Junior doctors' views on reporting concerns about patient safety: a qualitative study

Perceptions of U.S. and U.K. Incident Reporting Systems: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to evaluate the extent, range, and nature of the literature that concerns healthcare providers' perceptions following the use of incident reporting systems (IRSs) in the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (U.K.). Literature was compared describing providers' perceptions of reporting patient safety incidents using IRSs from healthcare systems built on public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit insurers in the U.S., with providers' perceptions using an IRS within a universal government supported healthcare system in the U.K.

METHODS

This scoping review searched literature from 4 electronic databases, producing 4863 articles between January 2010 to March 2023.

RESULTS

Eleven U.S. and 8 U.K. articles met the inclusion criteria. Providers described system and individual barriers when using IRSs. The U.S. providers described more concerns regarding individual barriers (fear of punitive response or retaliation, feel incapable or shamed, unsure of what constitutes a patient safety incident, and concerned about litigation) than providers in the U.K. Both countries had similar responses regarding system barriers, except for U.K. providers who were more concerned than the U.S. about damage to professional culture. Providers in both countries believed incident reporting was ineffective and time consuming with hospital leaders seldom acknowledging or integrating improvement measures based on reported incidents.

CONCLUSIONS

Sustainable improvements in patient care must be driven by hospital leadership who create just cultures where reporting of safety concerns is encouraged and respected within nonpunitive milieus.

Mixed methods evaluation of a specialty-specific system to promote physician engagement in safety and quality reporting in a large academic health system

BACKGROUND

Incident reporting systems (IRS) can improve care quality and patient safety, yet their impact is limited by clinician engagement. Our objective was to assess barriers to reporting in a hospital-wide IRS and use data to inform ongoing improvement of a specialty-specific IRS embedded in the electronic health record targeting anaesthesiologists.

METHODS

This quality improvement (QI) evaluation used mixed methods, including qualitative interviews, faculty surveys and user data from the specialty-specific IRS. We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews from January to May 2023 in a large academic health system in Northern California. Participants included adult and paediatric anaesthesiologists, operating room nurses, surgeons and QI operators, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. We identified key themes and factors influencing engagement, which were classified using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework. We surveyed hospital anaesthesiologists in January and May 2023, and characterised the quantity and type of reports submitted to the new system.

RESULTS

Participants shared organisation and technology-related barriers to engagement in traditional system-wide IRSs, many of which the specialty-specific IRS addressed-specifically those related to technological access to the system. Barriers related to building psychological safety for those who report remain. Survey results showed that most barriers to reporting improved following the specialty-specific IRS launch, but limited time remained an ongoing barrier (25 respondents out of 44, 56.8%). A total of 964 reports with quality/safety concerns were submitted over the first 8 months of implementation; 47-76 unique anaesthesiologists engaged per month. The top safety quality categories of concern were equipment and technology (25.9%), clinical complications (25.3%) and communication and scheduling (19.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that a specialty-specific IRS can facilitate increased physician engagement in quality and safety reporting and complement existing system-wide IRSs.

Raising professionalism concerns as a medical student: damned if they do, damned if they don't?

BACKGROUND

Understanding professionalism is an essential component of becoming a doctor in order to ensure the trust of patients and wider society. Integrally linked to the concept of professionalism is the importance of identifying and raising concerns to ensure high quality, safe patient care. It is recognised that medical students are uniquely placed to identify and report concerns given their frequent rotations through multiple clinical placements and their peer relationships and, in so doing, develop and enact their own medical professionalism. Although there is existing literature exploring medical students' willingness to raise concerns about observed professionalism lapses, this has largely been in the context of clinical interactions. Medical students will however undoubtedly encounter concerning behaviours or attitudes in their fellow students, an area that has not specifically been reported upon. This study therefore set out to explore medical students' willingness to report professionalism concerns they encounter both within and away from the clinical setting, particularly focusing on peer-related concerns.

METHODS

10 medical students, in later clinical years of a large UK medical school, volunteered to take part in in-depth semi-structured interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and then analysed thematically to generate themes and subthemes to represent central organising concepts.

