Patient and family engagement in incident investigations: exploring hospital manager and incident investigators' experiences and challenges

Humanizing processes after harm part 1: patient safety incident investigations, litigation and the experiences of those affected

Background

There is a growing international policy focus on involving those affected by healthcare safety incidents, in subsequent investigations. Nonetheless, there remains little UK-based evidence exploring how this relates to the experiences of those affected over time, including the factors influencing decisions to litigate.

Aims

We aimed to explore the experiences of patients, families, staff and legal representatives affected by safety incidents over time, and the factors influencing decisions to litigate.

Methods

Participants were purposively recruited via (i) communication from four NHS hospital Trusts or an independent national investigator in England, (ii) relevant charitable organizations, (iii) social media, and (iv) word of mouth to take part in a qualitative semi-structured interview study. Data were analyzed using an inductive reflexive thematic approach.

Findings

42 people with personal or professional experience of safety incident investigations participated, comprising patients and families (n = 18), healthcare staff (n = 7), legal staff (n = 1), and investigators (n = 16). Patients and families started investigation processes with cautious hope, but over time, came to realize that they lacked power, knowledge, and support to navigate the system, made clear in awaited investigation reports. Systemic fear of litigation not only failed to meet the needs of those affected, but also inadvertently led to some pursuing litigation. Staff had parallel experiences of exclusion, lacking support and feeling left with an incomplete narrative. Importantly, investigating was often perceived as a lonely, invisible and undervalued role involving skilled "work" with limited training, resources, and infrastructure. Ultimately, elusive "organizational agendas" were prioritized above the needs of all affected.

Conclusions

Incident investigations fail to acknowledge and address emotional distress experienced by all affected, resulting in compounded harm. To address this, we propose five key recommendations, to: (1) prioritize the needs of those affected by incidents, (2) overcome culturally engrained fears of litigation to re-humanize processes and reduce rates of unnecessary litigation, (3) recognize and value the emotionally laborious and skilled work of investigators (4) inform and support those affected, (5) proceed in ways that recognize and seek to reduce social inequities.

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.

Root cause analysis of cases involving diagnosis

Diagnostic errors comprise the leading threat to patient safety in healthcare today. Learning how to extract the lessons from cases where diagnosis succeeds or fails is a promising approach to improve diagnostic safety going forward. We present up-to-date and authoritative guidance on how the existing approaches to conducting root cause analyses (RCA's) can be modified to study cases involving diagnosis. There are several diffierences: In cases involving diagnosis, the investigation should begin immediately after the incident, and clinicians involved in the case should be members of the RCA team. The review must include consideration of how the clinical reasoning process went astray (or succeeded), and use a human-factors perspective to consider the system-related contextual factors in the diagnostic process. We present detailed instructions for conducting RCA's of cases involving diagnosis, with advice on how to identify root causes and contributing factors and select appropriate interventions.

Involvement in serious incident investigations: a qualitative documentary analysis of NHS trust policies in England

BACKGROUND

The considered shift from individual blame and sanctions towards a commitment to system-wide learning from incidents in healthcare has led to increased understanding of both the moral and epistemic importance of involving those affected. It is important to understand whether and how local policy describes and prompts involvement with a view to understanding the policy landscape for serious incident investigations in healthcare. This study aimed to explore the way in which involvement of those affected by serious incidents is represented in incident investigation policy documents across acute and mental health services in the English NHS, and to identify guidance for more effective construction of policy for meaningful involvement.

METHODS

We conducted a documentary analysis of 43 local serious incident investigation policies to explore the way in which involvement in serious incident investigations is represented in policy documents across acute and mental health services in the NHS in England.

RESULTS

Three headline findings were generated. First, we identified involvement as a concept was conspicuous by its absence in policy documents. Direct reference to support or involvement of those affected by serious incidents was lacking. Even where involvement and support were recognised as important, this was described as a passive process rather than there being moral or epistemic justification for more active contribution to learning. Second, learning from serious incidents was typically described as a high priority but the language used was unclear and 'learning' was more often positioned as construction of an arbitrary set of recommendations rather than a participatory process of deconstruction and reconstruction of specific systems and processes. Third, there was an emphasis placed on a just and open culture but paradoxically this was reinforced by expected compliance, positioning investigations as a tool through which action is governed rather than an opportunity to learn from and with the experiences and expertise of those affected.

