Patient safety classifications, taxonomies and ontologies, part 2: A systematic review on content coverage

BACKGROUND

Content coverage of patient safety ontology and classification systems should be evaluated to provide a guide for users to select appropriate ones for specific applications. In this review, we identified and compare content coverage of patient safety classifications and ontologies.

METHODS

We searched different databases and ontology/classification repositories to identify these classifications and ontologies. We included patient safety-related taxonomies, ontologies, classifications, and terminologies. We identified and extracted different concepts covered by these systems and mapped these concepts to international classification for patient safety (ICPS) and finally compared the content of these systems.

RESULTS

Finally, 89 papers (77 classifications or ontologies) were analyzed. Thirteen classifications have been developed to cover all medical domains. Among specific domain systems, most systems cover medication (16), surgery (8), medical devices (3), general practice (3), and primary care (3). The most common patient safety-related concepts covered in these systems include incident types (41), contributing factors/hazards (31), patient outcomes (29), degree of harm (25), and action (18). However, stage/phase (6), incident characteristics (5), detection (5), people involved (5), organizational outcomes (4), error type (4), and care setting (3) are some of the less covered concepts in these classifications/ontologies.

CONCLUSION

Among general systems, ICPS, World Health Organization's Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART), and Ontology of Adverse Events (OAE) cover most patient safety concepts and can be used as a gold standard for all medical domains. As a result, reporting systems could make use of these broad classifications, but the majority of their covered concepts are related to patient outcomes, with the exception of ICPS, which covers other patient safety concepts. However, the ICPS does not cover specialized domain concepts. For specific medical domains, MedDRA, NCC MERP, OPAE, ADRO, PPST, OCCME, TRTE, TSAHI, and PSIC-PC provide the broadest coverage of concepts. Many of the patient safety classifications and ontologies are not formally registered or available as formal classification/ontology in ontology repositories such as BioPortal. This study may be used as a guide for choosing appropriate classifications for various applications or expanding less developed patient safety classifications/ontologies. Furthermore, the same concepts are not represented by the same terms; therefore, the current study could be used to guide a harmonization process for existing or future patient safety classifications/ontologies.

Quality analysis of manufacturer's incident reports regarding medical devices

BACKGROUND

Medical devices provide a great number of medical treatments and have an important role in patients' healthcare; however, there are certain risks, sometimes even serious incidents, associated with their usage. To ensure that benefits of medical device usage always outweigh associated risks, it is necessary to closely monitor known risks post-market and detect new ones as early as possible. Among others, valuable instrument of post-market surveillance is manufacturer incident report. Yet to accomplish its intended use, such report must be sufficiently populated and supplied with correct information. Aim of this paper is to assess the quality of manufacturer's incident reports received in HALMED since 2012 to May 2021.

METHODS

The study included 578 initial reports and 566 final reports that were scored according to the evaluating system we designed and categorized as Excellent, Good, Medium, Qualified and Unqualified. For each report medical device risk class was also extracted to calculate the frequency of report occurrence per risk class and time that passed between the initial and final report. Difference in quality of the reports between manufacturers based on EU countries and countries outside the EU was determined by Mann Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Most of initial and final reports fall into two highest quality category level, which means that a sufficient amount of reports are of good/excellent quality and quality of reports prevails. However, the study's results indicate the need for higher scores, especially in critical fields of the form.

CONCLUSIONS

Data obtained from the manufacturer can be scarce and insufficient, causing negative influence on Competent Authority's investigation procedure. Another issue we recognized is extensive underreporting in Croatia, which can seriously undermine the established system.

Causes of adverse events in home mechanical ventilation: a nursing perspective

Background

Adverse events (AE) are ubiquitous in home mechanical ventilation (HMV) and can jeopardise patient safety. One particular source of error is human interaction with life-sustaining medical devices, such as the ventilator. The objective is to understand these errors and to be able to take appropriate action. With a systematic analysis of the hazards associated with HMV and their causes, measures can be taken to prevent damage to patient health.