RESULTS

Three broad themes were generated from the data. Hidden curricular effects including role models, hierarchical structures and the operational systems in place to raise concerns subconsciously influenced students' decisions to raise concerns. Secondly, students offered a range of justifications to defend not taking action, including considering their own vulnerabilities and values alongside demonstrating empathy for perceived mitigating circumstances. The third theme highlighted the complex interplay of influencing factors that students considered when encountering professionalism issues in their peers including wider peer cohort effects and a desire to maintain individual peer-relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students will inevitably encounter situations where the professionalism of others is brought into question. However, despite clear curricular expectations to report such concerns, these findings demonstrate that students undergo a complex decision-making process in determining the threshold for reporting a concern through navigating a range of identified influencing factors. This study highlights the important role medical schools play in helping reduce the inner conflict experienced by medical students when raising concerns and in ensuring they provide supportive processes to empower their students to raise concerns as part their own developing professionalism.

Out-of-hours decision-making in deteriorating patients by foundation year doctors: Relationship to moral distress

BACKGROUND

Moral distress (MD) refers to psychological unease when healthcare professionals identify morally correct actions to take but are constrained in their ability to take those actions.

METHODS

This study evaluated the relationship between out-of-hours decisions and MD among 40 Foundation Year 2 (FY2) doctors. They were asked to choose the 'expected' and the 'right' management options for five out-of-hours scenarios and complete an adapted Measure of Moral Distress for Health Professionals (MMD-HP) questionnaire.

RESULTS

28/40 (70%) reported discordance between 'expected' and 'right' options more frequently than concordance. The mean total MMD-HP score was low: 64.9 (SD = 26.9), range 13-143, maximum 288. The association between decision-making discordance and MMD-HP score was weak.

CONCLUSION

Out-of-hours decisions by FY2 doctors were characterised by doing what is 'expected' rather than what is perceived to be 'right'. Providing guidance regarding decision-making in deteriorating patients is needed for patient safety and staff well-being.

The COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis and Patient Safety Culture: A Mixed-Method Study

The COVID-19 pandemic has put inordinate pressure on frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and hospitals. HCWs are under chronic emotional stress, affected by burnout, moral distress and interpersonal issues with peers or supervisors during the pandemic. All of these can lead to lower levels of patient safety. The goal of this study was to examine patient safety culture values in a COVID-19 frontline hospital. Patient safety represents action, while patient safety culture represents the beliefs, values and norms of an organization that support and promote patient safety. Patient safety culture is a prerequisite for patient safety. A cross-sectional study on healthcare workers (228, response rate of 81.43%) at a COVID-19 frontline hospital was conducted using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HOSPSC), which had PSC dimensions, single question dimensions and comments. Our research revealed that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of patient safety issues have been identified: low communication openness and current punitive response to errors, which might have incapacitated HCWs in the reporting of adverse events. Although participants expressed high supervisor/management expectations, actual support from the supervisor/management tier was low. Poor teamwork across units was identified as another issue, as well as low staffing. The infrastructure was identified as a potential new PSC dimension. There was a lack of support from supervisors/managers, while HCWs need their supervisors to be available; to be visible on the front line and to create an environment of trust, psychological safety and empowerment.

The challenges of physicians' participation in hospital accreditation programs: a qualitative study in Iran

BACKGROUND

Due to the increasing pressure on hospitals to enhance the quality of services, the participation of physicians in accreditation programs has become more important than ever. The present study was conducted to describe challenges of physicians' participation in hospital accreditation programs in Iran using a qualitative approach.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with 11 managers, 9 physicians and 8 experts in the field of hospital accreditation. Interviewees were selected through purposive snowball sampling. In-depth unstructured and semi-structured interviews were conducted for data collection. The data obtained were analyzed in ATLAS.ti using the conceptual framework method.