CONCLUSIONS

More effective representation in policy of the moral and epistemic reasons for stakeholder involvement in serious incident investigations may lead to better understanding of its importance, thus increasing potential for organisational learning and reducing the potential for compounded harm. Moreover, understanding how structural elements of policy documents were central to the way in which the document is framed and received is significant for both local and national policy makers to enable more effective construction of healthcare policy documents to prompt meaningful action.

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.

Sailing Too Close to the Wind? How Harnessing Patient Voice Can Identify Drift towards Boundaries of Acceptable Performance

This opinion paper investigates how healthcare organizations identify and act upon different types of risk signals. These signals may generally be acknowledged, but we also often see with hindsight that they might not be because they have become a part of normal practice. Here, we detail how risk signals from patients and families should be acknowledged as system-level safety critical information and as a way of understanding and changing safety culture in healthcare. We discuss how healthcare organizations could work more proactively with patient experience data in identifying risks and improving system safety.

Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study

Background

There is a policy drive in NHS maternity services to improve open disclosure with harmed families and limited information on how better practice can be achieved.

Objectives

To identify critical factors for improving open disclosure from the perspectives of families, doctors, midwives and services and to produce actionable evidence for service improvement.

Design

A three-phased, qualitative study using realist methodology. Phase 1: two literature reviews: scoping review of post-2013 NHS policy and realist synthesis of initial programme theories for improvement; an interview study with national stakeholders in NHS maternity safety and families. Phase 2: in-depth ethnographic case studies within three NHS maternity services in England. Phase 3: interpretive forums with study participants. A patient and public involvement strategy underpinned all study phases.

Setting

National recruitment (study phases 1 and 3); three English maternity services (study phase 2).

Participants

We completed n = 142 interviews, including 27 with families; 93 hours of ethnographic observations, including 52 service and family meetings over 9 months; and interpretive forums with approximately 69 people, including 11 families.

Results

The policy review identified a shift from viewing injured families as passive recipients to active contributors of post-incident learning, but a lack of actionable guidance for improving family involvement. The realist synthesis found weak evidence of the effectiveness of open disclosure interventions in the international maternity literature, but some improvements with organisation-wide interventions. Recent evidence was predominantly from the United Kingdom. The research identified and explored five key mechanisms for open disclosure: meaningful acknowledgement of harm; involvement of those affected in reviews/investigations; support for families' own sense-making; psychological safely of skilled clinicians (doctors and midwives); and knowing that improvements to care have happened. The need for each family to make sense of the incident in their own terms is noted. The selective initiatives of some clinicians to be more open with some families is identified. The challenges of an adversarial medicolegal landscape and limited support for meeting incentivised targets is evidenced.

Limitations

Research was conducted after the pandemic, with exceptional pressure on services. Case-study ethnography was of three higher performing services: generalisation from case-study findings is limited. No observations of Health Safety Investigation Branch investigations were possible without researcher access. Family recruitment did not reflect population diversity with limited representation of non-white families, families with disabilities and other socially marginalised groups and disadvantaged groups.

Conclusions

We identify the need for service-wide systems to ensure that injured families are positioned at the centre of post-incident events, ensure appropriate training and post-incident care of clinicians, and foster ongoing engagement with families beyond the individual efforts made by some clinicians for some families. The need for legislative revisions to promote openness with families across NHS organisations, and wider changes in organisational family engagement practices, is indicated. Examination of how far the study's findings apply to different English maternity services, and a wider rethinking of how family diversity can be encouraged in maternity services research.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020164061. The study has been assessed following RAMESES realist guidelines.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/85) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

External inspection approaches and involvement of stakeholders' views in inspection following serious incidents - a qualitative mixed methods study from the perspectives of regulatory inspectors

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to gain knowledge about how external inspections following serious incidents are played out in a Norwegian hospital context from the perspective of the inspectors, and whether stakeholders' views are involved in the inspection.

METHODS

Based on a qualitative mixed methods design, 10 government bureaucrats and inspectors situated at the National Board of Health Supervision and three County Governors in Norway, were strategically recruited, and individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Key official government documents were selected, collected, and thematically analyzed along with the interview data.

