Journal of Patient Safety最新文献

Abstract: Hospital-acquired conditions in the United States are considered avoidable complications but remain common statistics reflecting on health system performance and are a leading cause of patient fatality. Currently, over 3.7 million patients experience a hospital-acquired condition in the United States each year, which costs the U.S. healthcare delivery system an excess of $48 billion. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for common hospital-acquired conditions (e.g., infections, falls, pressure injuries) to reduce risk to the patient. In each of these instances, preventing the outcome with these guidelines costs less than treating the outcome, in addition to keeping the patient safe from harm. By applying the framework of defects in value to hospital-acquired conditions, we estimate that U.S. health systems could avert this $48 billion in spending on treating harmful hospital-acquired conditions; more so, these systems of care could recuperate over $35 billion after investing proportionally in a system that delivers greater quality by preventing hospital-acquired conditions over treating them. Currently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services only withholds reimbursements for hospital-acquired conditions and penalizes health systems with high rates of these outcomes. However, payers do not offer any reward-based incentives for hospital-acquired condition prevention. A series of policy and health system solutions, including tracking of hospital-acquired condition rates in electronic health records, identifying centers of excellence at reducing rates of harm with the use of clinical practice guidelines, and rewarding them monetarily for reduced rates could create equal-sided risk and opportunity to engage health systems in improved performance.

Objectives: The study aim was to create an updated valid translation into Hebrew of the AHRQ's survey on patient safety culture for hospitals, version 2.0. It also suggested a supplementary section about workers' safety. Comparable and valid measurement tools are important for national and international benchmarking of patient safety culture in hospitals.

Methods: The process was carried out by a designated committee according to AHRQ translation guidelines. Methodology included several translation cycles, 6 semistructured cognitive interviews with health workers, and a web-based pilot survey at 6 general hospitals. Main analyses included an exploratory factor analysis, a comparison of the differences in results between versions 1 and 2 of the survey to the differences reported by AHRQ, and content analysis of open-ended questions.

Results: A total of 483 returned questionnaires met the inclusion criterion of at least 70% completion of the questionnaire. The demographic distributions suggested this sample to be satisfactory representative. Cronbach's alpha for the translated questionnaire was 0.95, meaning a high internal consistency between the survey items. An exploratory factor analysis revealed 8 underlying factors, and a secondary analysis further divided the first factor into 2 components. The factors structure generally resembled HSOPS 2.0 composite measures. Analyses of the new section about health workers' safety showed high involvement and possible common themes.

Conclusions: The study demonstrated good psychometric properties-high reliability and validity of the new translated version of the questionnaire. This paper may serve other countries who wish to translate and adapt the safety culture survey to different languages.

Aims: This study aimed to examine the relationship between work environment and missed nursing care (MNC) in nurses and determine whether profession self-efficacy has a moderator role in this relationship.

Design: A quantitative, cross-sectional, correlational study design was used to test the study model.

Methods: The study was conducted with 433 nurses in 2 city hospitals in Istanbul, Turkey. Data were collected between November 2022 and February 2023 using the "MISSCARE Survey-Turkish," the "Work Environment Scale," and the "Nursing Profession Self-Efficacy Scale."

Results: The participants had a mean Nursing Profession Self-Efficacy Scale score of 66.67 ± 14.37, a mean Work Environment Scale score of 84.96 ± 13.62, a mean elements of MNC score of 1.30 ± 0.73, and a mean reason for MNC score of 3.18 ± 0.78. Nursing profession self-efficacy was determined to be positively related to the work environment of the participants and their reasons for MNC (respectively, r = 0.276 and r = 0.114) and negatively related to elements of MNC ( r = -0.216) ( P < 0.05). There was also a negative relationship between the work environment and elements of MNC ( r = -0.249; P < 0.05). Profession self-efficacy had a significant moderator role in the relationship between the work environment and elements of MNC. Having low or moderate levels of profession self-efficacy moderated the negative effects of the work environment on elements of MNC.

