Involving Patients and Families in the Analysis of Suicides, Suicide Attempts, and Other Sentinel Events in Mental Healthcare: A Qualitative Study in The Netherlands

Patient perspectives on adverse event investigations in health care

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade attention has grown to give patients and next of kin (P/N) more substantial roles in adverse event investigations. Adverse event investigations occur after adverse events that resulted in death or severe injury. Few studies have focused on patient perspectives on their involvement in such investigations. The present study sets out to investigate how P/N and patient representatives (client councils and the Patient Federation Netherlands) view the involvement of P/N in adverse event investigations, particularly whether and why they want to involved, and how they want to shape their involvement.

METHODS

The study features qualitative data on three levels: interviews with P/N (personal), focus groups with representatives of client councils (institutional), and an interview with the Patient Federation Netherlands (national). Researchers used inductive, thematic analysis and validated the results through data source triangulation.

RESULTS

The initiative taken by the hospitals in this study provided P/N with the space to feel heard and a position as legitimate stakeholder. P/N appreciated the opportunity to choose whether and how they wanted to be involved in the investigation as stakeholders. P/N emphasized the need for hospitals to learn from the investigations, but for them the investigation was also part of a more encompassing relationship. P/N's views showed the inextricable link between the first conversation with the health care professional and the investigation, and the ongoing care after the investigation was finalized. Hence, an adverse event investigation is part of a broader experience when understood from a patient perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

An adverse event investigation should be considered as part of an existing relationship between P/N and hospital that starts before the investigation and continues during follow up care. It is crucial for hospitals to take the initiative in the investigation and in the involvement of P/N. P/N motivations for involvement can be understood as driven by agency or communion. Agentic motivations include being an active participant by choice, while communion motivations include the need to be heard.

The process and perspective of serious incident investigations in adult community mental health services: integrative review and synthesis

AIMS AND METHOD

Serious incident management and organisational learning are international patient safety priorities. Little is known about the quality of suicide investigations and, in turn, the potential for organisational learning. Suicide risk assessment is acknowledged as a complex phenomenon, particularly in the context of adult community mental health services. Root cause analysis (RCA) is the dominant investigative approach, although the evidence base underpinning RCA is contested, with little attention paid to the patient in context and their cumulative risk over time.

RESULTS

Recent literature proposes a safety-II approach in response to the limitations of RCA. The importance of applying these approaches within a mental healthcare system that advocates a zero suicide framework, grounded in a restorative just culture, is highlighted.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Although integrative reviews and syntheses have clear methodological limitations, this approach facilitates the management of a disparate body of work to advance a critical understanding of patient safety in adult community mental healthcare.

Six Major Steps to Make Investigations of Suicide Valuable for Learning and Prevention

OBJECTIVE

The decline in suicide rates has leveled off in many countries during the last decade, suggesting that new interventions are needed in the work with suicide prevention. Learnings from investigations of suicide should contribute to the development of these new interventions. However, reviews of investigations have indicated that few new lessons have been learned. To be an effective tool, revisions of the current investigation methods are required. This review aimed to describe the problems with the current approaches to investigations of suicide as patient harm and to propose ways to move forward.

METHODS

Narrative literature review.

RESULTS

Several weaknesses in the current approaches to investigations were identified. These include failures in embracing patient and system perspectives, not addressing relevant factors, and insufficient competence of the investigation teams. Investigation methods need to encompass the progress of knowledge about suicidal behavior, suicide prevention, and patient safety.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for a paradigm shift in the approaches to investigations of suicide as potential patient harm to enable learning and insights valuable for healthcare improvement. Actions to support this paradigm shift include involvement of patients and families, education for investigators, multidisciplinary analysis teams with competence in and access to relevant parts across organizations, and triage of cases for extensive analyses. A new model for the investigation of suicide that support these actions should facilitate this paradigm shift.HIGHLIGHTSThere are weaknesses in the current approaches to investigations of suicide.A paradigm shift in investigations is needed to contribute to a better understanding of suicide.New knowledge of suicidal behavior, prevention, and patient safety must be applied.

Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence to improve understanding of the processes and outcomes of redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the event and their families.

METHODS

We searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life-changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full-text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts.

FINDINGS

Fifty-three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty-one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes 'Transparency', 'Person-centered' and 'Trustworthy' represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, 'Restorative justice' encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life-changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress-reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress-reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life-changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review.

Patient and Family Involvement in Serious Incident Investigations From the Perspectives of Key Stakeholders: A Review of the Qualitative Evidence

OBJECTIVES

Investigations of healthcare harm often overlook the valuable insights of patients and families. Our review aimed to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders when patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations.

METHODS

The authors searched three databases (Medline, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and Connected Papers software for qualitative studies in which patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations until no new articles were found.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven papers were eligible. The perspectives of patients and families, healthcare professionals, nonclinical staff, and legal staff were sought across acute, mental health and maternity settings. Most patients and families valued being involved; however, it was important that investigations were flexible and sensitive to both clinical and emotional aspects of care to avoid compounding harm. This included the following: early active listening with empathy for trauma, sincere and timely apology, fostering trust and transparency, making realistic timelines clear, and establishing effective nonadversarial communication. Most staff perceived that patient and family involvement could improve investigation quality, promote an open culture, and help ensure future safety. However, it was made difficult when multidisciplinary input was absent, workload and staff turnover were high, training and support needs were unmet, and fears surrounded litigation. Potential solutions included enhancing the clarity of roles and responsibilities, adequately training staff, and providing long and short-term support to stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides insights to ensure patient and family involvement in serious incident investigations considers both clinical and emotional aspects of care, is meaningful for all key stakeholders, and avoids compounding harm. However, significant gaps in the literature remain.

Role of the regulator in enabling a just culture: a qualitative study in mental health and hospital care

OBJECTIVES

A just culture is considered a promising way to improve patient safety and working conditions in the healthcare sector, and as such is also of relevance to healthcare regulators who are tasked with monitoring and overseeing quality and safety of care. The objective of the current study is to explore the experiences in healthcare organisations regarding the role of the healthcare inspectorate in enabling a just culture.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using interviews and focus groups that were transcribed verbatim, and observations of which written reports were made. Transcripts and observation reports were thematically analysed.

SETTING

Three mental healthcare providers, two hospitals and the healthcare inspectorate in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

We conducted 61 interviews and 7 focus groups with healthcare professionals, managers and other staff in healthcare organisations and with inspectors. Additionally, 27 observations were conducted in healthcare organisations.

RESULTS

We identified three themes in our data. First, professionals and managers in healthcare organisations perceive the inspectorate as a potential catalyst for learning processes, for example, as an instigator of investigating incidents thoroughly, yet also as a potential barrier as its presence and procedures limit how open employees feel they can be. Second, a just culture is considered relational and layered, meaning that relationships between different layers within or outside the organisation might hinder or promote a just culture. Finally, for inspectors to enable a just culture requires finding a balance between allowing organisations the time to take responsibility for quality and safety issues, and timely regulatory intervention when healthcare providers are unwilling or unable to act.

CONCLUSIONS

If regulators intend to enable the development of a just culture within healthcare organisations, they must adopt regulatory procedures that support reflection and learning within the organisations they regulate and consider mutual trust as a vital regulatory tool.

Adverse event reviews in healthcare: what matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family

OBJECTIVES

Explore what 'good' patient and family involvement in healthcare adverse event reviews may involve.

DESIGN

Data was collected using semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using an inductive thematic approach.

SETTING

NHS Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

19 interviews were conducted with patients who had experienced an adverse event during the provision of their healthcare or their family member.

