Journal of Patient Safety最新文献

Objective: Healthcare workers involved in, and negatively affected by, patient safety incidents are referred to as second victims. The Second Victim Experience and Support Tool-Revised (SVEST-R) can reveal the second victim's degree of negative experiences and the desirability of the support options. However, a Japanese version of the SVEST-R (J-SVESTR) has not yet been developed. This study aimed to translate and adapt the SVEST-R into Japanese and validate its psychometric properties.

Methods: We performed forward and back translations of the SVEST-R and evaluated its clarity and content validity. Subsequently, we administered a cross-sectional questionnaire survey to evaluate the construct validity, internal consistency, and retest reliability of the J-SVESTR.

Results: The J-SVESTR was finalized with clarity and content validity supported by a pilot test and an expert panel. In total, 224 healthcare workers responded to the J-SVESTR survey. The 9 factors and 35 items model indicated an acceptable fit (χ2/df = 1.811, root mean square error of approximation = 0.060, comparative fit index = 0.871, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.854, standardized root mean squared residual = 0.077). Cronbach's α values ranged from 0.68 to 0.85. The intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.63 to 0.87.

Conclusions: The J-SVESTR retained 9 factors and 35 items, with no item changes from the original. The psychometric properties of the J-SVESTR are acceptable. The J-SVESTR can help investigate the actual situation and desired support options for second victims in Japan.

Objective: The aim of the study is to understand whether the risk factors of the unplanned extubation (UE) of nasogastric (NG) tubes vary among different inpatient situations.

Methods: Inpatients who experienced UE between 2009 and 2022 at a medical center were selected, and electronic medical records were used to collect patient background data and their conditions during UE. A total of 302 patients were included in our analysis.

Results: Conscious patients were at greater risk of UE when coughing, scratching their nose, blowing their nose, or sneezing than those who were confused (odds ratio [OR] = 0.07, P < 0.001) and those who were drowsy or comatose (OR = 0.15, P = 0.026). During activity, repositioning, bathing, or changing incontinence pads, the risk of UE was higher in patients whose hands were not restrained at the time of UE than in those whose hands were restrained (OR = 0.05, P = 0.004), higher in those with companions than in those without companions (OR = 7.78, P = 0.002), and higher in those with longer NG tube placement time (OR = 1.05, P = 0.008). Accidental extubation (OR = 2.62, P = 0.007) occurred more frequently during activity, repositioning, bathing, or changing incontinence pads.

Conclusions: There is an increased risk of UE in conscious patients during activity, repositioning, bathing, or changing incontinence pads. Patients inserted with an NG tube for a longer period of time were at greater risk of accidental extubation during activity, repositioning, bathing, or changing incontinence pads irrespective of whether a companion could aid them if their hands were or were not restrained.

Objective: Conduct systematic proactive pharmacovigilance screening for symptoms patients experienced after starting new medications using an electronic patient portal. We aimed to design and test the feasibility of the system, measure patient response rates, provide any needed support for patients experiencing potentially drug-related problems, and describe types of symptoms and problems patients report.

Methods: We created an automated daily report of all new prescriptions, excluding likely non-new and various over-the-counter meds, and sent invitations via patient portal inviting patients to inquire if they had started the medication, and if "yes," inquire if they had they experienced any new symptoms that could be potential adverse drug effects. Reported symptoms were classified by clinical pharmacists using SOC MeDra taxonomy, and patients were offered follow-up and support as desired and needed.

Results: Of 11,724 included prescriptions for 9360 unique patients, 2758 (29.4%) patients responded. Of 2616 unique medication starts, patients reported at least 1 new symptom that represented a potential adverse drug reaction (ADR) in 678/2616 (25.9%). Nearly one-third of those experiencing new symptoms (30.3%) reported 2 or more new symptoms after initiating the drug. GI disorders accounted for 30% of the total reported ADRs.

Conclusions: Systematic portal-based surveillance for potential adverse drug reactions was feasible, had higher response rates than other methods (such as automated interactive phone calling), and uncovered rates of potential ADRs (roughly 1 in 4 patients) consistent with other methods/studies.

Objectives: Adverse events (AEs) may result in serious injuries or death. AEs occur in approximately 9.2% of hospitalizations, with a potential preventability of 43.5%. The aim of this study was to examine whether use of an illustrated patient safety advisory affected information transfer to inpatients regarding how they can participate in their own care to decrease the risk of AEs.

