Retrospective record review in proactive patient safety work - identification of no-harm incidents

Development of a trigger tool to identify harmful incidents, no harm incidents, and near misses in prehospital emergency care

BACKGROUND

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are a unique setting because care for the chief complaint is given across all ages in a complex and high-risk environment that may pose a threat to patient safety. Traditionally, a reporting system is commonly used to raise awareness of adverse events (AEs); however, it could fail to detect an AE. Several methods are needed to evaluate patient safety in EMS. In this light, this study was conducted to (1) develop a national ambulance trigger tool (ATT) with a guide containing descriptions of triggers, examples of use, and categorization of near misses (NMs), no harm incidents (NHIs), and harmful incidents (HIs) and (2) use the ATT on randomly selected ambulance records.

METHODS

The ambulance trigger tool was developed in a stepwise manner through (1) a literature review; (2) three sessions of structured group discussions with an expert panel having knowledge of emergency medical service, patient safety, and development of trigger tools; (3) a retrospective record review of 900 randomly selected journals with three review teams from different geographical locations; and (4) inter-rater reliability testing between reviewers.

RESULTS

From the literature review, 34 triggers were derived. After removing clinically irrelevant ones and combining others through three sessions of structured discussions, 19 remained. The most common triggers identified in the 900 randomly selected records were deviation from treatment guidelines (30.4%), the patient is non conveyed after EMS assessment (20.8%), and incomplete documentation (14.4%). The positive triggers were categorized as a near miss (40.9%), no harm (3.7%), and harmful incident (0.2%). Inter-rater reliability testing showed good agreement in both sessions.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that a trigger tool together with a retrospective record review can be used as a method to measure the frequency of harmful incidents, no harm incidents, and near misses in the EMS, thus complementing the traditional reporting system to realize increased patient safety.

Occurrence of No-Harm Incidents and Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients with Ischemic Stroke or TIA: A Cohort Study Using Trigger Tool Methodology

Adverse events (AEs)—healthcare caused events leading to patient harm or even death—are common in healthcare. Although it is a frequently investigated topic, systematic knowledge on this phenomenon in stroke patients is limited. To determine cumulative incidence of no-harm incidents and AEs, including their severity and preventability, a cohort study using trigger tool methodology for retrospective record review was designed. The study was carried out in a stroke center at a university hospital in the German speaking part of Switzerland. Electronic records from 150 randomly selected patient admissions for transient ischemic attack (TIA) or ischemic stroke, with or without acute recanalization therapy, were used. In total, 170 events (108 AEs and 62 no-harm incidents) were identified, affecting 83 patients (55.3%; 95% CI 47 to 63.4), corresponding to an event rate of 113 events/100 admissions or 142 events/1000 patient days. The three most frequent AEs were ischemic strokes (n = 12, 7.1%), urinary tract infections (n = 11, 6.5%) and phlebitis (n = 10, 5.9%). The most frequent no-harm incidents were medication events (n = 37, 21.8%). Preventability ranged from 12.5% for allergic reactions to 100% for medication events and pressure ulcers. Most of the events found (142; 83.5%; 95% CI 76.9 to 88.6) occurred throughout the whole stroke care. The remaining 28 events (16.5%; 95% CI 11.4 to 23.1) were detected during stroke care but were related to care outside the stroke pathway. Trigger tool methodology allows detection of AEs and no-harm incidents, showing a frequent occurrence of both event types in stroke and TIA patients. Further investigations into events’ relationships with organizational systems and processes will be needed, first to achieve a better understanding of these events’ underlying mechanisms and risk factors, then to determine efforts needed to improve patient safety.

