Synesis as a framework to enable safety interventions in complex healthcare environments.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Open Quality Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002880
Aarti Bavare, Tiffany Wrenn, Anne Lam, Jamie Cargill, Lauren Salinas, Itode Idowu, Asma Razavi, Venessa Lynn Pinto, Eric Williams
{"title":"Synesis as a framework to enable safety interventions in complex healthcare environments.","authors":"Aarti Bavare, Tiffany Wrenn, Anne Lam, Jamie Cargill, Lauren Salinas, Itode Idowu, Asma Razavi, Venessa Lynn Pinto, Eric Williams","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite wide adoption in the healthcare of safety event report (SER) systems, there is a paucity of unified structures for prompt analysis and action while retaining reporter confidentiality. We used a synesis framework to change siloed reviews of safety reports to a comprehensive appraisal of quality, safety, productivity and reliability to facilitate interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After a needs assessment survey, we launched serial plan-do-study-act cycles to (1) enhance teams' ability to access SERs, (2) facilitate regular multidisciplinary review of SERs to identify actionable opportunities, (3) allocate action priority using failure mode and effects analysis, and (4) launch actions and summarise data. Team of Teams model allowed for empowered execution. Measures included process-completion of review, team engagement, proportion of 'open' (those without action plan) reports within 1 month of filing; outcome-number of actions launched and completed, dissemination of actions and postintervention survey results; and balancing-resources invested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>26 multidisciplinary leaders reviewed 3175 of the 3406 total reported SERs across four clinical units over 18 months. The proportion of reviewed to total SERs increased significantly from the first 6 months (75%) to the second 12 months (99%) (p<0.001), and the proportion of 'open' to reviewed SERs decreased significantly from 43% to 5.3% (p<0.001). Many local- and organisational-level actions were launched efficiently by the engaged and aligned team. Action impact was assessed by reviewing trends in SER themes and findings, and actions and impact were disseminated at unit, divisional and organisational levels. Postintervention survey showed improvement in leaders' perceptions about SER reviews.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>We successfully implemented a sustainable process to comprehensively review, prioritise and act on SERs in our large institution and facilitated safety interventions using a synesis framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite wide adoption in the healthcare of safety event report (SER) systems, there is a paucity of unified structures for prompt analysis and action while retaining reporter confidentiality. We used a synesis framework to change siloed reviews of safety reports to a comprehensive appraisal of quality, safety, productivity and reliability to facilitate interventions.

Methods: After a needs assessment survey, we launched serial plan-do-study-act cycles to (1) enhance teams' ability to access SERs, (2) facilitate regular multidisciplinary review of SERs to identify actionable opportunities, (3) allocate action priority using failure mode and effects analysis, and (4) launch actions and summarise data. Team of Teams model allowed for empowered execution. Measures included process-completion of review, team engagement, proportion of 'open' (those without action plan) reports within 1 month of filing; outcome-number of actions launched and completed, dissemination of actions and postintervention survey results; and balancing-resources invested.

Results: 26 multidisciplinary leaders reviewed 3175 of the 3406 total reported SERs across four clinical units over 18 months. The proportion of reviewed to total SERs increased significantly from the first 6 months (75%) to the second 12 months (99%) (p<0.001), and the proportion of 'open' to reviewed SERs decreased significantly from 43% to 5.3% (p<0.001). Many local- and organisational-level actions were launched efficiently by the engaged and aligned team. Action impact was assessed by reviewing trends in SER themes and findings, and actions and impact were disseminated at unit, divisional and organisational levels. Postintervention survey showed improvement in leaders' perceptions about SER reviews.

Summary: We successfully implemented a sustainable process to comprehensively review, prioritise and act on SERs in our large institution and facilitated safety interventions using a synesis framework.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Synesis是一个框架,可在复杂的医疗保健环境中实现安全干预。
背景:尽管在医疗安全事件报告(SER)系统中广泛采用,但缺乏统一的结构来及时分析和采取行动,同时保留报告者的机密性。我们使用综合框架将安全报告的孤立审查转变为对质量、安全性、生产率和可靠性的综合评估,以促进干预措施。方法:在需求评估调查之后,我们启动了一系列计划-执行-研究-行动周期,以(1)增强团队访问SERs的能力,(2)促进对SERs的定期多学科审查,以确定可操作的机会,(3)使用失效模式和效果分析分配行动优先级,以及(4)启动行动并总结数据。团队的团队模型允许授权执行。衡量标准包括审查流程的完成情况、团队参与度、在1个月内提交“开放”(没有行动计划)报告的比例;结果——发起和完成的行动数量、行动的传播和干预后调查结果;平衡资源投入。结果:26名多学科领导在18个月内审查了4个临床单位3406例报告SERs中的3175例。从前6个月(75%)到后12个月(99%),审查的SERs占总SERs的比例显著增加(pSummary:我们成功实施了一个可持续的流程,在我们的大型机构中全面审查、优先考虑SERs并采取行动,并使用综合框架促进安全干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the implementation of a multicomponent intervention to improve faecal immunochemical test-based (FIT) colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Developing and piloting a peer quality improvement coaching protocol for front-line healthcare staff. Improving quality and outcomes of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in refractory cardiac arrest: the Phoenix ECPR project. What about physician wellness? Impact of a quality improvement intervention. Continuous individual feedback to nurses at emergency medical dispatch centres: a stepped-wedge, interrupted time series analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1