integrated into hospital safety monitoring systems.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This review will follow CIS principles. Our initial compass question is: How is equity integrated into safety monitoring systems? We will begin with a structured search strategy of hospital safety monitoring systems in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO for up to May 2023 to identify papers on safety monitoring systems generally and those linked to equity (eg, racism, social determinants of health). We will also review reference lists of selected papers, contact experts and draw on team expertise. For subsequent literature searching stages, we will use team expertise and expert contacts to purposively search the social science, humanities and health services research literature to support the development of a theoretical understanding of our topic. Following data extraction, we will use interpretive processes to develop themes and a critique of the literature. The above processes of question formulation, article search and selection, data extraction, and critique and synthesis will be iterative and interactive with the goal to develop a theoretical understanding of equity in hospital monitoring systems that will have practice-based implications.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval because we are reviewing published literature. We aim to publish findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present at conferences.

Race Differences in a Malpractice Event Database in a Large Healthcare System

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine whether potential malpractice events reported by employees, malpractice events involving claims, and malpractice lawsuits differ based on patient race in a large 10-hospital healthcare system.

METHODS

Data in a healthcare system's malpractice database from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2017, were stratified by patient race using "Black," "White," and "other" categories. χ2 Goodness-of-fit tests were used to compare differences in race proportions in employee-reported observations of events that could lead to payment of a claim, claims not involving the court, and lawsuits involving the court.

RESULTS

There were significantly more employee-reported observations and claims for White patients and significantly fewer observations and claims for Black patients than expected based on the race proportions in the overall healthcare system patient population ( P < 0.001). There were no significant race differences in lawsuits (Black patients, P = 0.146; White patients, P = 0.061; other patients, P = 0.458). Four of the 10 hospitals in the healthcare system had significant race differences in potential malpractice events (hospital A, P < 0.001; hospital B, P = 0.011; hospital E, P < 0.001; hospital G, P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal the existence of race differences in potential malpractice events in a large healthcare system. By proactively investigating, understanding, and addressing racial disparities in patient safety events, including those recorded in malpractice databases, healthcare systems can help advance initiatives to provide high-quality and equitable care to patients.

Family Input for Quality and Safety (FIQS): Using mobile technology for in-hospital reporting from families and patients

OBJECTIVE

Despite three decades of effort, ensuring inpatient safety remains elusive. Patients and family members are a potential source of safety observations, but systems gathering these are limited. Our goal was to test a system to gather safety observations from hospitalized patients and their family members via a real-time mobile health tool.

METHODS

We developed a mobile-responsive website for reporting safety observations. We piloted the tool during June 2017-April 2018 on the medical-surgical unit of a children's hospital. Participants were English-speaking family members and patients ≥13 years. We sent a daily text with a website link. We assessed: (1) face validity by comparing observations to incident reporting (IR) criteria and to hospital IRs and (2) associations between the number of safety observations/100 patient-days and participant characteristics using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

We enrolled 235 patients (43.8% of 537 reviewed for eligibility), resulting in 8.15 safety reports/100 patient-days, most frequently regarding medications (29% of reports) and communication (20% of reports). Fifty-one (40% of 125) met IR criteria; only one (1.1%) had been reported via the IR system. Latinx participants submitted fewer observations than White participants (3.9 vs. 10.1, p = .002); participants with more prior hospitalizations submitted more observations (p < .001). In adjusted analyses, including measures of preference in decision making, and patient activation, the difference between Latinx and White participants diminished substantially (6.4 vs. 11.3, p = .16).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the feasibility of real-time patient and family-member technology-enabled safety observation reporting and elicited reports not otherwise identified. Variation in reporting may potentially exacerbate disparities in safety if not addressed.

Nurses' Decisions in Error Reporting and Disclosing Based on Error Scenarios: A Mixed-method Study

Background: It is ensured that nurses’ error reporting and disclosing improve services to patients and are considered a movement toward creating a culture of transparency in the healthcare system. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the nurses' decisions on reporting and disclosing Medical Errors (MEs). Methods: This research followed a mixed-method embedded design that was performed in five hospitals in Iran in 2018. A total of 491 nurses participated in the quantitative phase of the study with stratified sampling, followed by a simple random sampling technique. Also, 22 nurses joined the qualitative phase. Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire and semi-structured interviews through a scenario-based method. Quantitative data analysis was performed using descriptive and analytical statistics by SPSS 21.0 and Expert Choice 10.0 software. The qualitative data were analyzed based on the content analysis approach. Results: The most important perceived barriers with the highest impact coincided with educational (57.17%) and motivational (56.77%) factors based on SEM analysis (ES: 1.33, SE: 0.16). Regression analysis showed that error-reporting mechanisms, educational factors, and reporting consequences were significantly associated with age, sex, and work experience (P-Value ≤0.05). Error scenarios were thematized into three categories: Error perception (including ambiguity and weakness in error definition, the severity of the error, unawareness of guidelines, deviation from standards, and untrained staff), error reporting (including ineffective reporting system, hesitation in reporting to a formal system, increased workload, improper reaction, punitive responses, and concerns about consequences), and error disclosure (including no disclosure, partial disclosure, and full disclosure). Conclusions: The obtained results contributed to a better understanding of the barriers to error reporting and disclosing. In addition, these results can help hospitals encourage error reporting and ultimately make organizational changes, which reduce the incidence of errors.

Using patient complaints to drive healthcare improvement: a narrative overview

Patient complaints are directly related to patient experience and safety. While complaints have the potential to be a major driving force in quality improvement, there is little evidence-based structure to use as a guide. The existing literature draws attention to the significant variability in complaint reporting and analysis systems as major barriers. Furthermore, weak change strategies are frequently implemented in response to complaints. This often prevents further investigation into larger systems issues that could be addressed with quality improvement initiatives. Several recent studies describe success with the use of a standardized tool to classify patient complaints, which highlights attempts at overcoming these barriers. There are opportunities to more effectively use patient complaints to drive improvement including a cultural shift with supportive leadership, transparency with the complaint process, and the use of a standardized tool to better organize and process complaints.

Barcode medication administration technology use in hospital practice: a mixed-methods observational study of policy deviations

Introduction

Barcode medication administration (BCMA) can, if poorly implemented, cause disrupted workflow, increased workload and cause medication errors. Further exploration is needed of the causes of BCMA policy deviations.

Objective

To gain an insight into nurses’ use of barcode technology during medication dispensing and administration; to record the number and type of BCMA policy deviations, and to investigate their causes.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, mixed-methods study. Medication administration rounds on two hospital wards were observed using a digital tool and field notes. The SEIPS (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) model was used to analyse the data.

Results

We observed 44 nurses administering 884 medications to 213 patients. We identified BCMA policy deviations for more than half of the observations; these related to the level of tasks, organisation, technology, environment and nurses. Task-related policy deviations occurred with 140 patients (66%) during dispensing and 152 patients (71%) during administration. Organisational deviations included failure to scan 29% of medications and 20% of patient’s wristbands. Policy deviations also arose due to technological factors (eg, low laptop battery, system freezing), as well as environmental factors (eg, medication room location, patient drawer size). Most deviations were caused by policies that interfere with proper and safe BCMA use and suboptimal technology design.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that adaptations of the work system are needed, particularly in relation to policies and technology, to optimise the use of BCMA by nurses during medication dispensing and administration. These adaptations should lead to enhanced patient safety, as the absolute goal with BCMA implementation.