RESULTS

The results of this study extracted 3 main themes including: cultural, organizational and behavioral factors. Also, this study found 12 sub-themes and 57 items. Sub-themes in the cultural domain were motivation, patient demand, mutual trust and evaluation system. The organizational domain consisted of seven sub-themes, including high workload, understanding the role of quality management unit, unrealistic accreditation, nature of accreditation, empowerment of physicians in the field of quality, effective communication, resource constraint. Sub-themes in the behavioral dimension were ambiguity in the role and uncertainty about how to participate in accreditation program.

CONCLUSION

Physicians' participation in accreditation programs can be increased through culture building and proper training about accreditation activities in the medical community.

Understanding Experiences of Moral Distress in End-of-Life Care Among US and UK Physician Trainees: a Comparative Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Moral distress is a state in which a clinician cannot act in accordance with their ethical beliefs because of external constraints. Physician trainees, who work within rigid hierarchies and who lack clinical experience, are particularly vulnerable to moral distress. We examined the dynamics of physician trainee moral distress in end-of-life care by comparing experiences in two different national cultures and healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated cultural factors in the US and the UK that may produce moral distress within their respective healthcare systems, as well as how these factors shape experiences of moral distress among physician trainees.

DESIGN

Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews about experiences of end-of-life care and moral distress.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen internal medicine residents in the US and fourteen junior doctors in the UK.

APPROACH

The work was analyzed using thematic analysis.

KEY RESULTS

Some drivers of moral distress were similar among US and UK trainees, including delivery of potentially inappropriate treatments, a poorly defined care trajectory, and involvement of multiple teams creating different care expectations. For UK trainees, healthcare team hierarchy was common, whereas for US trainees, pressure from families, a lack of guidelines for withholding inappropriate treatments, and distress around physically harming patients were frequently cited. US trainees described how patient autonomy and a fear of lawsuits contributed to moral distress, whereas UK trainees described how societal expectations around resource allocation mitigated it.

CONCLUSION

This research highlights how the differing experiences of moral distress among US and UK physician trainees are influenced by their countries' healthcare cultures. This research illustrates how experiences of moral distress reflect the broader culture in which it occurs and suggests how trainees may be particularly vulnerable to it. Clinicians and healthcare leaders in both countries can learn from each other about policies and practices that might decrease the moral distress trainees experience.

"Incident Teaching (IT)" Lecture Series - Incorporating Education Surrounding Clinical Incidents and Complaints into Foundation Year 1 (FY1) Doctors' Induction

Patient safety incidents are any unintended or unexpected incidents which potentially could, or did, lead to harm to patients. Incident reports are crucial to improve patients’ care and to identify further actions needed to prevent harm. A common view among the FY1 doctors in our local NHS Trust involved a fearful opinion surrounding being involved in clinical incidents. Significant anxiety in those situations prompted the need for a focus on the topic of “clinical incidents” during their induction to the Trust in two consecutive years of 2018 and 2019. A near-peer lecture series was delivered to new FY1 with qualitative pre- and post-lecture series feedbacks. Results from lecture series from two consecutive years showed all FY1 doctors agreed or strongly agreed that they had a good understanding of incidents following the lecture. Compared with their pre-course feedback, there was an increase of 6-fold (2018) and 8-fold (2019) in those that strongly agreed. Post-course, more than 90% of doctors reported that they would feel comfortable sharing with colleagues their involvement in an incident. In a growing culture of blame and litigation, it is important to address the harm associated with a blame-based culture. The process of investigating an incident has the potential to expose the areas of deficiency relating to an individual. Reducing stigma associated with incidents could theoretically reduce the second victim phenomenon. An open culture to incident reporting is a fundamental part of medical education and quality improvement. Encouraging this attitude amongst medical professionals and creating a supporting environment surrounding sharing of experiences will help to form a generation of doctors that see incident reporting in a positive light. Our model of lecture series could be utilised in other UK Foundation Programmes with the aim of enriching the FY1s’ induction period.

Speaking up behavior and cognitive bias in hand hygiene: Competences of German-speaking medical students

Introduction

Infection prevention and speaking up on errors are core qualities of health care providers. Heuristic effects (e.g. overconfidence) may impair behavior in daily routine, while speaking up can be inhibited by hierarchical barriers and medical team factors. Aim of this investigation was to determine, how medical students experience these difficulties for hand hygiene in daily routine.