RESULTS

Four key themes were derived from these interviews: trauma, communication, learning and litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many advantages of actively involving patients and their families in adverse event reviews. An open, collaborative, person-centred approach which listens to, and involves, patients and their families is perceived to lead to improved outcomes. For the patient and their family, it can help with reconciliation following a traumatic event and help restore their faith in the healthcare system. For the health service, listening and involving people will likely enhance learning with subsequent improvements in healthcare provision with reduction in risk of similar events occurring for other patients. This study suggests eight recommendations for involving patients and families in adverse event reviews using the APICCTHS model (table 3) which includes an apology, person-centred inclusive communication, closing the loop, timeliness, putting patients and families at the heart of the review with appropriate support for staff involved. Communicating in a compassionate manner could also decrease litigation claims following an adverse event.

Coexisting service-related factors preceding suicide: a network analysis

OBJECTIVES

The overall objective was to analyse service-related factors involved in the complex processes that precede suicide in order to identify potential targets for intervention.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Explorative network analysis study of post-suicide root cause analysis data from Swedish primary and secondary healthcare.

PARTICIPANTS

217 suicide cases reported to the Swedish national root cause analysis database between 2012 and 2017.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

A total of 961 reported incidents were included. Demographic data and frequencies of reported deficiencies were registered. Topology, centrality indices and communities were explored for three networks. All networks have been tested for robustness and accuracy.

RESULTS

Lack of follow-up, evaluations and insufficient documentation issues emerged as central in the network of major themes, as did the contributing factors representing organisational problems, failing procedures and miscommunication. When analysing the subthemes of deficiencies more closely, disrupted treatments and staffing issues emerged as prominent features. The network covering the subthemes of contributing factors also highlighted discontinuity, fragile work structures, inadequate routines, and lack of resources and relevant competence as potential triggers. However, as the correlation stability coefficients for this network were low, the results need further investigation. Four communities were detected covering nodes for follow-up, evaluation, cooperation, and procedures; communication, documentation and organisation; assessments of suicide risk and psychiatric status; and staffing, missed appointments and declined treatment.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that healthcare providers may improve patient safety in suicide preventive pathways by taking active measures to provide regular follow-ups to patients with elevated suicide risk. In some cases, declined or cancelled appointments could be a warning sign. Tentative results show organisational instability, in terms of work structure, resources and staffing, as a potential target for intervention, although this must be more extensively explored in the future.

Next-of-Kin Involvement in Regulatory Investigations of Adverse Events That Caused Patient Death: A Process Evaluation (Part II: The Inspectors' Perspective)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore regulatory inspectors' experiences with a new method for next-of-kin involvement in investigation of adverse events causing patient death. A resilient healthcare perspective is used as the theoretical foundation.

METHODS

The study design was a qualitative process evaluation of the new involvement method in 2 Norwegian counties. Next of kin, who had lost a close family member in an adverse event, were invited to a 2-hour face-to-face meeting with the inspectors. Data collection involved 3 focus group interviews with regulatory inspectors and observation (20 hours) of the meetings (2017-2018). Data were analyzed by a thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Next-of-kin involvement informed the investigations by additional and new information about the adverse events and by different versions of the investigators' earlier obtained information, such as time sequences, what happened and how, and who were involved. Inspectors considered next of kin as a key source of information that contributed to improve the quality of the investigation. The downside was that the involvement method increased work load and could challenge the principle of equal treatment in regulatory practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Involvement of next of kin in regulatory investigation of adverse events causing patient death contributes to a better understanding of work as done in clinical practice and contributes to strengthen the learning potential in resilience.

Next of Kin Involvement in Regulatory Investigations of Adverse Events That Caused Patient Death: A Process Evaluation (Part I - The Next of Kin's Perspective)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore experiences from the next of kin's perspective of a new involvement method in the regulatory investigation process of adverse events causing patient death.