Methods: All patients in the control (n = 129) and case/intervention (n = 511) groups received verbal information from healthcare personnel. The intervention group also received the illustrated patient safety advisory, "Your safety at the hospital." Before discharge, patients completed the Quality from the Patient's Perspective questionnaire.

Results: Mean patient age was 64.6/62.4 years in the intervention/control group, respectively, and 50% were men. Significant differences between groups were observed for most questions presented from the perceived reality of care perspective, in favor to the intervention group. Patients at surgical wards indicated higher scores on 9 of 12 Quality from the Patient's Perspective questions. Patients with hospital stays ≥4 days, at surgical wards, and living with someone else, placed higher subjective importance to questions concerning, e.g., protection/infection, nutrition, risk of falls and pressure ulcers, and discharge information.

Conclusions: Using an illustrated patient safety advisory to complement oral information about patient safety risks resulted in positive responses and a significant difference was demonstrated in how information is perceived. The safety advisory could be used as a tool to decrease AEs. Patients who live alone may need more focused patient safety information to encourage involvement in their own care.

Background: Disclosure of patient safety incidents (DPSIs) is a strategic measure to reduce the problems of patient safety incidents (PSIs). However, there are currently limited studies on the effects of DPSIs on resolving diagnosis-related PSIs. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the effects of DPSIs using hypothetical cases, particularly in diagnosis-related PSIs.

Methods: A survey using 2 hypothetical cases of diagnosis-related PSIs was conducted in 5 districts of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Korea, from March 18 to 21, 2021. The survey used a multistage stratified quota sampling method to recruit participants. Multiple logistic regression and linear regression analyses were performed to determine the effectiveness of DPSIs in hypothetical cases. The outcomes were the judgment of a situation as a medical error, willingness to revisit and recommend the hypothetical physician, intention to file a medical lawsuit and commence criminal proceedings against the physicians, trust score of the involved physicians, and expected amount of compensation.

Results: In total, 620 respondents, recruited based on age, sex, and region, completed the survey. The mean age was 47.6 (standard deviation, ±15.1) years. Multiple logistic regression showed that DPSIs significantly decreased the judgment of a situation as a medical error (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.79), intention to file a lawsuit (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66), and commence criminal proceedings (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.55). It also increased the willingness to revisit (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.37-4.55) and recommend the physician (OR, 8.21; 95% CI, 4.05-16.66). Meanwhile, the multiple linear regression demonstrated that DPSIs had a significantly positive association with the trust score of the physician (unstandardized coefficient, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41) and a significantly negative association with the expected amount of compensation (unstandardized coefficient, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.06).

Conclusions: DPSIs reduces the possibility of judging the hypothetical case as a medical error, increases the willingness to revisit and recommend the physician involved in the case, and decreases the intent to file a lawsuit and commence a criminal proceeding. Although this study implemented hypothetical cases, the results are expected to serve as empirical evidence to apply DPSIs extensively in the clinical field.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to further the understanding of reported patient safety events at the interface between hospital and care home including what active failings and latent conditions were present and how reporting helped learning.

Methods: Two care home organizations, one in the North East and one in the South West of England, participated in the study. Reports relating to a transition and where a patient safety event had occurred were sought during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) virus prepandemic and intrapandemic periods. All reports were screened for eligibility and analyzed using content analysis.

Results: Seventeen South West England care homes and 15 North East England care homes sent 114 safety incident reports and after screening 91 were eligible for review. A hospital discharge transition (n = 78, 86%) was most common. Pressure damage (n = 29, 32%), medication errors (n = 26, 29%) and premature discharge (n = 21, 23%) contributed to 84% of the total reporting. Many 'active failings' (n = 340) were identified with fewer latent conditions (failings) (n = 14, 15%) being reported. No examples of individual learning were identified. Organization and systems learning were identified in 12 reports (n = 12, 13%).

Conclusions: The findings highlight potentially high levels of underreporting. The most common safety incidents reported were pressure damage, medication errors, and premature discharge. Many active failings causing numerous staff actions were identified emphasizing the cost to patients and services. Additionally, latent conditions (failings) were not emphasized; similarly, evidence of learning from safety incidents was not addressed.