Methods

On the base of prior investigations we developed a questionnaire with 5-point Likert ordinal scaled items and free text entries. This was tested for validity and reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.89). Accredited German, Swiss and Austrian universities were contacted and medical students asked to participated in the anonymous online survey. Quantitative statistics used parametric and non-parametric tests and effect size calculations according to Lakens. Qualitative data was coded according to Janesick.

Results

1042 undergraduates of 12 universities participated. All rated their capabilities in hand hygiene and feedback reception higher than those of fellow students, nurses and physicians (p<0.001). Half of the participants rating themselves to be best educated, realized that faulty hand hygiene can be of lethal effect. Findings were independent from age, sex, academic course and university. Speaking-up in case of omitted hand hygiene was rated to be done seldomly and most rare on persons of higher hierarchic levels. Qualitative results of 164 entries showed four main themes: 1) Education methods in hand hygiene are insufficient, 2) Hierarchy barriers impair constructive work place culture 3) Hygiene and feedback are linked to medical ethics and 4) There is no consequence for breaking hygiene rules.

Discussion

Although partially limited by the selection bias, this study confirms the overconfidence-effects demonstrated in post-graduates in other settings and different professions. The independence from study progress suggests, that the effect occurs before start of the academic course with need for educational intervention at the very beginning. Qualitative data showed that used methods are insufficient and contradictory work place behavior in hospitals are frustrating. Even 20 years after “To err is human”, work place culture still is far away from the desirable.

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.

The acceptance of CIRS among orthopedic and trauma surgeons in Germany-Significant gap between positive perception and actual implementation in daily routine

PURPOSE

Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States after malignant tumors and cardiovascular disease. Handling of errors becomes more and more eclectic due to the implementation of incident reporting systems and the use of checklists. Since 2015, any German hospital would have a critical incident reporting system (CIRS). The aim of this study is to discover the nationwide utilization and attitude toward CIRS of orthopedic and trauma surgeons.

METHODS

Between April 10, 2015 and May 22, 2015, a web-based questionnaire, which was designed by an expert team consisting of orthopedic and trauma surgeons, aeronautic human factors specialists, and psychologists (Lufthansa Aviation Training), was sent to all members of the German Society for Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery. The survey consisted of three questions regarding CIRS and its use in German hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 669 orthopedic and trauma surgeons working in German hospitals completed the questionnaire. All participants rated CIRS as useful, although 71.3% of participants did not report a critical incident in the last 12 months. In that time period, only 13.4% of participating residents reported at least one incident, but 44.7% of chief physicians reported one incident within the same period.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates that even though CIRS as a tool is positively appreciated by orthopedic and trauma surgeons working in German hospitals, many do not know about its existence at their own hospital. This can be a reason for the low number of critical incidents reported.

Understanding the factors influencing doctors' intentions to report patient safety concerns: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate doctors' intentions to raise a patient safety concern by applying the socio-psychological model 'Theory of Planned Behaviour'.

DESIGN

Qualitative semi-structured focus groups and interviews.

SETTING

Training venues across England (North West, South East and South West).

PARTICIPANTS

Sampling was purposeful to include doctors from differing backgrounds and grades.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perceptions of raising a patient safety concern.

RESULTS

While raising a concern was considered an appropriate professional behaviour, there were multiple barriers to raising a concern, which could be explained by the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Negative attitudes operated due to a fear of the consequences, such as becoming professionally isolated. Disapproval for raising a concern was encountered at an interpersonal and organisational level. Organisational constraints of workload and culture significantly undermined the raising of a concern. Responses about concerns were often side-lined or not taken seriously, leading to demotivation to report. This was reinforced by high-profile cases in the media and the negative treatment of whistle-blowers. While regulator guidance acted as an enabler to justify raising a concern, doctors felt disempowered to raise a concern about people in positions of greater power, and ceased to report concerns due to a perceived lack of action about concerns raised previously.