RESULTS

Our findings overall demonstrate two overarching themes: Theme (1) Perspectives on different external inspection approaches of responding and involving stakeholders in external inspection following serious incidents, Theme (2) Inspectors' internal work practices versus external expectations. Documents and all participants reported a development towards new approaches in external inspection, with more policies and regulatory attention to sensible involvement of stakeholders. Involvement and interaction with patients and informal caregivers could potentially inform the case complexity and the inspector's decision-making process. However, stakeholder involvement was sometimes complex and challenging due to e.g., difficult communication and interaction with patients and/or informal caregivers, due to resource demands and/or the inspector's lack of experience and/or relevant competence, different perceptions of the principle of sound professional practice, quality, and safety. The inspectors considered balancing the formal objectives and expectations, with the expectations of the public and different stakeholders (i.e. hospitals, patients and/or informal caregivers) a challenging part of their job. This balance was seen as an important part of the continuous development of ensuring public trust and legitimacy in external inspection processes.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our study suggests that the regulatory system of external inspection and its available approaches of responding to a serious incident in the Norwegian setting is currently not designed to accommodate the complexity of needs from stakeholders at the levels of hospital organizations, patients, and informal caregivers altogether. Further studies should direct attention to how the wider system of accountability structures may support the internal work practices in the regulatory system, to better algin its formal objectives with expectations of the public.

Exploring approaches to contemporary clinical incident analysis methods within acute care settings: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This review will explore the literature on contemporary incident analysis methods used in acute hospital settings, identifying types and characteristics of these methods and how they are used to minimize, prevent, or learn from errors and improve patient safety.

INTRODUCTION

Safety is a major focus in health care; however, despite best efforts, errors and incidents still occur, leading to harm or potential harm to patients, families, carers, staff, or the organization. Incident analysis methods aim to reduce risk of harm. Traditional methods have been criticized for failing to consider the complexity of health care and the dynamic nature of acute care settings. Alternative methodologies are being sought to achieve higher levels of patient safety and care quality care in hospitals. Learning from errors and communicating with those involved in incidents are key requirements in contemporary incident analysis.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will consider empirical research published since 2013, reporting on the use of clinical incident analysis methods within acute care settings. The review will explore ways in which consumers or stakeholders (eg, clinicians or other hospital workers, patients, families, carers, visitors) have been included in these analysis methods and how data have been used to support changes in the service or organization.

METHODS

Following JBI methods and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance, we will search PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Studies will be reviewed independently, with results presented in tables, figures, and narrative summaries according to the concepts of interest.

Errors in medicine: punishment versus learning medical adverse events revisited - expanding the frame

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite healthcare workers' best intentions, some patients will suffer harm and even death during their journey through the healthcare system. This represents a major challenge, and many solutions have been proposed during the last decades. How to reduce risk and use adverse events for improvement?

RECENT FINDINGS

The concept of safety culture must be acknowledged and understood for moving from blame to learning. Procedural protocols and reports are only parts of the solution, and this overview paints a broader picture, referring to recent research on the nature of adverse events. The potential harm from advice based on faulty evidence represents a serious risk.

SUMMARY

Focus must shift from an individual perspective to the system, promoting learning rather than punishment and disciplinary sanctions, and the recent opioid epidemic is an example of bad guidelines.

Strengthening open disclosure after incidents in maternity care: a realist synthesis of international research evidence

BACKGROUND

Open Disclosure (OD) is open and timely communication about harmful events arising from health care with those affected. It is an entitlement of service-users and an aspect of their recovery, as well as an important dimension of service safety improvement. Recently, OD in maternity care in the English National Health Service has become a pressing public issue, with policymakers promoting multiple interventions to manage the financial and reputational costs of communication failures. There is limited research to understand how OD works and its effects in different contexts.

METHODS

Realist literature screening, data extraction, and retroductive theorisation involving two advisory stakeholder groups. Data relevant to families, clinicians, and services were mapped to theorise the relationships between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. From these maps, key aspects for successful OD were identified.

RESULTS

After realist quality appraisal, 38 documents were included in the synthesis (22 academic, 2 training guidance, and 14 policy report). 135 explanatory accounts were identified from the included documents (with n = 41 relevant to families; n = 37 relevant to staff; and n = 37 relevant to services). These were theorised as five key mechanism sets: (a) meaningful acknowledgement of harm, (b) opportunity for family involvement in reviews and investigations, (c) possibilities for families and staff to make sense of what happened, (d) specialist skills and psychological safety of clinicians, and (e) families and staff knowing that improvements are happening. Three key contextual factors were identified: (a) the configuration of the incident (how and when identified and classified as more or less severe); (b) national or state drivers, such as polices, regulations, and schemes, designed to promote OD; and (c) the organisational context within which these these drivers are recieived and negotiated.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review to theorise how OD works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why. We identify and examine from the secondary data the five key mechanisms for successful OD and the three contextual factors that influence this. The next study stage will use interview and ethnographic data to test, deepen, or overturn our five hypothesised programme theories to explain what is required to strengthen OD in maternity services.

