Incident reporting practices in the preanalytical phase: Low reported frequencies in the primary health care setting

Patient Safety Through Nursing Documentation: Barriers Identified by Healthcare Professionals and Students

Background: Although access to accurate patient documentation is recognized as a prerequisite for delivering of safe and continuous municipal elderly care, healthcare professionals often fail to provide comprehensive clinical information in an accurate and timely manner. The aim of this study was to understand the perceptions of healthcare professionals and healthcare students regarding existing barriers to patient safety through the performance of documentation practices.

Methods: Using a qualitative, exploratory design, this study conducted six focus group interviews with nurses and social educators (n = 12) involved in primary care practice and nursing and social educator bachelor’s degree students from a University College (n = 11). Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results: Four themes emerged from the analysis, which described barriers to patient safety and quality in documentation practices: “Individual factors,” “Social factors,” “Organizational factors,” and “Technological factors.” Each theme also included several sub-themes.

Conclusion: According to the findings, several barriers negatively influenced documentation practices and information exchange, which may place primary care patients in a vulnerable and exposed situation. To achieve successful documentation, increased awareness and efforts by the individual professional are necessary. However, primary care services must facilitate the achievement of these goals by providing adequate resources, clear mission statements, and understandable policies.

Hospital Climate and Peer Report Intention on Adverse Medical Events: Role of Attribution and Rewards

Adverse medical events (AMEs) often occur in the healthcare workplace, and studies have shown that a positive atmosphere can reduce their incidence by increasing peer report intention. However, few studies have investigated the effect and action mechanism therein. We aimed to extend upon these studies by probing into the relationship between hospital climate and peer report intention, along with the mediating effect of attribution tendency and moderating effects of rewards. For this purpose, a cross-sectional survey was administered in a hospital among health professionals. We collected 503 valid questionnaires from health professionals in China and verified the hypothesis after sorting the questionnaires. The results of empirical analysis show that a positive hospital climate significantly induces individual internal attribution tendency, which in turn exerts a positive effect on peer report intention. Contract reward also helps to increase peer report intention, especially for health professionals with an internal attribution tendency. The findings contribute to the literature regarding AME management in hospitals by providing empirical evidence of the necessity for hospital climate and contract reward, and by providing insights to improve their integrated application.

A national survey of specimen contamination in the UK

BACKGROUND

Specimen contamination that goes unnoticed can have many adverse consequences for patients including inappropriate investigations or treatment decisions based on erroneous results. Little is known about UK laboratory practices relating to specimen contamination; therefore, this national survey aimed to gather valuable baseline data.

METHODS

An electronic survey consisting of 26 questions was designed to obtain key information relating to specimen contamination including its frequency, how it is identified by laboratories and actions taken in event of confirmed contamination. The survey was circulated to Heads of Departments of all NHS laboratories in the UK.

RESULTS

Fifty-two responses (15%) were received from 353 laboratories surveyed. Recording and extracting specimen contamination data from laboratory IT systems appear to be a challenge for many laboratories. There is potentially a lack of awareness of correct order of draw for venous blood collection which is a factor known to contribute to contamination. There is wide variation in contamination rates (EDTA, citrate and drip arm), and the methods laboratories use to identify it which often rely on professional judgement. Similarly, there is little consensus among senior laboratory professionals on how best to report results on contaminated samples, and record events in risk management systems.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for greater consensus on laboratories' approach to specimen contamination, particularly around mechanisms to identify and monitor it, and follow up actions. We make several recommendations to facilitate improvements it this area; however, there is a need to develop consensus guidelines which can aid both clinicians and laboratories.

Integrating Research Techniques to Improve Quality and Safety in the Preanalytical Phase

Background

Reducing errors in the preanalytical phase is difficult, which suggests the issue may be multidimensional. As such, qualitative research may be truly innovative in this context.

Method

We carried out a descriptive study using a qualitative method incorporating 4 focus groups. Data analysis followed the principles of Grounded Theory.

Results

We queried in each of the 4 focus groups collectively to identify weaknesses in the system. Those weaknesses that were most cited were logistics, coupled with uneven compliance with regulations.

Conclusion

All 4 focus groups mapped out directives for future work, so that regulatory aspects, process management, communication and resources could be identified as key areas where error reduction is critical.

Development of a theoretical framework of factors affecting patient safety incident reporting: a theoretical review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

The development and implementation of incident reporting systems within healthcare continues to be a fundamental strategy to reduce preventable patient harm and improve the quality and safety of healthcare. We sought to identify factors contributing to patient safety incident reporting.