Visualizing healthcare system variability and resilience: a longitudinal study of patient movements following discharge from a Swedish psychiatric clinic

BACKGROUND

As healthcare becomes increasingly complex, new methods are needed to identify weaknesses in the system that could lead to increased risk. Traditionally, the focus for patient safety is to study incident reports and adverse events, but that starting point has been contested with a new era of safety investigations: the analysis of everyday clinical work, and the resilient healthcare. This study introduces a new approach of system monitoring as a way to strengthen patient safety and has focused on discharge in psychiatry as a risk for adverse outcomes. The aim was to analyse a psychiatric clinic's everyday 'normal' performance variability of discharge from inpatient psychiatric care to outpatient care.

METHOD

A retrospective longitudinal correlation study with a strategic selection. Data consist of 70,797 patient visits within one psychiatric clinic, and the visits were compared between 81 different wards in Stockholm County by using a model of time-lapse visualization.

RESULTS

The time-lapse visualization shows a discrepancy in types of visits and the proportion of cancelled visits to the outward units. 42% of all patients that were scheduled as an outward patient, did not complete this transition, but instead, they revisit the clinics' emergency ward and did not receive the planned care treatment. The patients who visit the emergency ward instead of their planned outpatient visit did this within 20 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show a potential increased demand for emergency psychiatric care from 2010 to 2018 within the clinic. It also suggests that the healthcare system creates a space of temporal as well as functional variability, and that patients use this space to adapt to their changing conditions. This understanding can assist management in prioritising allocation of resources and thereby strengthen patient safety. Today's incident reporting systems in healthcare are ineffective in monitoring patterns of more cancelled visits in outward units and sooner visit to the emergency ward. By using time-lapse visualization of patient interactions, stakeholders might analyse current-, and estimate future, stressors within the system to identify and understand potential system migration towards risk in healthcare. This could help healthcare management understand where resources should be prioritized.

Identifying no-harm incidents in home healthcare: a cohort study using trigger tool methodology

BACKGROUND

Patient safety in home healthcare is largely unexplored. No-harm incidents may give valuable information about risk areas and system failures as a source for proactive patient safety work. We hypothesized that it would be feasible to retrospectively identify no-harm incidents and thus aimed to explore the cumulative incidence, preventability, types, and potential contributing causes of no-harm incidents that affected adult patients admitted to home healthcare.

METHODS

A structured retrospective record review using a trigger tool designed for home healthcare. A random sample of 600 home healthcare records from ten different organizations across Sweden was reviewed.

RESULTS

In the study, 40,735 days were reviewed. In all, 313 no-harm incidents affected 177 (29.5%) patients; of these, 198 (63.2%) no-harm incidents, in 127 (21.2%) patients, were considered preventable. The most common no-harm incident types were "fall without harm," "deficiencies in medication management," and "moderate pain." The type "deficiencies in medication management" was deemed to have a preventability rate twice as high as those of "fall without harm" and "moderate pain." The most common potential contributing cause was "deficiencies in nursing care and treatment, i.e., delayed, erroneous, omitted or incomplete treatment or care."

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that it is feasible to identify no-harm incidents and potential contributing causes such as omission of care using record review with a trigger tool adapted to the context. No-harm incidents and potential contributing causes are valuable sources of knowledge for improving patient safety, as they highlight system failures and indicate risks before an adverse event reach the patient.

Development of a trigger tool to identify adverse events and no-harm incidents that affect patients admitted to home healthcare

BACKGROUND

Adverse events (AEs) and no-harm incidents are common and of great concern in healthcare. A common method for identification of AEs is retrospective record review (RRR) using predefined triggers. This method has been used frequently in inpatient care, but AEs in home healthcare have not been explored to the same extent. The aim of this study was to develop a trigger tool (TT) for the identification of both AEs and no-harm incidents affecting adult patients admitted to home healthcare in Sweden, and to describe the methodology used for this development.

METHODS

The TT was developed and validated in a stepwise manner, in collaboration with experts with different skills, using (1) literature review and interviews, (2) a five-round modified Delphi process, and (3) two-stage RRRs. Ten trained teams from different sites in Sweden reviewed 600 randomly selected records.