Naming the "baby" or the "beast"? The importance of concepts and labels in healthcare safety investigation

This paper focuses on concepts and labels used in investigation of adverse events in healthcare. The aim is to prompt critical reflection of how different stakeholders frame investigative activity in healthcare and to discuss the implications of the labels we use. We particularly draw attention to issues of investigative content, legal aspects, as well as possible barriers and facilitators to willingly participate, share knowledge, and achieve systemic learning. Our message about investigation concepts and labels is that they matter and influence the quality of investigation, and how these activities may contribute to system learning and change. This message is important for the research community, policy makers, healthcare practitioners, patients, and user representatives.

Self-Assessment of Patient Safety Reporting and Learning System in Private Hospitals in Indonesia

Introduction

Hospitals are required to implement patients safety incident (PSI) reporting, analysis, and problem-solving. Self-assessment is important for exploring gaps and strengthening PSI reporting and learning system.

Objectives

This study examined PSI reporting and learning systems through self-assessment based on WHO guidance, analysis of section scores by hospital class, and analysis of section relationships.

Method

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 193 health workers from 47 Indonesian non-profit private hospitals selected using non-probability sampling. Samples in each hospital consisted of seven hospital staff, including quality and patients' safety committee, infectious diseases control committee, manager/head of nursing, as well as functional staff comprising doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and nutritionists. Six aspects based on WHO guidance were measured in this study namely 1) environment for reporting, 2) reporting rules and content, 3) analysis and investigation, 4) governance, 5) action and learning, as well as 6) patients' and family engagement. The data obtained were analyzed using univariate and bivariate analysis.

Results

The results showed that the total average score was 64.7 ± 3.3, and the average score on all components of PSI reporting and learning system was minimum 59.3 and maximum 69.6 of a total score of 100. The lowest average score was found in patients' and family engagement component at 59.3 ± 8.4. Class B hospitals had higher average scores on each component than class C and D hospitals, except on the action and learning and patients' and family engagement section. There was a significant positive linear correlation between each section of PSI reporting and learning system (p-value < 0.01).

Conclusion

The PSI reporting and learning system in hospitals is in need of improvement across all aspects. One specific area that requires attention is the implementation of mechanisms for patient and family engagement, which can play an important role in promoting safety programs.

Patient and Family Involvement in Serious Incident Investigations From the Perspectives of Key Stakeholders: A Review of the Qualitative Evidence

OBJECTIVES

Investigations of healthcare harm often overlook the valuable insights of patients and families. Our review aimed to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders when patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations.

METHODS

The authors searched three databases (Medline, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and Connected Papers software for qualitative studies in which patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations until no new articles were found.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven papers were eligible. The perspectives of patients and families, healthcare professionals, nonclinical staff, and legal staff were sought across acute, mental health and maternity settings. Most patients and families valued being involved; however, it was important that investigations were flexible and sensitive to both clinical and emotional aspects of care to avoid compounding harm. This included the following: early active listening with empathy for trauma, sincere and timely apology, fostering trust and transparency, making realistic timelines clear, and establishing effective nonadversarial communication. Most staff perceived that patient and family involvement could improve investigation quality, promote an open culture, and help ensure future safety. However, it was made difficult when multidisciplinary input was absent, workload and staff turnover were high, training and support needs were unmet, and fears surrounded litigation. Potential solutions included enhancing the clarity of roles and responsibilities, adequately training staff, and providing long and short-term support to stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides insights to ensure patient and family involvement in serious incident investigations considers both clinical and emotional aspects of care, is meaningful for all key stakeholders, and avoids compounding harm. However, significant gaps in the literature remain.

