Patient involvement in patient safety: Protocol for developing an intervention using patient reports of organisational safety and patient incident reporting

Intervention to improve adverse event reporting in the emergency department: Protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adverse event reporting is crucial for improving patient safety and identifying areas for improvement in the emergency department. Many interventions have been employed in that regard, and have been found to increase adverse event reporting rates in various settings. All published research that studied the various interventions and their effectiveness on adverse event reporting in the Emergency Department will be reviewed in this paper.

METHODS

CINAHL, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Reviews Library, EMBASE, Scopus, OVID, Science Direct and Web of Science will all be searched. Studies published since January 2000 that investigated the interventions to improve adverse event reporting will be included. Two independent reviewers will execute the selection and extraction process, and we will carry out a qualitative synthesis. A meta-analysis, if possible, will be undertaken.

DISCUSSION

The present study will summarize interventions to improve adverse event reporting. It will also determine effective approaches to enhancing adverse event reporting in the emergency department. The outcome of the study will provide novel dimensions into possible interventions to improve patient safety through adverse event reporting.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol registration and reporting: PROSPERO CRD42023414795.

Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Patient Perceptions on Safety Culture in a Hospital Setting Scale

Objectives

Majority of the existing patient safety culture tools are designed for healthcare workers. Despite the claims that this patient safety tools are patient-centered, limited attention was given to the patients' perspectives and cultural considerations in the development. Local studies are not available in extant literature that capture patient perspectives on being safe during hospitalization. The goal of the study was to develop and provide preliminary psychometric analysis on a tool that measures patients' perception of safety culture in a hospital setting.

Methods

The study was a quantitative methodological study. The instrument was developed in three phases, conceptualization and item generation through literature review, clinical observation, and focus group discussion, two rounds of expert panel review, and pilot testing. The tool was tested on 122 eligible patients admitted in a tertiary hospital. Factor analysis of the items was done to determine the underlying factor under each item. Cronbach's alpha was used to test the degree of internal consistency of the scale.

Results

The Patient Perceptions on Safety Culture in Hospital Setting Scale consists of 25 items. The analysis yielded four factors explaining a total of 69.23% of the variance in the data. Items were grouped in four dimensions: Hospital workforce (4 items), Hospital Environment (5 items), Heath Management and Care Delivery (7 items), and Information Exchange (9 items). Each factor registered a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81, 0.78, 0.91, 0.94, respectively. The overall Cronbach's alpha of the scale is 0.95.

Conclusion

The study offers preliminary evidence on the psychometric properties of a newly developed tool that measures patient perceptions on hospital safety culture. Subsequent studies on larger samples need to be conducted to determine the reliability and validity of the tool when applied to different population and contexts as well as determining valid cut-off points in scoring and interpretation.

Questionnaires Measuring Patient Participation in Patient Safety-a systematic review

AIM

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the content, validity and reliability of patient-reported questionnaires on patient participation in patient safety.

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in patient safety is one of the key strategies that are increasingly regarded as a critical intervention to improve the quality of safety care.

EVALUATION

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The content, reliability and validity of patient-reported questionnaires on patient participation in patient safety were assessed.

KEY ISSUES

Twenty-seven studies were included for data extraction and synthesis. The questionnaire contents most commonly used to describe patient participation in patient safety were 'attitudes and perceptions', 'experience', 'information and feedback' and 'willingness'. Internal consistency was evaluated for seventeen questionnaires, and test-retest reliability was tested for four questionnaires. Content validity was assessed among all included questionnaires, and structural validity was evaluated for twelve questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research targeting the different safety issues is still indispensable for developing patient-reported questionnaires with great psychometric quality in validity, reliability, feasibility and usability in patient participation in patient safety.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Clinical nurses should consider the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, content validity and structural validity of the questionnaires that have been positively appraised for methodological quality before use.

Qualitative content analysis: A framework for the substantive review of hospital incident reports

For decades, incident reports have been utilized as a part of comprehensive healthcare risk management and patient safety programs. As the roles of healthcare risk managers and patient safety professionals become more complex, it is essential that standard tools and strategies used by these professionals, like incident report analysis, be standardized to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Qualitative content analysis provides a structured framework that can be successfully used to describe the categories and themes of incidents, so that, they can be used to develop individual and organizational learning.

