Journal of Patient Safety最新文献

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a contact-free continuous monitoring system on clinical outcomes including unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) transfer (primary), length of stay (LOS), code blue, and mortality. A secondary aim was to evaluate the return on investment associated with implementing the contact-free continuous monitoring program during the COVID public health emergency.

Methods: An interrupted time series evaluation was conducted to examine the association between the use of contact-free continuous monitoring and clinical outcomes. A cost-benefit analysis was planned to evaluate the return on investment.

Results: Use of contact-free continuous monitoring was not significantly associated with unplanned ICU transfers, deaths, ICU LOS, and or rapid response team calls. However, there were significant increases in code blue events (P = 0.02) and mean hospital LOS (P = 0.01) in the postimplementation period when compared with the preimplementation period. Due to the lack of improvement, costs were calculated but a cost-benefit analysis was not conducted.

Conclusions: Contact-free continuous monitoring bed use during the COVID-19 public health emergency was not associated with improvements in clinical outcomes, although there was substantial confounding. Future studies should include large randomized controlled trials to control for factors not under direct experimental control including unit staffing, staff turnover, and differences in the patient population related to surges in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: With the development of day surgery, the characteristics of "short, frequent and fast" ophthalmic surgery are becoming more prominent. However, nurses are not efficient in verifying patients' surgical information, and problems such as patient privacy leakage are becoming more prominent. To improve the situation, we developed a new augmented reality (AR)-based tool for visual recognition and artificial intelligent (AI) interpretation of the pattern and location of patient surgical skin markings for the verification of the correct surgical site and procedure. The tool can also display a variety of other verbally requested patient information. The purpose of this proposal is to evaluate its feasibility of use by surgical nurses in a real clinical setting.

Methods: We developed a tool with image recognition technologies to interpretation patient surgical skin markings and match the information obtained with the patients surgical records, thus, verify the patient's surgical information. Verification includes the proper surgical site and type of procedure to be performed. Nurses can interact with the device through its speech recognition capabilities and the device provides them with a variety of other requested patient information via a heads-up display. Three hundred patients in an outpatient ophthalmology clinic were divided into an AR intelligent verification experimental group and a manual verification control group. The accuracy of information verification, work time consumption, and economic cost data were compared between the 2 groups to evaluate the effectiveness of the AR Surgical Information Intelligent Verification Tool in clinical patient surgical information verification.

Results: There was no statistically difference in the correct rates of patient surgical information review between the experimental group (95.33%) and the control group (98.67%) (χ2 = 2.934, P = 0.087). The median time for information verification was 10.00 (10.00, 11.00) seconds in the experimental group and 21.00 (20.00, 24.00) seconds in the control group, a statistically difference (Z = 0.000, P < 0.001). The experimental group saved 11 seconds per patient per review compared with the control group. Considering 10,531 surgeries in 2023, printing 1 page of surgical information per 9 patients and requiring 4 copies, 4680 pages of printing paper could be saved.

Conclusions: The AR Surgical Information Intelligent Verification Tool has advantages in assisting medical staff in patient surgical information verification, improving nursing efficiency, preventing surgical mark errors or nonstandardization, protecting patient privacy, and saving costs. It has certain research and application value in the scenario of patient surgical information verification in ophthalmic day ward.

Objective: The aim of the study is to explore the application of safety education based on the IMB model to prevent harm caused by magnetic resonance ferromagnetic projection accidents.

Methods: One hundred ninety-six patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging were divided into a control group of 90 cases and an observation group of 106 cases. The control group received routine safety education, while the observation group received safety education based on the IMB model in addition to routine education. The knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to the prevention of ferromagnetic projection accidents, as well as fear scores, were compared before and after the intervention.

Results: A total of 90 cases in the control group and 106 cases in the observation group completed the study. There were statistically significant differences in the scores of knowledges, attitudes, and behaviors related to the prevention of ferromagnetic projection accidents, as well as fear scores between the 2 groups after the intervention (all P < 0.01).

Conclusions: Safety education based on the IMB model can improve the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of magnetic resonance imaging patients and reduce the risk of ferromagnetic projection accidents.

Objectives: This study sought to determine if a standardized root cause analysis (RCA2) selection algorithm, developed by the Veterans Affairs, would select high-risk events for RCA.

Methods: Physician-entered incident reports for all surgical service admissions and perioperative visits were queried over 12 months in the DATIX Clinical Incident Management System. Independent reviewers assigned potential harm and event frequency scores using an institutional scoring system and then calculated and rounded average scores. These were classified using RCA2 terminology (catastrophic, major, moderate, minor for harm; frequent, occasional, uncommon, remote for frequency). The scores were then evaluated with the standardized Safety Assessment Code Matrix (SAC) algorithm from the National Patient Safety Foundation's RCA2 guidelines to determine Potential Harm Scores. The SAC combines severity and probability to determine the necessity of conducting an RCA. Catastrophic and major high-frequency events (matrix score = 3) were classified as "RCA recommended." The study then compared cases selected for RCAs using the updated RCA2 algorithm against cases selected using a current, institutional-specific RCA selection process.

Results: One hundred four cases were reviewed, comprising 20 catastrophic, 48 major harm, 26 moderate harm, and 10 minor harm events. After removing 9 high-variance cases, our institution's current selection process selected 18 cases for RCAs, including 6/20 catastrophic, 8/39 major harm, and 4/36 moderate/minor harm events. Only 17.3% of cases had an RCA completed, while the standardized RCA2 algorithm recommended investigation for 56.7% of patient safety events, based on SAC Matrix scoring. Current RCA selection processes rendered 4 RCAs on low potential harm or low-frequency events, while 45 potential high-frequency, high potential harm events did not complete RCAs.

Conclusions: Standardizing the selection of patient safety incidents for RCA using the RCA2 algorithm improves case identification based on the event frequency and potential harm score. Thus, this algorithm has the potential to advance patient safety.

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.