Epistemic Injustice in Incident Investigations: A Qualitative Study

Serious incident investigations-often conducted by means of Root Cause Analysis methodologies-are increasingly seen as platforms to learn from multiple perspectives and experiences: professionals, patients and their families alike. Underlying this principle of inclusiveness is the idea that healthcare staff and service users hold unique and valuable knowledge that can inform learning, as well as the notion that learning is a social process that involves people actively reflecting on shared knowledge. Despite initiatives to facilitate inclusiveness, research shows that embracing and learning from diverse perspectives is difficult. Using the concept of 'epistemic injustice', pointing at practices of someone's knowledge being unjustly disqualified or devalued, we analyze the way incident investigations are organized and executed with the aim to understand why it is difficult to embrace and learn from the multiple perspectives voiced in incident investigations. We draw from 73 semi-structured interviews with healthcare leaders, managers, healthcare professionals, incident investigators and inspectors, document analyses and ethnographic observations. Our analysis identified several structures in the incident investigation process, that can promote or hinder an actor's epistemic contribution in the process of incident investigations. Rather than repeat calls to 'involve more' and 'listen better', we encourage policy makers to be mindful of and address the structures that can cause epistemic injustice. This can improve the outcome of incident investigations and can help to do justice to the lived experiences of the involved actors in the aftermath of a serious incident.

Evaluation of Learning Teams Versus Root Cause Analysis for Incident Investigation in a Large United Kingdom National Health Service Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Significant resource is invested into investigation of adverse healthcare events. Outcomes of such investigations have varying degrees of effectiveness. The "hierarchy of effectiveness" model proposes system-focused changes have greater impact than person-focused actions. The traditional approach to investigation is root cause analysis (RCA); however, such an approach does not prioritize system-focused action generation. Learning team-based investigations are thought to generate more effective system-focused actions; however, this has not been evaluated.

METHODS

Retrospective mixed methods evaluation of learning teams compared with RCA. Twenty-two learning team investigations compared with 22 RCA investigations, with quantitative assessment of the number of system-focused and person-focused actions generated. Assignment of the two different methods to incidents was not random, with learning teams being selected for cases, which were initially judged to be process-focused problems. Semistructured interviews were conducted with four learning team facilitators with thematic analysis to identify causes for outcome variations.

RESULTS

Learning team investigations yielded a median of 7.5 actions compared with 3.5 actions for RCA: 57% of learning team actions were system focused versus 30% for RCA. We identified variations in personnel involved, culture of the investigation, and differences in the investigative approaches as potential drivers for these differences.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that learning team investigations that targeted process-focused problems generated more actions and a higher number of system-focused actions. There is a difference in culture created during learning team investigations. Although learning teams are not suitable for all investigations, they represent a readily reproducible and valuable addition to the investigative toolkit.

What Drives Patients' Complaints About Adverse Events in Their Hospital Care? A Data Linkage Study of Australian Adults 45 Years and Older

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine from patient-reported data the relationships between patients' experiences of adverse events (AEs), the disclosure of the events, and patients propensity for complaints or legal action.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was administered to 20,000 participants randomly chosen from the 45 and Up Study. The surveyed participants were older than 45 years and hospitalized in New South Wales, Australia, between January and June 2014. They were identified using data linkage to capture experiences of AEs.

RESULTS

Of the 7661 respondents, 474 participants (7%) reported experiencing an AE. Those who did not receive an apology or expression of regret in the incident disclosure process were significantly more likely to make a complaint (P < 0.05). Those who found out about the event from hospital staff but did not receive a formal open disclosure process were found to be significantly more likely to seek legal advice (P < 0.05). Patients who made a complaint generally perceived that they experienced more problems in their hospital care, with significant differences identified between those who did and did not make a complaint on 13 of the 15-item Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

Although incident disclosure was not associated with whether a complaint was made or legal action pursued, significant associations between key aspects of the disclosure process and these outcomes were noted. Significant differences between those who did and did not make a complaint were noted in relation to the timing and apology components of open disclosure. The critical role of overall patient experience in the context of optimal AE management was evident from these data.

Next of Kin Involvement in Regulatory Investigations of Adverse Events That Caused Patient Death: A Process Evaluation (Part I - The Next of Kin's Perspective)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore experiences from the next of kin's perspective of a new involvement method in the regulatory investigation process of adverse events causing patient death.