RESULTS

In all, triggers were found 4031 times in 518 (86.3%) records, with a mean of 6.7 (median 4, range 1-54) triggers per record with triggers. The positive predictive values (PPVs) for AEs and no-harm incidents were 25.4% and 16.3%, respectively, resulting in a PPV of 41.7% (range 0.0%-96.1% per trigger) for the total TT when using 38 triggers. The most common triggers were unplanned contact with physician and/or registered nurse, moderate/severe pain, moderate/severe worry, anxiety, suffering, existential pain and/or psychological pain. AEs were identified in 37.7% of the patients and no-harm incidents in 29.5%.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that adapted triggers with definitions and decision support, developed to identify AEs and no-harm incidents that affect patients admitted to home healthcare, may be a valid method for safety and quality improvement work in home healthcare.

Fix and forget or fix and report: a qualitative study of tensions at the front line of incident reporting

Introduction

Practitioners frequently encounter safety problems that they themselves can resolve on the spot. We ask: when faced with such a problem, do practitioners fix it in the moment and forget about it, or do they fix it in the moment and report it? We consider factors underlying these two approaches.

Methods

We used a qualitative case study design employing in-depth interviews with 40 healthcare practitioners in a tertiary care hospital in Ontario, Canada. We conducted a thematic analysis, and compared the findings with the literature.

Results

‘Fixing and forgetting’ was the main choice that most practitioners made in situations where they faced problems that they themselves could resolve. These situations included (A) handling near misses, which were seen as unworthy of reporting since they did not result in actual harm to the patient, (B) prioritising solving individual patients’ safety problems, which were viewed as unique or one-time events and (C) encountering re-occurring safety problems, which were framed as inevitable, routine events. In only a few instances was ‘fixing and reporting’ mentioned as a way that the providers dealt with problems that they could resolve.

Conclusions

We found that generally healthcare providers do not prioritise reporting if a safety problem is fixed. We argue that fixing and forgetting patient safety problems encountered may not serve patient safety as well as fixing and reporting. The latter approach aligns with recent calls for patient safety to be more preventive. We consider implications for practice.

Validation of triggers and development of a pediatric trigger tool to identify adverse events

BACKGROUND

Little is known about adverse events (AEs) in pediatric patients. Record review is a common methodology for identifying AEs, but in pediatrics the record review tools generally have limited focus. The aim of the present study was to develop a broadly applicable record review tool to identify AEs in pediatric inpatients.

METHODS

Using a broad literature review and expert opinion with a modified Delphi process, a pediatric trigger tool with 88 triggers, definitions, and descriptions including AE preventability decision support was developed and tested in a random sample of 600 hospitalized pediatric patients admitted in 2010 to a single university children's hospital. Four registered nurse-physician teams performed complete two-stage retrospective reviews of 150 records each from either neonatal, surgical/orthopedic, medicine, or emergency medicine units.

RESULTS

Registered nurse review identified 296 of 600 records with triggers indicating potential AEs. Records (n = 121) with only false positive triggers not indicating any potential AEs were not forwarded to the next review stage. On subsequent physician review, 204 (34.0%) of patients were found to have had 563 AEs, range 1-27 AEs/patient. A total of 442 preventable AEs were found in 161 patients (26.8%), range 1-22. Overall, triggers were found 3,598 times in 417 (69.5%) records, with a mean of 6 (median 1, range 0-176) triggers per patient. The overall positive predictive value of the triggers was 22.9%, (range 0.0-100.0%). The final pediatric trigger tool, developed with a second Delphi round, required 29 triggers.

CONCLUSIONS

AEs are common in pediatric patients and most are preventable. The main contributions of this study are to further develop and adapt trigger definitions, including AE preventability decision support, to introduce new triggers in pediatric care, as well as to apply pediatric triggers in different clinical specialties. Our findings resulted in a national pediatric trigger tool, and might also be adapted internationally. The pediatric trigger tool can help healthcare organizations to measure and analyze the AEs occurring in hospitalized children in order to improve patient safety.