Journal of Patient Safety最新文献

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the incidence and types of adverse events (AEs), including preventable and ameliorable AEs, in patients transitioning from the emergency department (ED) to the inpatient setting. A second objective was to examine the risk factors for patients with AEs.

Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients at risk for AEs in 2 urban academic hospitals from August 2020 to January 2022. Eighty-one eligible patients who were being admitted to any internal medicine or hospitalist service were recruited from the ED of these hospitals by a trained nurse. The nurse conducted a structured interview during admission and referred possible AEs for adjudication. Two blinded trained physicians using a previously established methodology adjudicated AEs.

Results: Over 22% of 81 patients experienced AEs from the ED to the inpatient setting. The most common AEs were adverse drug events (42%), followed by management (38%), and diagnostic errors (21%). Of these AEs, 75% were considered preventable. Patients who stayed in the ED longer were more likely to experience an AE (adjusted odds ratio = 1.99, 95% confidence interval = 1.19-3.32, P = 0.01).

Conclusions: AEs were common for patients transitioning from the ED to the inpatient setting. Further research is needed to understand the underlying causes of AEs that occur when patients transition from the ED to the inpatient setting. Understanding the contribution of factors such as length of stay in the ED will significantly help efforts to develop targeted interventions to improve this crucial transition of care.

Objectives: The aims of the study are to investigate differences in rates of adverse safety events between nonelderly adult patients with Medicaid and those with private insurance and to assess whether differences are driven by differences in access to quality hospitals or differences in the quality of care delivered within hospitals.

Data source: Inpatient records from 26 states in 2017 were collected from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality's Hospital Cost and Utilization Project.

Study design: This study measures differences in 11 patient safety indicators between patients with Medicaid coverage and patients with private insurance coverage. I use regression analysis to investigate differences in adverse safety events within hospitals. I further establish hospital-level quality based on overall rates of adverse safety events and use regression analysis to evaluate the difference in the probability of admission to high-quality hospitals.

Data collection/extraction: This study uses hospital discharge data that is restricted to adults ages 19-64 with Medicaid or private coverage.

Principal findings: Relative to privately insured patients, Medicaid patients had significantly higher rates of adverse safety events on 8 of 11 patient safety indicators, including on 6 of 7 surgery-related patient safety indicators. Medicaid patients experience respiratory failure and sepsis infections at rates that are 2.9 and 2.5 cases per 1000 greater than rates experienced by privately insured patients. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, patient diagnostic classifications and comorbidities, and geographic factors, 6 of 11 differences in patient safety indicators remained large and statistically significant. These differences were unchanged when further including hospital indicators, indicating that Medicaid and privately insured patients receive different quality of care within hospitals. There is little association between overall hospital quality and differences in the probability of admission between Medicaid and privately covered patients.

Conclusions: Medicaid patients received lower quality of care, based on patient safety metrics, relative to privately insured patients within the same hospitals. Reducing payer disparities in adverse safety events requires reforming staffing and treatment patterns for Medicaid and privately insured patients within hospitals.

Study date and location: Analysis for this study was conducted in 2023 at the Urban Institute and at Loyola University Chicago.

Introduction: Patient safety (PS) is a global public health concern. It is estimated that 10% of patients experience preventable harm while hospitalized. Patient safety culture (PSC) has been recognized as essential to improving PS, drawing inspiration from other high-risk industries. In PS research, however, PSC poses conceptual challenges, with inconsistent terminology, a lack of definitions, and limited use of substantiating theory. Despite these challenges, PSC remains widely used in PS research and practice, as it is seen as a potential gateway to understanding sociotechnical complex aspects of the healthcare system and improving safe patient treatment and care.

Objectives: This review explores the concept of PSC in a hospital setting. How PSC is used as an outcome, thus exploring the theoretical position underpinning PSC, which predictors impact PSC, and how these predictors are related to PSC.

Method: Using a search of 3 electronic databases, 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for review.

Results: The review identified 81 predictors of PSC. Study population, unit of analysis and method varied widely. PSC as an outcome was assessed based on one of 4 surveys. Thus, the underpinning position of the PSC construct is dominated by an organizational/managerial approach.

Conclusions: The large number of predictors explored and the range in outcome measures, units of analysis, and methods make it hard to establish any causal relationship. We argue that studies closer to actual practices in the messy conditions of clinical practice are needed.

Background: The involvement of patients or next of kin (P/N) after a serious adverse event (SAE) is evolving. Beyond providing mandatory information, there is growing recognition of the need to incorporate their interests. This study explores practical manifestations of P/N involvement and identifies significant considerations for hospitals.

Methods: The data collection involved various qualitative research methods: 7 focus groups with 56 professionals from 37 hospitals, an interview with 2 representatives from the Dutch Association of Hospitals, and an interactive reflection seminar with over 60 participants from 34 hospitals. Before the focus groups, a brief questionnaire was sent out to survey participants' practices regarding into SAE investigations. After the study, another questionnaire was distributed to gather suggestions for future improvements and to identify their lessons learned. Thematic analysis was applied to the gathered data to identify key themes.

