Developing a weekly patient safety and quality meeting in a medium-sized GI surgical unit in the United Kingdom

A Narrative Review of Strategies to Increase Patient Safety Event Reporting by Residents

BACKGROUND

Because residents are often on the frontlines of patient care and are likely to witness adverse events firsthand, it is critical they report patient safety events. They may, however, be underreporting.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the current literature to identify strategies to increase patient safety event reporting by residents.

METHODS

We used CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, MA), EMBASE (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), PsycINFO (APA Publishing, Washington, DC), and PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD) databases. The search was limited to English-language articles published in peer-reviewed journals through March 2020. Key terms included "residents, trainees, fellows, interns, graduate medical education, house staff, event reporting, patient safety reporting, incident reporting, adverse event, and medical error." To organize findings, we adapted a published framework of strategies for encouraging self-protective behavior.

RESULTS

We identified 68 articles that described strategies used to increase event reporting. The most sustainable interventions used a combination of 3 of the 5 strategies: behavior modeling, surveys and messaging, and required limited financial support. The survey creates awareness; the behavior modeling is critical for educational purposes, and the reminders help to reinforce the new behavior and embed it into routine patient care activities. We noted a dearth of studies involving trainees in root cause analysis following submission of event reports.

CONCLUSIONS

The most successful sustainable interventions were those that combined strategies that minimized time for busy physicians, incorporated accessible event reporting in already existing medical records, and became part of a normal workflow in patient care.

Development of the 'People-Processes-Paradigm' critical analysis tool for mortality and morbidity reviews: improving understanding of systems factors

BACKGROUND

The impact of systems problems and human factors on delivering safe, high-quality patient care is well recognized. In the surgical setting, mortality and morbidity reviews (MMRs) are the key forum for reviewing and analysing adverse events in patient care yet there is a paucity of simple tools for undertaking such analyses. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a new tool for analysing mortality and morbidity cases incorporating human factors and systems analysis.

METHODS

The published literature, professional standards, guidelines and existing audit tools for MMRs were reviewed. The 'People-Processes-Paradigm' tool was developed and pilot testing was undertaken and stakeholder feedback was obtained.

RESULTS

Models found for undertaking systems-based analysis of adverse surgical events included the 3D model, SEIPS and the Queensland Health human error and patient safety (HEAPS) Incident Management Tool. Guidelines for standards in MMRs are provided by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, New South Wales Clinical Excellence Commission and Australia and New Zealand audit of surgical mortality (ANZASM). The People-Processes-Paradigm model incorporates these standards and evidence-based systems analysis tools into a single effective tool. The pilot study evaluating the use of this tool demonstrated it to be practical and easily applicable to regular use by clinicians, with the ability to be tailored to individual health service use. Improvements such as electronic format and clarification of case selection processes were recommended by users.

CONCLUSION

The People-Processes-Paradigm tool has been developed for surgeons by surgeons incorporating current professional, legal and regulatory requirements in Australasia, easily transferrable to electronic platforms. This model requires further testing for validation.

Particularism in health care: challenging the authority of the aggregate

In health care, particularism asserts the primacy of the individual case. Moral particularists, such as Jonsen and Toulmin, reject deduction from universal moral principles and instead seek warrants for action from the multiple sources unique to a given patient. Another kind of health care particularism, here referred to as the knowledge of particulars, is offered as a corrective to evidence-based medicine (EBM), its influence on health care practice and policy, and specifically to EBM's reliance on the aggregate. This paper describes the knowledge of particulars and identifies strategies for its legitimation in health care policy and practice. First, the paper documents the ascendancy of the aggregate through EBM's definition of 'what works' in health care. Second, it delineates the limits of health care knowledge based on the analysis of aggregates, not only for the care of individual patients but for the formulation of policies about patient care. Third, the paper analyses prominent rejections of the particular in contemporary health policy discourse and relates them to larger political purposes. Finally, it depicts the knowledge of particulars as the basis for clinical prudence and offers three potential strategies for promoting particularism as essential to high-quality care.