DESIGN

To facilitate improvements in incident reporting, a theoretical framework, encompassing factors that act as barriers and enablers ofreporting, was developed. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and PsycINFO were searched to identify relevant articles published between January 1980 and May 2014. A comprehensive search strategy including MeSH terms and keywords was developed to identify relevant articles. Data were extracted by three independent researchers; to ensure the accuracy of data extraction, all studies eligible for inclusion were rescreened by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 3049 potentially eligible articles; of these, 110 articles, including >29 726 participants, met the inclusion criteria. In total, 748 barriers were identified (frequency count) across the 110 articles. In comparison, 372 facilitators to incident reporting and 118 negative cases were identified. The top two barriers cited were fear of adverse consequences (161, representing 21.52% of barriers) and process and systems of reporting (110, representing 14.71% of barriers). In comparison, the top two facilitators were organisational (97, representing 26.08% of facilitators) and process and systems of reporting (75, representing 20.16% of facilitators).

CONCLUSION

A wide range of factors contributing to engagement in incident reporting exist. Efforts that address the current tendency to under-report must consider the full range of factors in order to develop interventions as well as a strategic policy approach for improvement.

Multidisciplinary training activities for decreasing preanalytical mistakes in samples from primary care

Background:

The presence of preanalytical mistakes (PM) in samples from primary care centres (PCC) is a widely studied topic. Different correcting strategies have been proposed, with variable success. We planned a series of multidisciplinary sessions for clinical update, with the aim to decrease PM rates in samples from PCC.

Methods:

The incidence of PM in samples from PCC processed at the laboratories of University Hospital Virgen de la Victoria (LAB1) and University Hospital Juan Ramon Jimenez (LAB2) was assessed during two time periods (October to November 2013 and January to May 2014). Clinical update sessions were conducted between periods (2014). Differences in PM rates between observation periods were evaluated.

Results:

With respect to 2014, we observed a significant reduction of PM rates in blood samples processed at LAB1 during 2015, whereas those in LAB2 were slightly increased. The most common PMs were haemolysed sample at LAB1 and missed sample at LAB2.

Conclusions:

Although the presence of PM remains slightly high, there was a significant reduction after the clinical update sessions in LAB1, where the most frequent PM was haemolysed sample. In contrast, the PM rates were slightly increased at LAB2, and the main source was missed sample. This might be explained, at least in part, by different problems associated with sample transportation, and by the delay in transferring acquired knowledge into clinical practice. Implementation of regular programme of update sessions and improvements in sample transportation might help to reduce the PM presence in our area.

Monitoring and reporting of preanalytical errors in laboratory medicine: the UK situation

Background

Most errors in the clinical laboratory occur in the preanalytical phase. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of preanalytical quality monitoring practices in UK clinical laboratories.

Methods

A survey was sent on behalf of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine Preanalytical Working Group (ACB-WG-PA) to all heads of department of clinical laboratories in the UK. The survey captured data on the analytical platform and Laboratory Information Management System in use; which preanalytical errors were recorded and how they were classified and gauged interest in an external quality assurance scheme for preanalytical errors.

Results

Of the 157 laboratories asked to participate, responses were received from 104 (66.2%). Laboratory error rates were recorded per number of specimens, rather than per number of requests in 51% of respondents. Aside from serum indices for haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia, which were measured in 80% of laboratories, the most common errors recorded were booking-in errors (70.1%) and sample mislabelling (56.9%) in laboratories who record preanalytical errors. Of the laboratories surveyed, 95.9% expressed an interest in guidance on recording preanalytical error and 91.8% expressed interest in an external quality assurance scheme.

Conclusions

This survey observes a wide variation in the definition, repertoire and collection methods for preanalytical errors in the UK. Data indicate there is a lot of interest in improving preanalytical data collection. The ACB-WG-PA aims to produce guidance and support for laboratories to standardize preanalytical data collection and to help establish and validate an external quality assurance scheme for interlaboratory comparison.

A content validated questionnaire for assessment of self reported venous blood sampling practices

BACKGROUND

Venous blood sampling is a common procedure in health care. It is strictly regulated by national and international guidelines. Deviations from guidelines due to human mistakes can cause patient harm. Validated questionnaires for health care personnel can be used to assess preventable "near misses"--i.e. potential errors and nonconformities during venous blood sampling practices that could transform into adverse events. However, no validated questionnaire that assesses nonconformities in venous blood sampling has previously been presented. The aim was to test a recently developed questionnaire in self reported venous blood sampling practices for validity and reliability.

FINDINGS

We developed a questionnaire to assess deviations from best practices during venous blood sampling. The questionnaire contained questions about patient identification, test request management, test tube labeling, test tube handling, information search procedures and frequencies of error reporting. For content validity, the questionnaire was confirmed by experts on questionnaires and venous blood sampling. For reliability, test-retest statistics were used on the questionnaire answered twice. The final venous blood sampling questionnaire included 19 questions out of which 9 had in total 34 underlying items. It was found to have content validity. The test-retest analysis demonstrated that the items were generally stable. In total, 82% of the items fulfilled the reliability acceptance criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The questionnaire could be used for assessment of "near miss" practices that could jeopardize patient safety and gives several benefits instead of assessing rare adverse events only. The higher frequencies of "near miss" practices allows for quantitative analysis of the effect of corrective interventions and to benchmark preanalytical quality not only at the laboratory/hospital level but also at the health care unit/hospital ward.