Methods

A systematic adverse events analysis process was conducted to identify the causes of AE in intensive home care. The analysis process consisted of three steps. 1) An input phase consisting of an expert interview and a questionnaire. 2) Analysis and categorisation of the data into a root-cause diagram to help identify the causes of AE. 3) Derivation of risk mitigation measures to help avoid AE.

Results

The nursing staff reported that patient transportation, suction and tracheostomy decannulation were the main factors that cause AE. They would welcome support measures such as checklists for care activities and a reminder function, for e.g. tube changes. Risk mitigation measures are given for many of the causes listed in the root-cause diagram. These include measures such as device and care competence, as well as improvements to be made by the equipment providers and manufacturers. The first step in addressing AE is transparency and an open approach to errors and near misses. A systematic error analysis can prevent patient harm through a preventive approach.

Conclusion

Risks in HMV were identified based on a qualitative approach. The collected data was systematically mapped onto a root-cause diagram. Using the root-cause diagram, some of the causes were analysed for risk mitigation. For manufacturers, caregivers and care services requirements for intervention offers the possibility to create a checklist for particularly risky care activities.

Patient safety classification, taxonomy and ontology systems: A systematic review on development and evaluation methodologies

INTRODUCTION

Patient safety classifications/ontologies enable patient safety information systems to receive and analyze patient safety data to improve patient safety. Patient safety classifications/ontologies have been developed and evaluated using a variety of methods. The purpose of this review was to discuss and analyze the methodologies for developing and evaluating patient safety classifications/ontologies.

METHODS

Studies that developed or evaluated patient safety classifications, terminologies, taxonomies, or ontologies were searched through Google Scholar, Google search engines, National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) BioPortal, Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry and World Health Organization (WHO) websites and Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Science Direct. We updated our search on 30 February 2021 and included all studies published until the end of 2020. Studies that developed or evaluated classifications only for patient safety and provided information on how they were developed or evaluated were included. Systems with covered patient safety terms (such as ICD-10) but are not specifically developed for patient safety were excluded. The quality and the risk of bias of studies were not assessed because all methodologies and criteria were intended to be covered. In addition, we analyzed the data through descriptive narrative synthesis and compared and classified the development and evaluation methods and evaluation criteria according to available development and evaluation approaches for biomedical ontologies.

RESULTS

We identified 84 articles that met all of the inclusion criteria, resulting in 70 classifications/ontologies, nine of which were for the general medical domain. The most papers were published in 2010 and 2011, with 8 and 7 papers, respectively. The United States (50) and Australia (23) have the most studies. The most commonly used methods for developing classifications/ontologies included the use of existing systems (for expanding or mapping) (44) and qualitative analysis of event reports (39). The most common evaluation methods were coding or classifying some safety report samples (25), quantitative analysis of incidents based on the developed classification (24), and consensus among physicians (16). The most commonly applied evaluation criteria were reliability (27), content and face validity (9), comprehensiveness (6), usability (5), linguistic clarity (5), and impact (4), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the weaknesses and strengths of the development/evaluation methods, it is advised that more than one method for development or evaluation, as well as evaluation criteria, should be used. To organize the processes of developing classification/ontologies, well-established approaches such as Methontology are recommended. The most prevalent evaluation methods applied in this domain are well fitted to the biomedical ontology evaluation methods, but it is also advised to apply some evaluation approaches such as logic, rules, and Natural language processing (NLP) based in combination with other evaluation approaches. This research can assist domain researchers in developing or evaluating domain ontologies using more complete methodologies. There is also a lack of reporting consistency in the literature and same methods or criteria were reported with different terminologies.

Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices in the Form of Suppositories for Rectal and Vaginal Use

Background. Programs of preclinical safety studies of the health care products depend on the regulatory status of the investigated products. The classification of such products, in particular suppositories for rectal and vaginal use, is a critical step of developing tactics for their biological evaluation. Adaptation of biological evaluation methods for the medical devices based on the combination of biologically active substances, as well as evaluation of the results of such studies is urgent task of biomedicine. Objective. To substantiate the regulatory status and to carry out a biological evaluation of medical devices in the form of vaginal suppositories based on octenidine dihydrochloride ("Prodexyn") and in the form of rectal suppositories based on Saw palmetto, Levisticum officinale and Calendula officinalis extracts ("Pravenor"). Methods. Biological evaluation was conducted according to the requirements of ISO 10993 standards using in vitro and in vivo biological test systems (cytotoxicity in cell culture and the MTT test, sensitizing and irritating effect in guinea pigs). Results. The cytotoxicity (СС50) of the medical device "Prodexyn" extract in Vero cell culture was 8.35 μg/ml calculated as octenidine dihydrochloride and 416.65 μg/ml calculated as dexpanthenol. "Pravenor" medical device was found to be non-toxic in Vero cell culture. According to the results of MMT assay CC50 for octenidine dihydrochloride was 1.67 μg/ml, and 83.33 μg/ml – for dexpanthenol. CC50 indicators calculated for the different active ingredients of the medical device "Pravenor" were the following: 50 mg/ml for the dwarf palm berries extract (Saw palmetto), 16.67 mg/ml for the lovage roots extract (Levisticum officinale), and 16.67 mg/ml for the calendula flowers extract (Calendula officinalis). No sensitizing or skin irritating effects were observed in guinea pigs. Conclusions. Biological evaluation of medical devices in the form of rectal suppositories "Pravenor" and vaginal suppositories "Prodexyn" performed using in vitro and in vivo biological systems. It was demonstrated an acceptable level of safety of the products. The MTT test was 5 times more sensitive than the Vero cell culture method in determination of cytotoxicity.

Classification of Electronic Health Record-Related Patient Safety Incidents: Development and Validation Study

Background

It is assumed that the implementation of health information technology introduces new vulnerabilities within a complex sociotechnical health care system, but no international consensus exists on a standardized format for enhancing the collection, analysis, and interpretation of technology-induced errors.

Objective

This study aims to develop a classification for patient safety incident reporting associated with the use of mature electronic health records (EHRs). It also aims to validate the classification by using a data set of incidents during a 6-month period immediately after the implementation of a new EHR system.

Methods

The starting point of the classification development was the Finnish Technology-Induced Error Risk Assessment Scale tool, based on research on commonly recognized error types. A multiprofessional research team used iterative tests on consensus building to develop a classification system. The final classification, with preliminary descriptions of classes, was validated by applying it to analyze EHR-related error incidents (n=428) during the implementation phase of a new EHR system and also to evaluate this classification’s characteristics and applicability for reporting incidents. Interrater agreement was applied.

Results

The number of EHR-related patient safety incidents during the implementation period (n=501) was five-fold when compared with the preimplementation period (n=82). The literature identified new error types that were added to the emerging classification. Error types were adapted iteratively after several test rounds to develop a classification for reporting patient safety incidents in the clinical use of a high-maturity EHR system. Of the 427 classified patient safety incidents, interface problems accounted for 96 (22.5%) incident reports, usability problems for 73 (17.1%), documentation problems for 60 (14.1%), and clinical workflow problems for 33 (7.7%). Altogether, 20.8% (89/427) of reports were related to medication section problems, and downtime problems were rare (n=8). During the classification work, 14.8% (74/501) of reports of the original sample were rejected because of insufficient information, even though the reports were deemed to be related to EHRs. The interrater agreement during the blinded review was 97.7%.

Conclusions

This study presents a new classification for EHR-related patient safety incidents applicable to mature EHRs. The number of EHR-related patient safety incidents during the implementation period may reflect patient safety challenges during the implementation of a new type of high-maturity EHR system. The results indicate that the types of errors previously identified in the literature change with the EHR development cycle.