METHODS

The study design was a qualitative process evaluation of the new involvement method in two Norwegian counties. Next of kin who had lost a close family member in an adverse event were invited to a 2-hour face-to-face meeting with regulatory inspectors to shed light on the event from the next of kin's perspective. Data collection involved 18 interviews with 29 next of kin who had participated in the meeting and observations (20 hours) of meetings from 2017 to 2018. Data were analyzed using a thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Next of kin wanted to be involved and had in-depth knowledge about the adverse event and the healthcare system. Their involvement extended beyond sharing information, and some experienced it as having a therapeutic effect and contributing to transparency and trust building. The inspectors' professional, social, and human skills determined the experiences of the involvement and were key for next of kin's positive experiences. The meeting was emotionally challenging, and some next of kin found it difficult to understand the regulators' independent role and suggested improving information given to the next of kin before the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the meeting was emotionally challenging, the next of kin had a positive experience of being involved in the investigation and believed that their information contributed to improving the investigation process.

The human approach to supportive interventions: The lived experience of people who care for others who suicide attempt

There is currently limited information about the impact and experiences of a suicide attempt on the well-being of a person providing care before, during, or after the attempt. Scant evidence available suggests that providing care has a profound impact on the support person or carers' own physical and psychological health; they may experience adverse health, financial, and functional outcomes, collectively described as 'caregiver burden'. This project sought to understand insights into the experience of providing care for someone who has previously attempted suicide. The larger study was designed in three phases consisting of an online survey, semi-structured interviews, and a follow-up survey. This paper reports the qualitative findings of the interviews which were thematically analysed. Two symbiotic themes emerged: the lived experience of caring and the impact of engagement and support from the healthcare system. The authors concluded that that the carer position is a multidimensional role involving informal agreements and situational or time-based support. Further, awareness of this shifting relationship needs to be embedded in the provision of care by health professionals following a suicide attempt. Recommendations for enhanced health system response are proposed.

What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries

Background

In the regulation of healthcare, the subject of patient and family involvement figures increasingly prominently on the agenda. However, the literature on involving patients and families in regulation is still in its infancy. A systematic analysis of how patient and family involvement in regulation is accomplished across different health systems is lacking. We provide such an overview by mapping and classifying methods of patient and family involvement in regulatory practice in four countries; Norway, England, the Netherlands, and Australia. We thus provide a knowledge base that enables discussions about possible types of involvement, and advantages and difficulties of involvement encountered in practice.

Methods

The research design was a multiple case study of patient and family involvement in regulation in four countries. The authors collected 1) academic literature if available and 2) documents of regulators that describe user involvement. Based on the data collected, the authors from each country completed a pre-agreed template to describe the involvement methods. The following information was extracted and included where available: 1) Method of involvement, 2) Type of regulatory activity, 3) Purpose of involvement, 4) Who is involved and 5) Lessons learnt.

Results

Our mapping of involvement strategies showed a range of methods being used in regulation, which we classified into four categories: individual proactive, individual reactive, collective proactive, and collective reactive methods. Reported advantages included: increased quality of regulation, increased legitimacy, perceived justice for those affected, and empowerment. Difficulties were also reported concerning: how to incorporate the input of users in decisions, the fact that not all users want to be involved, time and costs required, organizational procedures standing in the way of involvement, and dealing with emotions.

Conclusions

Our mapping of user involvement strategies establishes a broad variety of ways to involve patients and families. The four categories can serve as inspiration to regulators in healthcare. The paper shows that stimulating involvement in regulation is a challenging and complex task. The fact that regulators are experimenting with different methods can be viewed positively in this regard.

The patient died: What about involvement in the investigation process?

Patient and family involvement is high on the international quality and safety agenda. In this paper, we consider possible ways of involving families in investigations of fatal adverse events and how their greater participation might improve the quality of investigations. The aim is to increase awareness among healthcare professionals, accident investigators, policymakers and researchers and examine how research and practice can develop in this emerging field. In contrast to relying mainly on documentation and staff recollections, family involvement can result in the investigation having access to richer information, a more holistic picture of the event and new perspectives on who was involved and can positively contribute to the family’s emotional satisfaction and perception of justice being done. There is limited guidance and research on how to constitute effective involvement. There is a need for co-designing the investigation process, explicitly agreeing the family’s level of involvement, supporting and preparing the family, providing easily accessible user-friendly language and using different methods of involvement (e.g. individual interviews, focus group interviews and questionnaires), depending on the family’s needs.