Preanalytical phase--a continuous challenge for laboratory professionals

Preanalytical phase is the most vulnerable part of the total testing process and is considered to be among the greatest challenges to the laboratory professionals. However, preanalytical activities, management of unsuitable specimens and reporting policies are not fully standardized, nor harmonized worldwide. Several standards related to blood sampling and sample transportation and handling are available, but compliance to those guidelines is low, especially outside the laboratory and if blood sampling is done without the direct supervision of the laboratory staff. Furthermore, for some most critical procedures within the preanalytical phase, internationally accepted guidelines and recommendations as well as related quality measures are unfortunately unavailable. There is large heterogeneity in the criteria for sample rejection, the different strategies by which unacceptable samples are managed, processed and test results reported worldwide. Management of unacceptable specimens warrants therefore immediate harmonization. Alongside the challenging and long road of patient safety, preanalytical phase offers room for improvement, and Editors at Biochemia Medica Journal definitely hope to continue providing a respective mean for reporting studies on different preanalytical phase topics. With pleasure and delight we invite potential future authors to submit their articles examining the quality of various preanalytical activities to Biochemia Medica. We will keep nurturing this topic as our prominent feature and by this we hope to be able to deliver valid evidence for some future guidelines and recommendations.

Role of training activities for the reduction of pre-analytical errors in laboratory samples from primary care

BACKGROUND

The presence of pre-analytical errors (PE) is a usual contingency in laboratories. The incidence may increase where it is difficult to control that period, as it is the case with samples sent from primary care (PC) to clinical reference laboratory. Detection of a large number of PE in PC samples in our Institution led to the development and implementation of preventive strategies. The first of these has been the realization of a cycle of educational sessions for PC nurses, followed by the evaluation of their impact on PE number.

METHODS

The incidence of PE was assessed in two periods, before (October-November 2007) and after (October-November, 2009) the implementation of educational sessions. Eleven PC centers in the urban area and 17 in the rural area participated. In the urban area, samples were withdrawn by any PC nurse; in the rural area, samples were obtained by the patient's reference nurse. The types of analyzed PE included missed sample (MS), hemolyzed sample (HS), coagulated sample (CS), incorrect sample (ISV) and others (OPE), such as lipemic or icteric serum or plasma.

RESULTS

In the former period, we received 52,669 blood samples and 18,852 urine samples, detecting 3885 (7.5%) and 1567 (8.3%) PEs, respectively. After the educational intervention, there were 52,659 and 19,048 samples with 5057 (9.6%) and 1.256 (6.5%) PEs, respectively (p<0.001). According to the type of PE, the incidents compared before and after compared incidences were: MS, 4.8% vs. 3.8%, p<0.001; HS, 1.97% vs. 3.9%, p<0.001; CS, 0.54% vs. 0.25%, p<0.001; ISV, 0.15% vs. 0.19% p=0.08; and OPE, 0.3% vs. 0.42%, p<0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Surprisingly the PE incidence increased after the educational intervention, although it should be noted that it was primarily due to the increase of HS, as the other EP incidence decreased (MS and CS) or remained unchanged (ISV). This seems to indicate the need for a comprehensive approach to reduce the incidence of errors in the pre-analytical period, as one stage interventions do not seem to be effective enough.

Similarity in predictors between near miss and adverse event among Japanese nurses working at teaching hospitals

Near miss-based analysis has been recently suggested to be more important in the medical field than focusing on adverse events, as in the industrial field. To validate the utility of near miss-based analysis in the medical fields, we investigated whether or not predictors of near misses and adverse events were similar among nurses at teaching hospitals. Of the 1,860 nurses approached, 1,737 (93.4%) were included in the final analysis. Potential predictors provided for analysis included gender, age, years of nursing experience, frequency of alcohol consumption, work place, ward rotation, frequency of night shifts, sleepiness during work, frequency of feeling unskilled, nurses' job stressors, working conditions, and depression. Variables for multivariate analysis were determined by bivariable analysis. Ordinal logistic analysis showed that predictors of near misses and adverse events were markedly similar. Parameters that were significantly related to both near misses and adverse events were years of experience, frequency of night shifts, internal ward, and time pressure (p<0.05 for all). The present study suggested that there was a negligible difference between choosing near miss- or adverse event-based analysis when identifying possible causes of adverse events in the medical field.