Evaluation of Patients' Perception of Safety in an Italian Hospital Using the PMOS-30 Questionnaire

Background: In our study, an Italian version of the PMOS-30 questionnaire was used to evaluate its feasibility and to improve health care quality in an Italian hospital. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 435 inpatients at a hospital in the Campania Region of Southern Italy using the PMOS-30 questionnaire and two other questions to assess patient feedback about the overall perception of safety. Results: The item “I was always treated with dignity and respect” showed the greatest percentage of agreement (agree/strongly agree = 89.2%; mean = 4.24). The least agreement was associated with the four “Staff Roles and Responsibilities” items (agree/strongly agree ranged from 31.5 to 40.0%; weighted mean = 2.84). All other 25 items had over 55.0% agreement, with 19 items over 70%. Moreover, 94.5% of the patients considered the safety of the ward sufficient/good/very good, and 92.8% did not notice situations that could cause harm to patients. Conclusion: Patient perception of safety was found to be satisfactory. The results were presented to the hospital decision makers for suggesting appropriate interventions. Our experience showed that the use of the PMOS-30 questionnaire may improve safety and health care quality in hospital settings through patient feedback.

Assessing Patients' Perceptions of Safety Culture in the Hospital Setting: Development and Initial Evaluation of the Patients' Perceptions of Safety Culture Scale

OBJECTIVES

Both patient satisfaction and hospital safety culture have been recognized as key characteristics of healthcare quality and patient safety. Thus, both characteristics are measured widely to support quality and safety improvement efforts. However, because safety culture surveys focus exclusively on the perspective of hospital staff, the complimentary information to be gained from patients' perceptions of safety culture has received little research attention so far. We aimed to develop a measure explicitly focusing on patients' perceptions of safety culture in the hospital setting and perform an initial evaluation of its measurement properties.

METHODS

We employed a multistep development approach including (a) literature review of survey instruments for patient experience and safety culture and (b) item categorization and selection. We evaluated the measurement properties of the final item set focusing on factor structure, internal consistency, item difficulty, and discrimination. Data were collected from June to December 2015 via an online patient survey conducted routinely by a health insurer.

RESULTS

Overall, 112,814 insured persons participated in the online survey (response rate = 19.7%). The final 11-item set formed a single scale that was named Patients' Perceptions of Safety Culture scale. Its measurement properties were deemed satisfactory based on this initial evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The Patients' Perceptions of Safety Culture scale contributes to both a more comprehensive view of patients' experience of healthcare and a more balanced approach to safety culture measurement in healthcare. It contributes to an increased recognition of patients' views on safety-relevant aspects of their care that provide important inputs to patient safety improvement.

[Participation of patients in healthcare security: a systematic review]

The scope of this article was to identify the strategies used for the participation of the patient in healthcare security in hospital and outpatient environments. It involved a systematic review of the literature based on the recommendations of the PRISMA model on the Scopus, WOS and Medline databases. The search was restricted to studies written in Portuguese, English or Spanish conducted between January 2001 and July 2016. Observational, descriptive, qualitative and/or epidemiological studies that described a development/appliance methodology using at least one patient security improvement strategy of inclusion were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the randomized Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Thematic analyses were performed in order to analyze the results. After the application of criteria of title, abstract analysis and exclusion, 19 studies were selected. In these studies, patient security strategies that promoted patients' active participation on patient security and information request strategies were identified. In the literature, sundry strategies promoting patient participation on healthcare security, with concrete implementation methods, as well as distinct purposes for their use, were encountered.

Patients' Perspectives of Engagement as a Safety Strategy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe patient engagement as a safety strategy from the perspective of hospitalized surgical patients with cancer.
.

RESEARCH APPROACH

Qualitative, descriptive approach using grounded theory.
.

SETTING

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York.
.

PARTICIPANTS

13 hospitalized surgical patients with cancer.
.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

Grounded theory with maximum variation sampling.
.

FINDINGS

Participants' perceptions regarding their engagement as a patient safety strategy were expressed through three overarching themes.

CONCLUSIONS

Using direct messaging, such as "your safety" as opposed to "patient safety," and teaching patients specific behaviors to maintain their safety appeared to facilitate patient engagement and increase awareness of safety issues. Patients may be willing to accept some responsibility for ensuring their safety by engaging in behaviors that are intuitive or that they are clearly instructed to do; however, they described their involvement in their safety as a right, not an obligation.
.