METHODS

The study design was a qualitative process evaluation of the new involvement method in two Norwegian counties. Next of kin who had lost a close family member in an adverse event were invited to a 2-hour face-to-face meeting with regulatory inspectors to shed light on the event from the next of kin's perspective. Data collection involved 18 interviews with 29 next of kin who had participated in the meeting and observations (20 hours) of meetings from 2017 to 2018. Data were analyzed using a thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Next of kin wanted to be involved and had in-depth knowledge about the adverse event and the healthcare system. Their involvement extended beyond sharing information, and some experienced it as having a therapeutic effect and contributing to transparency and trust building. The inspectors' professional, social, and human skills determined the experiences of the involvement and were key for next of kin's positive experiences. The meeting was emotionally challenging, and some next of kin found it difficult to understand the regulators' independent role and suggested improving information given to the next of kin before the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the meeting was emotionally challenging, the next of kin had a positive experience of being involved in the investigation and believed that their information contributed to improving the investigation process.

Putting the Patient in Patient Safety Investigations: Barriers and Strategies for Involvement

OBJECTIVES

In an adverse event investigation, the patients have the potential to add a unique perspective because they can identify contributing factors that providers may miss. However, patients are rarely included in patient safety investigations. We aimed to identify the barriers to patient involvement in patient safety investigations and propose strategies to overcome them.

METHODS

We reviewed literature on active participation by patients in safety investigations to construct a framework for healthcare institutions to use in approaching patients about a potential role in investigating an error in their care. We searched 3 electronic databases (PubMed, PSNet, Web of Science) for the years 1990 to 2018, without restrictions to language. Search terms included: "patient empowerment, "patient involvement," "patient participation," "patient safety investigation," "root cause analysis," "error analysis." We also examined reference lists of relevant studies to identify additional articles.

RESULTS

Our electronic search produced 10,624 records with 30 potentially eligible articles. However, we identified only 6 relevant published articles. We used these as the basis for a proposed framework that is predicated on the thoughtful disclosure of adverse events and has 3 main levels (i.e., patient, clinician, and institutional level). For each level, we identify barriers to patient participation and potential strategies to overcome them.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed framework can be used as a starting point to promote patient involvement in error investigations. Involving patients in patient safety investigations could increase patient centeredness, patient autonomy, and transparency and make analyses more effective by adding unique and potentially actionable information.

Impact of bereavement care and pregnancy loss services on families: Findings and recommendations from Irish inquiry reports

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy loss and the death of their baby can be overwhelming for families, especially when the loss is unexpected. The standard of bereavement care families receive around the time of pregnancy or early infant loss can have a significant impact on their psychological recovery. At times external inquiries are carried out to identify issues in the maternity care provided and make recommendations to improve its' standard.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the impact of bereavement care provided to families around the time of pregnancy and/or early infant loss as stated in ten published inquiry reports related to Irish maternity services.

METHODS

Using thematic analysis, issues with care encountered by bereaved parents as outlined in the reports were identified. These focussed around five main themes (communication, healthcare staff skills, maternity unit environment, post-mortem/coronial process, local incident reviews).

FINDINGS

Bereavement care, as described by families in the ten reports, was not consistently individualised or respectful, resulting in additional feelings of anger and upset. Problems with clear communication of complex issues, in a manner that is understandable to bereaved families, were identified in several reports. Recommendations from the inquiry reports included that experienced and skilled staff should always be available to provide immediate support to bereaved families as appropriate, and assist families in understanding and processing information around the time of their loss.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Consistent, individualised bereavement care facilitates a seamless transition for bereaved families from diagnosis through the hospital stay to discharge and follow-up, allowing them to focus on their baby, their bereavement and their family's wellbeing. The process of consent for a perinatal post-mortem and associated concerns have evolved over the timeframe of the ten inquiries. We reflect further on this and the impacts of the other issues highlighted, as well as discussing possible improvements to address them as described in the scientific literature.

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries

Background

In the regulation of healthcare, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patients and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice.

Methods

The research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included where available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt.

Results

Our mapping of involvement strategies showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages included: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions.

Conclusions

Our mapping of user involvement strategies establishes a broad variety of ways to involve patients and families. The four categories can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that stimulating involvement in regulation is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be viewed positively in this regard.