CONCLUSIONS

Intentions to raise a concern were complex and highly contextual. The Theory of Planned Behaviour is a useful model to aid understanding of the factors which influence the decision to raise a concern. Results point to implications for policymakers, including the need to publicise positive stories of whistle-blowers and providing greater support to doctors.

The co-design, implementation and evaluation of a serious board game 'PlayDecide patient safety' to educate junior doctors about patient safety and the importance of reporting safety concerns

BACKGROUND

We believe junior doctors are in a unique position in relation to reporting of incidents and safety culture. They are still in training and are also 'fresh eyes' on the system providing valuable insights into what they perceive as safe and unsafe behaviour. The aim of this study was to co-design and implement an embedded learning intervention - a serious board game - to educate junior doctors about patient safety and the importance of reporting safety concerns, while at the same time shaping a culture of responsiveness from senior medical staff.

METHODS

A serious game based on the PlayDecide framework was co-designed and implemented in two large urban acute teaching hospitals. To evaluate the educational value of the game voting on the position statements was recorded at the end of each game by a facilitator who also took notes after the game of key themes that emerged from the discussion. A sample of players were invited on a voluntary basis to take part in semi-structured interviews after playing the game using Flanagan's Critical Incident Technique. A paper-based questionnaire on 'Safety Concerns' was developed and administered to assess pre-and post-playing the game reporting behaviour. Dissemination workshops were held with senior clinicians to promote more inclusive leadership behaviours and responsiveness to junior doctors raising of safety concerns from senior clinicians.

RESULTS

The game proved to be a valuable patient safety educational tool and proved effective in encouraging deep discussion on patient safety. There was a significant change in the reporting behaviour of junior doctors in one of the hospitals following the intervention.

CONCLUSION

In healthcare, limited exposure to patient safety training and narrow understanding of safety compromise patients lives. The existing healthcare system needs to value the role that junior doctors and others could play in shaping a positive safety culture where reporting of all safety concerns is encouraged. Greater efforts need to be made at hospital level to develop a more pro-active safe and just culture that supports and encourages junior doctors and ultimately all doctors to understand and speak up about safety concerns.

Identifying and managing concerns about GPs in England: an interview study and case-series analysis

Background

Underperforming doctors have been the focus of sustained interest from the media, policymakers, and researchers. GPs are more likely to be the subject of a complaint than any other type of doctor in the UK, and the management of concerns in primary care needs improvement, yet more is known about how concerns are managed in secondary care.

Aim

Although formal policies for NHS England’s management of concerns are clear, little is known about how these are put into practice. This study explores how concerns are identified, investigated, and managed at a regional level.

Design and setting

A qualitative study of the management of concerns in primary care across eight area teams.

Method

The study comprised two main strands: in-depth interviews with NHS England staff; and the analysis of case file data.

Results

The process for raising concerns was identified as inconsistent and disparate, with potential weaknesses to address. The concerns process was flexible. A trade-off between adaptability and consistency was evident, but the correct balance of the two is difficult to establish. Performance concerns were most common, followed by behaviour. Conduct was the next most frequently raised concern, and a small number of health cases were identified. Outcomes of cases appeared to be dependent on the doctor’s engagement and response rather than necessarily the nature of a concern or the consequences of a doctor’s actions.

Conclusion

The way practices handle complaints and concerns remains unexamined, even though they are a key route for patient complaints.

Encouraging Resident Adverse Event Reporting: A Qualitative Study of Suggestions from the Front Lines

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about what motivates residents to report adverse events. The goals of the qualitative study were to: (1) better understand facilitators to residents' event reporting and (2) identify effective interventions that encourage residents to report.

METHODS

The authors conducted focus groups of upper-level residents from 4 training programs (2 internal medicine, a pediatric, and a combined medicine-pediatric) who rotated at 3 institutions within a large healthcare system in 2016. Quantitative data on reporting experience were gathered. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Two coders reviewed transcripts using the editing approach and organized codes into themes.

