The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient complaints within one Irish teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically impacted the delivery of hospital care in terms of quality and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To examine complaints from two time points, quarter 4 (Q4) 2019 (pre-pandemic) and Q4 2020 (second wave), and explore whether there was a difference in the frequency and/or content of complaints.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of complaints from one Irish hospital was conducted using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT). Within each complaint, the content, severity, harm reported by the patient, and stage of care were categorised. The complaints were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests of independence.

RESULTS

There were 146 complaints received in Q4 2019 and 114 in Q4 2020. Complaint severity was significantly higher in Q4 2019 as compared to Q4 2020. However, there were no other significant differences. Institutional processes (e.g. staffing, resources) were the most common reason for complaints (30% in Q4 2019 and 36% in Q4 2020). The majority of complaints were concerned with care on the ward (23% in Q4 2019 and 31% in Q4 2020).

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of complaints was significantly higher in Q4 2019 than in Q4 2020, which requires further exploration as the reasons for this are unclear. The lack of a difference in the frequency and content of complaints during the two time periods was unexpected. However, this may be linked to a number of factors, including public support for the healthcare system, existing system-level issues in the hospital, or indeed increased staff collaboration in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.

Adverse Patient Safety Events During the COVID-19 Epidemic

METHODS

A retrospective descriptive analysis of patient safety events related to COVID-19 was performed on data that were submitted in the Joint Patient Safety Event Reporting System and Root Cause Analysis databases to the VHA National Center for Patient Safety from March 2020 to February 2021. Events were coded for type of event, location, and cause of event.

RESULTS

Delays in care and staff/patients exposed to COVID-19 were the most common types of patient safety events, followed by COVID-19-positive patients eloping, laboratory processing errors, and one wrong procedure. The most frequently cited locations where events took place were emergency departments, medical units, community living centers, and intensive care units. Confusion over procedures, care not provided because of COVID-19, and failure to identify COVID-positive patient before they exposed others to COVID were the most common causes for patient safety events.

DISCUSSION

Our results are similar to other studies of patient safety during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on these results, we recommend the following: (1) focus on patient safety culture, leadership, and governance; (2) proactively develop competency checklists, cognitive aids, and other tools for healthcare staff who are working in new or unfamiliar clinical settings; (3) augment or enhance communication efforts with patient safety huddles or briefings at all levels within a healthcare organization to proactively uncover risk and mitigate fear by explaining changes in policies and procedures; and (4) maximize the use of quality and patient safety experts who are knowledgeable in system and human factor theories as well as change management to assist in redesigning clinical workflows and processes.

Re-evaluating Our Knowledge of Health System Resilience During COVID-19: Lessons From the First Two Years of the Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Health challenges like coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are becoming increasingly complex, transnational, and unpredictable. Studying health system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to enhance our understanding of health system resilience and establish a clearer link between theoretical concepts and practical ideas on how to build resilience.

METHODS

This narrative literature review aims to address four questions using a health system resilience framework: (i) What do we understand about the dimensions of resilience? (ii) What aspects of the resilience dimensions remain uncertain? (iii) What aspects of the resilience dimensions are missing from the COVID-19 discussions? and (iv) What has COVID-19 taught us about resilience that is missing from the framework? A scientific literature database search was conducted in December 2020 and in April 2022 to identify publications that discussed health system resilience in relation to COVID-19, excluding articles on psychological and other types of resilience. A total of 63 publications were included.

RESULTS

There is good understanding around information sharing, flexibility and good leadership, learning, maintaining essential services, and the need for legitimate, interdependent systems. Decision-making, localized trust, influences on interdependence, and transformation remain uncertain. Vertical interdependence, monitoring risks beyond the health system, and consequences of changes on the system were not discussed. Teamwork, actor legitimacy, values, inclusivity, trans-sectoral resilience, and the role of the private sector are identified as lessons from COVID-19 that should be further explored for health system resilience.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of health system resilience has continued to cohere following the pandemic. The eventual consequences of system changes and the resilience of subsystems are underexplored. Through governance, the concept of health system resilience can be linked to wider issues raised by the pandemic, like inclusivity. Our findings show the utility of resilience theory for strengthening health systems for crises and the benefit of continuing to refine existing resilience theory.

A systematic review: the dimensions to evaluate health care performance and an implication during the pandemic

BACKGROUND

The balanced scorecard (BSC) has been implemented to evaluate the performance of health care organizations (HCOs). BSC proved to be effective in improving financial performance and patient satisfaction.

AIM

This systematic review aims to identify all the perspectives, dimensions, and KPIs that are vital and most frequently used by health care managers in BSC implementations.

METHODS

This systematic review adheres to PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases and Google search engine were inspected to find all implementations of BSC at HCO. The risk of bias was assessed using the nonrandomized intervention studies (ROBINS-I) tool to evaluate the quality of observational and quasi-experimental studies and the Cochrane (RoB 2) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

There were 33 eligible studies, of which we identified 36 BSC implementations. The categorization and regrouping of the 797 KPIs resulted in 45 subdimensions. The reassembly of these subdimensions resulted in 13 major dimensions: financial, efficiency and effectiveness, availability and quality of supplies and services, managerial tasks, health care workers' (HCWs) scientific development error-free and safety, time, HCW-centeredness, patient-centeredness, technology, and information systems, community care and reputation, HCO building, and communication. On the other hand, this review detected that BSC design modification to include external and managerial perspectives was necessary for many BSC implementations.

CONCLUSION

This review solves the KPI categorization dilemma. It also guides researchers and health care managers in choosing dimensions for future BSC implementations and performance evaluations in general. Consequently, dimension uniformity will improve the data sharing and comparability among studies. Additionally, despite the pandemic negatively influencing many dimensions, the researchers observed a lack of comprehensive HCO performance evaluations. In the same vein, although some resulting dimensions were assessed separately during the pandemic, other dimensions still lack investigation. Last, BSC dimensions may play an essential role in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. However, further research is required to investigate the BSC implementation effect in mitigating the pandemic consequences on HCO.

Advancing Resilience of Critical Health Infrastructures to Cascading Impacts of Water Supply Outages—Insights from a Systematic Literature Review

The current understanding of critical health infrastructure resilience is still dominated by a technical perspective. Reality however is different, as past events including the COVID-19 pandemic have revealed: emergency situations are only rarely exclusively technical in nature. Instead they are a product of prior circumstances, often linked to natural hazards, technical mishaps, and insufficient social and organizational preparedness structures. However, experiences and lessons learned from past events are still largely overlooked and have not sufficiently found their way into conceptual understandings of critical health infrastructure resilience. This paper addresses this gap by challenging the one-sided and technically oriented understanding of resilience in the context of critical health infrastructure. Based on a systematic literature review, it assesses real-world cases of water supply failures in healthcare facilities, a serious threat largely overlooked in research and policy. The results underscore the need for targeted organizational strategies to deal with cascading impacts. The overall findings show that addressing technical aspects alone is not sufficient to increase the overall resilience of healthcare facilities. Broadening the dominant resilience understanding is hence an important foundation for healthcare infrastructures to improve risk management and emergency preparedness strategies to increase their resilience towards future disruptions.