Results: Hospitals are increasingly acknowledging the interests and perspectives of P/N, recognizing their potential contributions to organizational learning and improvement. P/N involvement following SAEs includes active participation in different stages of the investigation process, not just passive information dissemination. Important factors influencing involvement are the provision of (emotional) support, identification of needs, and transparency of the SAE investigation.

Conclusions: This study enhances understanding of evolving practices surrounding P/N involvement in the context of SAEs in Dutch hospitals. The findings highlight the importance of promoting meaningful involvement, recognizing the significance of P/N experiences, and fostering a culture of transparency and collaboration. By examining the dynamics of involvement, this research aims to inform policy development and facilitate the implementation of patient-centered approaches to post-SAE care.

Objectives: One in 20 outpatients in the United States experiences a diagnostic error each year, but there are no validated methods for collecting feedback from patients on diagnostic safety. We examined patient experience surveys to determine whether patients' free text comments indicated diagnostic breakdowns. Our objective was to evaluate associations between patient-perceived diagnostic breakdowns reported in free text comments and patients' responses to structured survey questions.

Methods: We conducted an exploratory mixed methods study using data from patient experience surveys collected from adult ambulatory care patients March 2020 to June 2020 in a large U.S. health system. Data analysis included content analysis of qualitative data and statistical analysis of quantitative data.

Results: In 2525 surveys with negative comments, 619 patients (24.5%) identified diagnostic breakdowns, including issues with accuracy (n = 282, 46%), timeliness (n = 243, 39%), or communication (n = 290, 47%); some patients (n = 181) reported breakdowns in multiple categories. Patients who gave a low average score (50 or less on a 100-point scale) on provider questions were almost seven times more likely to perceive a diagnostic breakdown than patients who scored their provider higher. Similarly, patients who gave a low average score on practice-related questions were twice as likely to perceive a diagnostic breakdown.

Conclusions: Patient feedback in routinely collected patient experience surveys is a valuable and actionable information source on diagnostic breakdowns in the ambulatory setting. The more easily monitored structured survey data provide a screening method to identify encounters that may have included a patient-perceived diagnostic breakdown and therefore require further examination.

Introduction: Air embolism is a potentially serious complication of central venous catheter (CVC) use. While CVC insertion is usually performed by a trained specialist, extraction is frequently the responsibility of junior staff members. This complication can be easily prevented by following several simple measures described in common guidelines.

Aim: We conducted a single-center survey to assess knowledge and practices concerning the prevention of air embolism associated with CVC removal among healthcare workers from nonintensive care units.

Methods: The correct answers to the questionnaire were determined according to best-practice recommendations for CVC removal. Based on a comparison of the total sum of correct answers between the categories of groups, factors that predicted the level of knowledge were identified using an independent sample t test.

Results: Of the 156 respondents, one-third were unfamiliar with air embolism as a complication of CVC extraction. Almost 80% were unaware of the existence of a CVC removal protocol. Almost half of respondents did not follow guidelines regarding patient position when removing a CVC, 72% did not ask the patient to perform the Valsalva maneuver during the procedure, and 54% did not ask the patient to remain supine after the procedure. Adherence to the protocol was correlated with professional experience, with a lower level among those with experience of less than 1 year and, particularly, among interns.

Conclusions: Our survey revealed inappropriately low awareness of CVC removal-associated air embolism risk and low familiarity with CVC removal best-practice recommendations among nonintensive care unit healthcare workers. Staff members with experience of less than 1 year, including interns, were found to have a lower level of knowledge. These findings emphasize the importance of development and distribution an internal hospital protocol and the integration of educational intervention into a preliminary internship program.

Background: Medical errors are responsible for a large number of deaths every year in the Unites States. Hospitals use various strategies including leadership, staffing, and structural changes to deal with this concerning issue. Hospital physician integration is a structural strategy to possibly improve patient safety. Using the conceptual lens of Donabedian's Structure Process Outcome model, this study aims to investigate how hospital physician integration affects organizational, management, and communication attributes of patient safety culture.

Methods: A pooled cross sectional study design using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, the American Hospital Association data, and Area Health Resource File was used to analyze the relationship between hospital physician integration and organizational and management patient safety culture attributes. The dataset comprised of hospital level data from 2021 and 2022 for patient safety culture and hospital characteristics and contained a final sample of 205 observations. The independent variable was levels of integration across five levels. Three attributes of safety culture were chosen-positive perceptions of communication openness, organizational learning, and hospital management support for patient safety. The control variables were organizational characteristics. Multivariable linear regression was used as the analytic method.

Results: Findings demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between higher level of hospital physician integration and positive perceptions of hospital management support for patient safety. There are 0.063 higher positive perceptions of hospital management support for patient safety for higher levels of integration compared with lower levels of integration ( P < 0.05). Perceptions of communication openness and organizational learning did not demonstrate a statistically significant correlation with any level of hospital physician integration.

Conclusions: Hospital physician integration and hospital management support for patient safety were moderately but significantly related. Hospital physician integration allows resources to become available for physician. As physicians take on management roles management of resources and eventually performance can improve, there is a need for future research in this area to examine if integration is a step in the right direction to overcome the challenges of patient safety and if investments in resources and training can be beneficial to safety culture.