RESULTS

Sixty-four residents participated in 8 focus groups. Residents were universally exposed to reportable events and knew how to report. Residents' reporting behavior varied by site according to local culture, with residents filing more reports at the pediatric hospital compared to other sites, but all groups expressed similar general views about facilitators to reporting. Facilitators included familiarity with the investigation process, reporting via telephone, and routine safety educational sessions with safety administrators. Residents identified specific interventions that encouraged reporting at the pediatric hospital, including incorporating an attending physician review of events into sign-out and training on error disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into what motivates resident event reporting and describes concrete interventions to increase reporting. Our findings are consistent with the Theoretical Domains Framework of behavioral change. These strategies could prove successful at other pediatric hospitals to build a culture that values reporting and prepares residents as patient safety champions.

Barriers to reporting of patient safety incidents in tertiary hospitals: A qualitative study of nurses and resident physicians in South Korea

We explored the barriers to reporting patient safety incidents experienced by nurses and resident physicians while working in tertiary hospitals in South Korea. Sixteen in-depth interviews with 10 nurses and 6 resident physicians, all of whom had experienced patient safety incidents, were conducted. The interviews were analyzed using directed content analysis in accordance with a coding scheme developed in this study, which contains 4 categories (incidents and reporters, reporting procedures and systems, feedbacks, and reporting culture) and 9 subcategories. The barriers to reporting near-misses included the following: characteristics of the incident (eg, nonhazardous and high frequency), reporters' lack of knowledge, uncertainty, fear of blame, lack of role model, and inappropriate responses. Reporting adverse/sentinel events was also prevented by feelings of pressure or guilt, the fact that reporting was nonmandatory, and a belief that reporting was not part of the job. Some other barriers included lack of education, review process after reporting, lack of confidentiality when reporting, absence of feedback for reporting, unfair reporting based on work experience, perception of potential blame, and stigmatization resulting from it. In South Korea, a national system for reporting and learning of patient safety accidents has been operating since July 2016. To fully implement this system, it is necessary to encourage reporting at the institutional level. Our results might help reduce the barriers to patient safety incident reporting among nurses and resident physicians in tertiary hospitals in Korea through informing the development of improvement plans.

Incident reporting behaviours following the Francis report: A cross-sectional survey

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Previous studies have shown a lack of engagement in the reporting process. There is limited evidence about whether attitudes and behaviours of doctors in the UK towards incident reporting have changed following the events at Mid Staffordshire National Health Service Foundation Trust and the recommendations that followed. We conducted a relatively large survey of doctors, aiming to assess whether doctors recognised incidents and reported them accordingly, along with their behaviours towards reporting and their suggestions of how incident reporting may be improved.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of doctors was undertaken in 11 hospitals in the north of England. The participants (n = 581) were invited to take part in an electronic questionnaire. Demographics were obtained, and engagement with the incident reporting process was assessed, including an estimate of the number of incidents which were witnessed but not actually reported. Factors which influenced reporting behaviours were recorded. Free-text comments were encouraged. A mixed method analysis of the responses was performed.

RESULTS

Doctors do not appear to be engaging with the incident reporting process-in particular, junior doctors. The main reason given for not completing forms was not having enough time (38.2% of respondents), primarily due to the length and complexity of forms. Many doctors, 43.7%, witnessed more than 5 incidents, but only 13.3% of doctors submitted more than 5 reports. Free text comments revealed 4 themes which impact upon reporting behaviours: organisational issues, form structure, a culture of blame, and a lack of feedback. Several suggestions for improvement were made.

CONCLUSIONS

Little has changed in the attitudes and behaviours of doctors. Improving incident reporting form structure to make it more user-friendly and improving feedback may engage doctors and lead to an improved safety culture. The way the medical profession reports serious and other incidents still needs to be improved.