Background: Emergency and urgent care settings face challenges with routinely obtaining performance feedback related to diagnostic care. Patients and their care partners provide an important perspective on the diagnostic process and outcome of care in these settings. We sought to develop and test psychometric properties of Patient-Report to IMprove Diagnostic Excellence in Emergency Department settings (PRIME-ED), a measure of patient-reported diagnostic excellence in these care settings.

Methods: We developed PRIME-ED based on literature review, expert feedback, and cognitive testing. To assess psychometric properties, we surveyed AmeriSpeak, a probability-based panel that provides sample coverage of approximately 97% of the U.S. household population, in February 2022 to adult patients, or their care partners, who had presented to an emergency department or urgent care facility within the last 30 days. Respondents rated their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale with each of 17 statements across multiple domains of patient-reported diagnostic excellence. Demographics, visit characteristics, and a subset of the Emergency Department Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems were also collected. We conducted psychometric testing for reliability and validity.

Results: Over a thousand (n = 1116) national panelists completed the PRIME-ED survey, of which 58.7% were patients and 40.9% were care partners; 49.6% received care at an emergency department and 49.9% at an urgent care facility. Responses had high internal consistency within 3 patient-reported diagnostic excellence domain groupings: diagnostic process (Cronbach's alpha 0.94), accuracy of diagnosis (0.93), and communication of diagnosis (0.94). Domain groupings were significantly correlated with concurrent Emergency Department Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems items. Factor analyses substantiated 3 domain groupings.

Conclusions: PRIME-ED has potential as a tool for capturing patient-reported diagnostic excellence in emergency and urgent care.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe and evaluate the transition from a specialty service-based prospective order approval system to a computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) tool for apixaban dosing at a community teaching hospital. The primary objective was to assess the impact of the transition on the appropriateness of apixaban prescribing.

Methods: A CCDS tool for apixaban dosing was developed and implemented using interprofessional collaboration. A retrospective chart review was conducted for apixaban orders placed before (preimplementation) and after (postimplementation) the CCDS transition. The primary outcome was the percent change in inappropriate apixaban orders, with secondary outcomes exploring percent change of apixaban orders with inappropriate dosing in different patient groups and indications per package insert.

Results: Fifty orders were assessed in both arms, with 8% of orders preimplementation and 10% postimplementation deemed inappropriate. After accounting for questionable orders, overall appropriateness of prescribing was 88% preimplementation and 84% postimplementation ( P = 0.7). Challenges with implementation of CCDS included working with available information technology resources and facilitating acceptance of a new ordering process.

Conclusions: The implementation of a CCDS tool for apixaban dosing at a community teaching hospital demonstrated comparable rates of appropriateness to the previous specialty service-based approval process. While the transition streamlined resources and improved efficiency, ongoing efforts are needed to address specific dosing challenges. Future research should explore the sustainability and generalizability of CCDS tools in diverse healthcare settings.

Objectives: Dutch hospitals are required to screen older patients for functional decline using 4 indicators: malnutrition, delirium, physical impairment, and falls, to recognize frail older patients promptly. The Functional Resonance Analysis Method was employed to deepen the understanding of work according to the protocols (work-as-imagined [WAI]) in contrast to the realities of daily practice (work-as-done [WAD]).

Methods: Data have been collected from 3 hospitals (2 tertiary and 1 general) and 4 different wards: an internal medicine ward, surgical ward, neurology ward, and a trauma geriatric ward. WAI models were based on national guidelines and hospital protocols. Data on WAD were collected through semistructured interviews with involved nurses (n = 30).

Results: Hospital protocols were more extensive than national guidelines for all screening indicators. Additional activities mainly comprised specific preventive interventions or follow-up assessments after adequate measurements. Key barriers identified to work according to protocols included time constraints, ambiguity regarding task ownership, nurses' perceived limitations in applying their clinical expertise due to time constraints, insufficient understanding of freedom-restricted interventions, and the inadequacy of the Delirium Observation Scale Score in patients with neurological and cognitive problems. Performance variability stemmed from timing issues, frequently attributable to time constraints.

Conclusions: The most common reasons for deviating from the protocol are related to time constraints, lack of knowledge, and/or patient-related factors. Also, collaboration among relevant disciplines appears important to ensure good health outcomes. Future research endeavors could shed a light on the follow-up procedures of the screening process and roles of other disciplines, such as physiotherapists.