INTERPRETATION

Clear, inviting, multimodal communication appears to have the greatest potential to enhance patients' engagement in their safety. Nurses' ongoing assessment of patients' ability to engage is critical insofar as it provides the opportunity to encourage engagement without placing undue burden on them. By employing communication techniques that consider patients' perspectives, nurses can support patient engagement.

Patient-reported safety incidents as a new source of patient safety data: an exploratory comparative study in an acute hospital in England

Objectives

To compare a new co-designed, patient incident reporting tool with three established methods of detecting patient safety incidents and identify if the same incidents are recorded across methods.

Method

Trained research staff collected data from inpatients in nine wards in one university teaching hospital during their stay. Those classified as patient safety incidents were retained. We then searched for patient safety incidents in the corresponding patient case notes, staff incident reports and reports to the Patient Advice and Liaison Service specific to the study wards.

Results

In the nine wards, 329 patients were recruited to the study, of which 77 provided 155 patient reports. From these, 68 patient safety incidents were identified. Eight of these were also identified from case note review, five were also identified in incident reports, and two were also found in the records of a local Patient Advice and Liaison Service. Reports of patients covered a range of events from their immediate environment, involving different health professionals and spanning the entire spectrum of care.

Conclusion

Patient safety incidents reported by patients are unlikely to be found through other established methods of incident detection. When hospitalized patients are asked about their care, they can provide a unique perspective on patient safety. Co-designed, real-time reporting could be a helpful addition to existing methods of gathering patient safety intelligence.

Patient safety in nursing homes in Sweden: nurses’ views on safety and their role

Objective

Knowledge about patient safety in nursing homes is limited. The aim of this study was to describe what patient safety means to nurses working in nursing homes for the elderly and how these nurses address patient safety.

Method

Qualitative study of semi-structured interviews with 15 nurses aged 27–62 years. Qualitative content analysis was applied.

Results

Nurses describe the meaning of patient safety in terms of proper care and treatment, and a sense of security. Based on nurses’ description of patient safety, several factors were identified as prerequisites to achieve safe health care: competence; clear information transfer between health care organizations; continuity of care and appropriate environment. Barriers to patient safety were described as lack of sufficient resources; lack of communication and negative attitudes to incident reporting. To a great extent, nurses’ work for patient safety consists of efforts to compensate for defects and ensure good health care in their daily work, since work with patient safety is not a management priority.

Conclusion

Patient safety needs to be clarified and prioritized in nursing homes, and there is a need to understand nurses’ role among other care givers and the need for shared routines among care givers.

The patient reporting and action for a safe environment (PRASE) intervention: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in the role of patients in improving patient safety. One such role is providing feedback on the safety of their care. Here we describe the development and feasibility testing of an intervention that collects patient feedback on patient safety, brings together staff to consider this feedback and to plan improvement strategies. We address two research questions: i) to explore the feasibility of the process of systematically collecting feedback from patients about the safety of care as part of the PRASE intervention; and, ii) to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the PRASE intervention for staff, and to understand more about how staff use the patient feedback for service improvement.

METHOD

We conducted a feasibility study using a wait-list controlled design across six wards within an acute teaching hospital. Intervention wards were asked to participate in two cycles of the PRASE (Patient Reporting & Action for a Safe Environment) intervention across a six-month period. Participants were patients on participating wards. To explore the acceptability of the intervention for staff, observations of action planning meetings, interviews with a lead person for the intervention on each ward and recorded researcher reflections were analysed thematically and synthesised.

RESULTS

Recruitment of patients using computer tablets at their bedside was straightforward, with the majority of patients willing and able to provide feedback. Randomisation of the intervention was acceptable to staff, with no evidence of differential response rates between intervention and control groups. In general, ward staff were positive about the use of patient feedback for service improvement and were able to use the feedback as a basis for action planning, although engagement with the process was variable. Gathering a multidisciplinary team together for action planning was found to be challenging, and implementing action plans was sometimes hindered by the need to co-ordinate action across multiple services.

DISCUSSION

The PRASE intervention was found to be acceptable to staff and patients. However, before proceeding to a full cluster randomised controlled trial, the intervention requires adaptation to account for the difficulties in implementing action plans within three months, the need for a facilitator to support the action planning meetings, and the provision of training and senior management support for participating ward teams.

CONCLUSIONS

The PRASE intervention represents a promising method for the systematic collection of patient feedback about the safety of hospital care.