How incident reporting systems can stimulate social and participative learning: A mixed-methods study

Incident reporting systems (IRSs) have been widely adopted in healthcare, calling for the investigation of serious incidents to understand what causes patient harm. In this article, we study how the Dutch IRS contributed to social and participative learning from incidents. We integrate quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed-methods design. Between 1 July 2013 and 31 March 2019, Dutch hospitals reported and investigated 4667 incidents. Healthcare inspectors scored all investigations to assess hospitals' learning process following incidents. We analysed if and on what aspects hospitals improved over time. Additionally, we draw from semi-structured interviews with incident investigators, quality managers, healthcare inspectors and healthcare professionals. Healthcare inspectors score incident investigation reports better over time, suggesting that hospitals conduct better investigations or have become adept at writing reports in line with inspectors' expectations. Our qualitative data suggests the IRS contributed to practices that support social and participative learning-the professionalisation of incident investigation teams, the increased involvement of patients and families in investigations-and practices that do not-not linking learning from the investigation teams to that of professionals, not consistently monitoring the recommendations that investigations identify. The IRS both hits and misses the mark. We learned that IRSs need to be responsive to the (developing) capabilities of healthcare providers to investigate and learn from incidents, if the IRS is to stimulate social and participative learning from incidents.

The patient died: What about involvement in the investigation process?

Patient and family involvement is high on the international quality and safety agenda. In this paper, we consider possible ways of involving families in investigations of fatal adverse events and how their greater participation might improve the quality of investigations. The aim is to increase awareness among healthcare professionals, accident investigators, policymakers and researchers and examine how research and practice can develop in this emerging field. In contrast to relying mainly on documentation and staff recollections, family involvement can result in the investigation having access to richer information, a more holistic picture of the event and new perspectives on who was involved and can positively contribute to the family’s emotional satisfaction and perception of justice being done. There is limited guidance and research on how to constitute effective involvement. There is a need for co-designing the investigation process, explicitly agreeing the family’s level of involvement, supporting and preparing the family, providing easily accessible user-friendly language and using different methods of involvement (e.g. individual interviews, focus group interviews and questionnaires), depending on the family’s needs.

Health Care Provider Factors Associated with Patient-Reported Adverse Events and Harm

BACKGROUND

Patients can provide valuable information missing from traditional sources of safety data, thus adding new insights about factors that lead to preventable harm. In this study, researchers determined associations between patient-reported contributory factors and patient-reported harms experienced after an adverse event (AE).

METHODS

A secondary analysis was conducted of a national sample of patient-reported AEs (surgical, medication, diagnostic, and hospital-acquired infection) gathered through an online questionnaire between January 2010 and February 2016. Generalized logit multivariable regression was used to assess the association between patient-reported contributory factors and patient-reported harms (grouped as nonphysical harm only, physical harm only, physical harm and emotional or financial harm, and all three harms) and adjusted for patient and AE characteristics.

RESULTS

One third of patients (32.6%) reported experiencing all three harms, 27.3% reported physical harms and one additional harm, 25.5% reported physical harms only, and 14.7% reported nonphysical harms only. Patients reporting all three harms were 2.5 times more likely to have filed a report with a responsible authority (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23-5.01) and 3.3 times more likely to have also experienced a surgical complication (95% CI = 1.42-7.51). Odds of reporting problems related to communication between clinician and patients/families or clinician-related behavioral issues was 13% higher in those experiencing all three harm types (95% CI = 1.07-1.19).

CONCLUSION

Patients' experiences are important to identify safety issues and reduce harm and should be included in patient safety measurement and improvement activities. These findings underscore the need for policy and practice changes to identify, address, and support harmed patients.

Involving Patients and Families in the Analysis of Suicides, Suicide Attempts, and Other Sentinel Events in Mental Healthcare: A Qualitative Study in The Netherlands

Involving patients and families in mental healthcare is becoming more commonplace, but little is known about how they are involved in the aftermath of serious adverse events related to quality of care (sentinel events, including suicides). This study explores the role patients and families have in formal processes after sentinel events in Dutch mental healthcare. We analyzed the existing policies of 15 healthcare organizations and spoke with 35 stakeholders including patients, families, their counselors, the national regulator, and professionals. Respondents argue that involving patients and families is valuable to help deal with the event emotionally, provide additional information, and prevent escalation. Results indicate that involving patients and families is only described in sentinel event policies to a limited extent. In practice, involvement consists mostly of providing aftercare and sharing information about the event by providers. Complexities such as privacy concerns and involuntary admissions are said to hinder involvement. Respondents also emphasize that involvement should not be obligatory and stress the need for patients and families to be involved throughout the process of treatment. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for involving patients and families after sentinel events. The first step seems to be early involvement during treatment process itself.