Conclusions: There is a need for interventions to reduce elements of missed nursing care in nurses. Especially nurses and/or nurse managers may have difficulties in improving their work environment, considering its multifaceted structure. In such cases, administrators can reduce missed nursing care by increasing the profession self-efficacy of nurses. Therefore, profession self-efficacy should be considered in addition to interventions for the work environment to improve care.

Objectives: The aims of the study are to understand the process of how community pharmacies handle electronic prescriptions (e-prescriptions) and learn about different errors or potential errors encountered.

Methods: Fifteen remote, semistructured interviews were conducted with community pharmacy staff. Interview analysis was done with two adapted Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety methods to understand the workflow and an affinity wall, which led to key words that were tallied to understand the frequency of different issues.

Results: Data entry in community pharmacies is a process that varies based on the different software platforms receiving e-prescriptions. Data entry of a medication product is typically a human-reliant process matching an e-prescription with an equivalent medication product. Current automated safety supports focus on matching the dispensed medication to the medication chosen at data entry. Substitutions may be required for a variety of reasons, however, pharmacists' comfort and permissions in doing so without provider involvement fluctuates.

Conclusions: Prescription errors remain that could be prevented with additional support at the data entry step of e-prescriptions. Few studies demonstrate where these errors originate and what role current technology plays in contributing to or preventing these errors. Future work must consider how these matches between prescribed medications and pharmacy fulfilled medications occur. There is a need to identify potential tools to support data entry and prevent medication errors.

Objectives: Indicators based on routine data are considered a readily available and cost-effective method for assessing health care quality and safety. The Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators (A-IQI) have been introduced in all Austrian public hospitals as a mandatory quality measurement. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of conspicuous A-IQI in predicting the presence of adverse events (AEs).

Methods: We conducted an exploratory study comparing all indicator-positive patient cases contributing to 18 conspicuous A-IQI indicators to randomly selected indicator-negative control cases regarding the prevalence and severity of AEs. Structured medical record review using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool was used as the gold standard.

Results: In 421 chart reviews, we identified 158 AEs. 70.9% (n = 112) of the AEs were found in cases with a positive indicator. The relative risk of an AE occurring was 3.47 (95% confidence interval: 2.30, 5.24) in indicator-positive cases compared to indicator-negatives. The proportion of severe events (National Coordination Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index categories H and I) was 54.5% (n = 61) in indicator-positive cases and only 15.3% (n = 7) in indicator-negative cases. Overall sensitivity of the A-IQI was 68.2%, specificity 69.4%, positive predictive value 36.0%, and negative predictive value 89.6%.

Conclusions: Our study shows that significantly more AEs and more severe AEs were found in cases with positive A-IQI than in indicator-negative control cases. However, studies with larger numbers of cases and with larger numbers of conspicuous indicators are needed for the validation of the entire A-IQI indicator set.

Background: Falls with harms (FWH) in hospitalized patients increase costs and lengths of stay. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more FWH. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased patients in isolation with fewer visitors. Their relationship with falls has not been previously studied.

Methods: This is a retrospective, single-site, 12-month before pandemic-12-month after pandemic, observational study. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to model FWH outcome and associations with isolation and visitor restrictions.

Results: There were 4369 isolation events and 385 FWH among 22,505 admissions during the study period. Unadjusted analysis demonstrated a FWH risk of 1.33% (95% CI 0.99, 1.67) in those who were placed in isolation compared to 1.80% (95% CI 1.60, 2.00) in those without an isolation event ( χ2 = 4.73, P = 0.03). The FWH risk during the different visitor restriction periods was significantly higher compared to the prepandemic period ( χ2 = 20.81, P < 0.001), ranging from 1.28% (95% CI 1.06, 2.50) in the prepandemic period to 2.03% (95% 1.66, 2.40) with no visitors permitted (phase A) in the pandemic period. After adjusting for potential confounders and selection bias, only phase A visitor restrictions were associated with an increased FWH risk of 0.75% (95% CI 0.32, 1.18) compared to no visitor restrictions.

Interpretation: Our results suggest a moderately strong association between hospitalized patient FWH risk and severe visitor restrictions. This association was muted in phases with even minor allowances for visitation. This represents the first report of the adverse effects of visitor restriction policies on patients' FWH risks.