Improving patient safety through the involvement of patients: development and evaluation of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing patient safety incidents and protecting them against unintended harm

Background

Estimates suggest that, in NHS hospitals, incidents causing harm to patients occur in 10% of admissions, with costs to the NHS of > £2B. About one-third of harmful events are believed to be preventable. Strategies to reduce patient safety incidents (PSIs) have mostly focused on changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with the role that patients can play in enhancing the safety of care being relatively unexplored. However, although the role and effectiveness of patient involvement in safety initiatives is unclear, previous work has identified a general willingness among patients to contribute to initiatives to improve health-care safety.

Aim

Our aim in this programme was to design, develop and evaluate four innovative approaches to engage patients in preventing PSIs: assessing risk, reporting incidents, direct engagement in preventing harm and education and training.

Methods and results

We developed tools to report PSIs [patient incident reporting tool (PIRT)] and provide feedback on factors that might contribute to PSIs in the future [Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS)]. These were combined into a single instrument and evaluated in the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention using a randomised design. Although take-up of the intervention by, and retention of, participating hospital wards was 100% and patient participation was high at 86%, compliance with the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. We found no significant effect of the intervention on outcomes at 6 or 12 months. The ThinkSAFE project involved the development and evaluation of an intervention to support patients to directly engage with health-care staff to enhance their safety through strategies such as checking their care and speaking up to staff if they had any concerns. The piloting of ThinkSAFE showed that the approach is feasible and acceptable to users and may have the potential to improve patient safety. We also developed a patient safety training programme for junior doctors based on patients who had experienced PSIs recounting their own stories. This approach was compared with traditional methods of patient safety teaching in a randomised controlled trial. The study showed that delivering patient safety training based on patient narratives is feasible and had an effect on emotional engagement and learning about communication. However, there was no effect on changing general attitudes to safety compared with the control.

Conclusion

This research programme has developed a number of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing PSIs and protecting them against unintended harm. In our evaluations of these interventions we have been unable to demonstrate any improvement in patient safety although this conclusion comes with a number of caveats, mainly about the difficulty of measuring patient safety outcomes. Reflecting this difficulty, one of our recommendations for future research is to develop reliable and valid measures to help efficiently evaluate safety improvement interventions. The programme found patients to be willing to codesign, coproduce and participate in initiatives to prevent PSIs and the approaches used were feasible and acceptable. These factors together with recent calls to strengthen the patient voice in health care could suggest that the tools and interventions from this programme would benefit from further development and evaluation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07689702.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Healthcare professional and patient codesign and validation of a mechanism for service users to feedback patient safety experiences following a care transfer: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a mechanism for patients to provide feedback on safety experiences following a care transfer between organisations.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using participatory methods (codesign workshops) and cognitive interviews. Workshop data were analysed concurrently with participants, and cognitive interviews were thematically analysed using a deductive approach based on the developed feedback mechanism.

PARTICIPANTS

Expert patients (n=5) and healthcare professionals (n=11) were recruited purposively to develop the feedback mechanism in 2 workshops. Workshop 1 explored principles underpinning safety feedback mechanisms, and workshop 2 included the practical development of the feedback mechanism. Final design and content of the feedback mechanism (a safety survey) were verified by workshop participants, and cognitive interviews (n=28) were conducted with patients.

RESULTS

Workshop participants identified that safety feedback mechanisms should be patient-centred, short and concise with clear signposting on how to complete, with an option to be anonymous and balanced between positive (safe) and negative (unsafe) experiences. The agreed feedback mechanism consisted of a survey split across 3 stages of the care transfer: departure, journey and arrival. Care across organisational boundaries was recognised as being complex, with healthcare professionals acknowledging the difficulty implementing changes that impact other organisations. Cognitive interview participants agreed the content of the survey was relevant but identified barriers to completion relating to the survey formatting and understanding of a care transfer.

CONCLUSIONS

Participatory, codesign principles helped overcome differences in understandings of safety in the complex setting of care transfers when developing a safety survey. Practical barriers to the survey's usability and acceptability to patients were identified, resulting in a modified survey design. Further research is required to determine the usability and acceptability of the survey to patients and healthcare professionals, as well as identifying how governance structures should accommodate patient feedback when relating to multiple health or social care providers.