US Internal Medicine Program Director Perceptions of Alignment of Graduate Medical Education and Institutional Resources for Engaging Residents in Quality and Safety

Alignment between institutions and graduate medical education (GME) regarding quality and safety initiatives (QI) has not been measured. The objective was to determine US internal medicine residency program directors’ (IM PDs) perceived resourcing for QI and alignment between GME and their institutions. A national survey of IM PDs was conducted in the Fall of 2013. Multivariable linear regression was used to test association between a novel Integration Score (IS) measuring alignment between GME and the institution via PD perceptions. The response rate was 72.6% (265/365). According to PDs, residents were highly engaged in QI (82%), but adequate funding (14%) and support personnel (37% to 61%) were lower. Higher IS correlated to reports of funding for QI (76.3% vs 54.5%, P = .012), QI personnel (67.3% vs 41.1%, P < .001), research experts (70.5% vs 50.0%, P < .001), and computer experts (69.0% vs 45.8%, P < .001) for QI assistance. Apparent mismatch between GME and institutional resources exists, and the IS may be useful in measuring GME–institutional leadership alignment in QI.

Developing the 'gripes' tool for junior doctors to report concerns: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Junior doctors often have concerns about quality and safety but show low levels of engagement with incident reporting systems. We aimed to develop and pilot a web-based reporting tool for junior doctors to proactively report concerns about quality and safety of care, and optimise it for future use.

METHODS

We developed the gripes tool with input from junior doctors and piloted it at a large UK teaching hospital trust. We evaluated the tool through an analysis of concerns reported over a 3-month pilot period, and through interviews with five stakeholders and two focus groups with medical students and junior doctors about their views of the tool.

RESULTS

Junior doctors reported 111 concerns during piloting, including a number of problems previously unknown to the trust. Junior doctors felt the tool was easy to use and encouraged them to report. Barriers to engagement included lack of motivation of junior doctors to report concerns, and fear of repercussions. Ensuring transparency about who would see reported concerns, and providing feedback across whole cohorts of junior doctors about concerns raised and how these had been addressed to improve patient safety at the trust, were seen having the potential to mitigate against these barriers. Sustainability of the tool was seen as requiring a revised model of staffing to share the load for responding to concerns and ongoing efforts to integrate the tool and data with other local systems for gathering intelligence about risks and incidents. Following piloting the trust committed to continuing to operate the gripes tool on an ongoing basis.

CONCLUSIONS

The gripes tool has the potential to enable trusts to proactively monitor and address risks to patient safety, but sustainability is likely to be dependent on organisational commitment to staffing the system and perceptions of added value over the longer term.

The Well-Defined Pediatric ICU: Active Surveillance Using Nonmedical Personnel to Capture Less Serious Safety Events

BACKGROUND

Adverse events, diverse and often costly, commonly occur in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Serious safety events (SSEs) are captured through well-developed systems, typically by voluntary reporting. Less serious safety events (LSSEs), including close calls, however, occur at a higher frequency than those that result in immediate harm or death but are underestimated by standard reporting systems. LSSEs can reveal system defects and precede serious events resulting in patient or provider harm.

METHODS

A unique active surveillance program was created at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota to quantify and categorize, and, ultimately reduce, LSSEs, in PICUs. Premedical college graduates without formal health care training daily canvassed the PICUs and facilitated reporting of LSSEs at the point of care. Events were recorded on a Web application and stored in a relational database management system. Events were enumerated and categorized according to distinctive characteristics (Theme Index) and real or potential harm (Harm Index).

RESULTS

Some 1,980 PICU patients, representing 10,766 PICU patient-days in a 15-month period (June 1, 2013- August 31, 2014) experienced 2,465 LSSEs-5.4 LSSEs/ day or 0.23 LSSEs/patient-day. Such events resulted in a patient intervention 38% of the time. Some 158 quality/safety improvement projects were initiated during the observation period, 74 of which have been completed. Quality/safety information was broadcasted to providers, local leadership, and hospital management.

CONCLUSIONS

LSSEs occur frequently in our PICUs. Non-health care providers can cost-effectively facilitate reporting by actively canvassing PICU providers on a daily basis and can contribute to quality/safety improvement projects and local safety culture. Reported events can serve as a focus for quality/safety improvement projects. A Web application and mobile tablet interfaces are efficient tools to record events.