Patient safety work in Sweden: quantitative and qualitative analysis of annual patient safety reports

Background

There is widespread recognition of the problem of unsafe care and extensive efforts have been made over the last 15 years to improve patient safety. In Sweden, a new patient safety law obliges the 21 county councils to assemble a yearly patient safety report (PSR). The aim of this study was to describe the patient safety work carried out in Sweden by analysing the PSRs with regard to the structure, process and result elements reported, and to investigate the perceived usefulness of the PSRs as a tool to achieve improved patient safety.

Methods

The study was based on two sources of data: patient safety reports obtained from county councils in Sweden published in 2014 and a survey of health care practitioners with strategic positions in patient safety work, acting as key informants for their county councils. Answers to open-ended questions were analysed using conventional content analysis.

Results

A total of 14 structure elements, 31 process elements and 23 outcome elements were identified. The most frequently reported structure elements were groups devoted to working with antibiotics issues and electronic incident reporting systems. The PSRs were perceived to provide a structure for patient safety work, enhance the focus on patient safety and contribute to learning about patient safety.

Conclusion

Patient safety work carried out in Sweden, as described in annual PSRs, features a wide range of structure, process and result elements. According to health care practitioners with strategic positions in the county councils’ patient safety work, the PSRs are perceived as useful at various system levels.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1350-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient and carer identified factors which contribute to safety incidents in primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patients can have an important role in reducing harm in primary-care settings. Learning from patient experience and feedback could improve patient safety. Evidence that captures patients' views of the various contributory factors to creating safe primary care is largely absent. The aim of this study was to address this evidence gap.

METHODS

Four focus groups and eight semistructured interviews were conducted with 34 patients and carers from south-east Australia. Participants were asked to describe their experiences of primary care. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and specific factors that contribute to safety incidents were identified in the analysis using the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF). Other factors emerging from the data were also ascertained and added to the analytical framework.

RESULTS

Thirteen factors that contribute to safety incidents in primary care were ascertained. Five unique factors for the primary-care setting were discovered in conjunction with eight factors present in the YCFF from hospital settings. The five unique primary care contributing factors to safety incidents represented a range of levels within the primary-care system from local working conditions to the upstream organisational level and the external policy context. The 13 factors included communication, access, patient factors, external policy context, dignity and respect, primary-secondary interface, continuity of care, task performance, task characteristics, time in the consultation, safety culture, team factors and the physical environment.

DISCUSSION

Patient and carer feedback of this type could help primary-care professionals better understand and identify potential safety concerns and make appropriate service improvements. The comprehensive range of factors identified provides the groundwork for developing tools that systematically capture the multiple contributory factors to patient safety.

Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Estimates show that as many as one in 10 patients are harmed while receiving hospital care. Previous strategies to improve safety have focused on developing incident reporting systems and changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with little involvement of patients. The need to engage with patients about the quality and safety of their care has never been more evident with recent high profile reviews of poor hospital care all emphasising the need to develop and support better systems for capturing and responding to the patient perspective on their care. Over the past 3 years, our research team have developed, tested and refined the PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention, which gains patient feedback about quality and safety on hospital wards.

METHODS/DESIGN

A multi-centre, cluster, wait list design, randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. The aim is to assess the efficacy of the PRASE intervention, in achieving patient safety improvements over a 12-month period.The trial will take place across 32 hospital wards in three NHS Hospital Trusts in the North of England. The PRASE intervention comprises two tools: (1) a 44-item questionnaire which asks patients about safety concerns and issues; and (2) a proforma for patients to report (a) any specific patient safety incidents they have been involved in or witnessed and (b) any positive experiences. These two tools then provide data which are fed back to wards in a structured feedback report. Using this report, ward staff are asked to hold action planning meetings (APMs) in order to action plan, then implement their plans in line with the issues raised by patients in order to improve patient safety and the patient experience.The trial will be subjected to a rigorous qualitative process evaluation which will enable interpretation of the trial results.

METHODS

fieldworker diaries, ethnographic observation of APMs, structured interviews with APM lead and collection of key data about intervention wards. Intervention fidelity will be assessed primarily by adherence to the intervention via scoring based on an adapted framework.

DISCUSSION

This study will be one of the largest patient safety trials ever conducted, involving 32 hospital wards. The results will further understanding about how patient feedback on the safety of care can be used to improve safety at a ward level. Incorporating the 'patient voice' is critical if patient feedback is to be situated as an integral part of patient safety improvements.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN07689702, 16 Aug 2013.

Implementing strategies in consumer and community engagement in health care: results of a large-scale, scoping meta-review

BACKGROUND

There is growing recognition of the importance of the active involvement of consumers and community members in health care. Despite the long history of consumer and community engagement (CCE) research and practice, there is no consensus on the best strategies for CCE. In this paper, we identify various dimensions of CCE-related strategies and offer a practical model to assist policy-makers, practitioners and researchers.

METHODS

We undertook a large-scale, scoping meta-review and searched six databases using a list of nine medical subject headings (MeSH) and a comprehensive list of 47 phrases. We identified and examined a total of 90 relevant systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Identified reviews show that although there is a significant body of research on CCE, the development of the field is hindered by a lack of evidence relating to specific elements of CCE. They also indicate a diverse and growing enterprise, drawing on a wide range of disciplinary, political and philosophical perspectives and a mix of definitions, targets, approaches, strategies and mechanisms. CCE interventions and strategies aim to involve consumers, community members and the public in general, as well as specific sub-groups, including children and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Strategies for CCE vary in terms of their aim and type of proposed activity, as do the methods and tools which have been developed to support them. Methods and tools include shared decision making, use of decision aids, consumer representation, application of electronic and internet-based facilities, and peer support. The success of CCE is dependent on both the approach taken and contextual factors, including structural facilitators such as governmental support, as well as barriers such as costs, organisational culture and population-specific limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The diversity of the field indicates the need to measure each component of CCE. This meta-review provides the basis for development of a new eight stage model of consumer and community engagement. This model emphasises the importance of clarity and focus, as well as an extensive evaluation of contextual factors within specific settings, before the implementation of CCE strategies, enabling those involved in CCE to determine potential facilitators and barriers to the process.

Facilitators and barriers influencing patient safety in Swedish hospitals: a qualitative study of nurses' perceptions

Background

Sweden has undertaken many national, regional, and local initiatives to improve patient safety since the mid-2000s, but solid evidence of effectiveness for many solutions is often lacking. Nurses play a vital role in patient safety, constituting 71% of the workforce in Swedish health care. This interview study aimed to explore perceived facilitators and barriers influencing patient safety among nurses involved in the direct provision of care. Considering the importance of nurses with regard to patient safety, this knowledge could facilitate the development and implementation of better solutions.

Methods

A qualitative study with semi-structured individual interviews was carried out. The study population consisted of 12 registered nurses at general hospitals in Sweden. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

The nurses identified 22 factors that influenced patient safety within seven categories: ‘patient factors’, ‘individual staff factors’, ‘team factors’, ‘task and technology factors’, ‘work environment factors’, ‘organizational and management factors’, and ‘institutional context factors’. Twelve of the 22 factors functioned as both facilitators and barriers, six factors were perceived only as barriers, and four only as facilitators. There were no specific patterns showing that barriers or facilitators were more common in any category.

Conclusion

A broad range of factors are important for patient safety according to registered nurses working in general hospitals in Sweden. The nurses identified facilitators and barriers to improved patient safety at multiple system levels, indicating that complex multifaceted initiatives are required to address patient safety issues. This study encourages further research to achieve a more explicit understanding of the problems and solutions to patient safety.

Patient Reporting of Safety experiences in Organisational Care Transfers (PRoSOCT): a feasibility study of a patient reporting tool as a proactive approach to identifying latent conditions within healthcare systems

BACKGROUND

It is increasingly recognised that patients can play a role in reporting safety incidents. Studies have tended to focus on patients within hospital settings, and on the reporting of patient safety incidents as defined within a medical model of safety. This study aims to determine the feasibility of collecting and using patient experiences of safety as a proactive approach to identifying latent conditions of safety as patients undergo organisational care transfers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study comprises three components: (1) patients' experiences of safety relating to a care transfer, (2) patients' receptiveness to reporting experiences of safety, (3) quality improvement using patient experiences of safety. (1) A safety survey and evaluation form will be distributed to patients discharged from 15 wards across four clinical areas (cardiac, care of older people, orthopaedics and stroke) over 1 year. Healthcare professionals involved in the care transfer will be provided with a regular summary of patient feedback. (2) Patients (n=36) who return an evaluation form will be sampled representatively based on the four clinical areas and interviewed about their experiences of healthcare and safety and completing the survey. (3) Healthcare professionals (n=75) will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews and focus groups to discuss their experiences with and perceptions of receiving and using patient feedback. Data analysis will explore the relationship between patient experiences of safety and other indicators and measures of quality and safety. Interview and focus group data will be thematically analysed and triangulated with all other data sources using a convergence coding matrix.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been granted National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee approval. Patient experiences of safety will be disseminated to healthcare teams for the purpose of organisational development and quality improvement. Results will be disseminated to study participants as well as through peer-reviewed outputs.

Developing a patient measure of safety (PMOS)

BACKGROUND

Tools that proactively identify factors that contribute to accidents have been developed within high-risk industries. Although patients provide feedback on their experience of care in hospitals, there is no existing measure which asks patients to comment on the factors that contribute to patient safety incidents. The aim of the current study was to determine those contributory factors from the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF) that patients are able to identify in a hospital setting and to use this information to develop a patient measure of safety (PMOS).

METHODS

Thirty-three qualitative interviews with a representative sample of patients from six units in a teaching hospital in the north of England were carried out. Patients were asked either to describe their most recent/current hospital experience (unstructured) or were asked to describe their experience in relation to specific contributory factors (structured). Responses were coded using the YCFF. Face validity of the PMOS was tested with 12 patients and 12 health professionals, using a 'think aloud' approach, and appropriate revisions made. The research was supported by two patient representatives.

RESULTS

Patients were able to comment on/identify 13 of the 20 contributory factors contained within the YCFF domains. They identified contributory factors relating to communication and individual factors more frequently, and contributory factors relating to team factors, and support from central functions less frequently. In addition, they identified one theme not included in the YCFF: dignity and respect. The draft PMOS showed acceptable face validity.

DISCUSSION

Patients are able to identify factors which contribute to the safety of their care. The PMOS provides a way of systematically assessing these and has the potential to help health professionals and healthcare organisations understand and identify, safety concerns from the patients' perspective, and, in doing so, make appropriate service improvements.

Factors influencing patient safety in Sweden: perceptions of patient safety officers in the county councils

BACKGROUND

National, regional and local activities to improve patient safety in Sweden have increased over the last decade. There are high ambitions for improved patient safety in Sweden. This study surveyed health care professionals who held key positions in their county council's patient safety work to investigate their perceptions of the conditions for this work, factors they believe have been most important in reaching the current level of patient safety and factors they believe would be most important for achieving improved patient safety in the future.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 218 health care professionals holding strategic positions in patient safety work in Swedish county councils. Using a questionnaire, the following topics were analysed in this study: profession/occupation; number of years involved in a designated task on patient safety issues; knowledge/overview of the county council's patient safety work; ability to influence this work; conditions for this work; and the importance of various factors for current and future levels of patient safety.

RESULTS

The response rate to the questionnaire was 79%. The conditions that had the highest number of responses in complete agreement were "patients' involvement is important for patient safety" and "patient safety work has good support from the county council's management". Factors that were considered most important for achieving the current level of patient safety were root cause and risk analyses, incident reporting and the Swedish Patient Safety Law. An organizational culture that encourages reporting and avoids blame was considered most important for improved patient safety in the future, closely followed by improved communication between health care practitioners and patients.

CONCLUSION

Health care professionals with important positions in the Swedish county councils' patient safety work believe that conditions for this work are somewhat constrained. They attribute the current levels of patient safety to a broad range of factors and believe that many different solutions can contribute to enhanced patient safety in the future, suggesting that this work must be multifactorial.

Prevalência de incidentes sem dano e eventos adversos em uma clínica cirúrgica

OBJETIVO: Estimar a prevalência de incidentes sem dano e eventos adversos em uma clínica cirúrgica. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal conduzido com amostra de 750 internações ocorridas na clínica cirúrgica de um hospital da região centro-oeste. Realizou-se análise descritiva e calculou-se a prevalência dos incidentes. RESULTADOS: Evidenciou-se que 615 internações foram expostas ao incidente sem dano e 140 ao evento adverso. Dos 5.672 registros de incidentes, 218 foram caracterizados como evento adverso por causarem dano ao paciente. Os demais não evidenciaram dano, entretanto apontaram necessidade de adequação dos processos de trabalho. CONCLUSÃO: Estimou-se prevalência de 82% de incidentes sem dano e 18,7% de eventos adversos.