Journal of Patient Safety最新文献

Abstract: Despite advances in patient safety, perioperative patient falls continue to be a persistent and preventable harm. Patient falls in procedural areas have been associated with multiple postoperative complications such as additional falls, functional decline, and hospital readmissions. Although fall-related databases exist, the specific number of periprocedural falls is difficult to ascertain, and the causes of such falls also remain elusive. We explore various solutions and recommend the creation of a national, focused database of periprocedural falls that will allow institutions to track numbers of falls in patients receiving anesthetic care and to identify the most common etiologies to enable the implementation of targeted strategies to prevent falls. Lacking this, we suggest specific screening and procedural recommendations during all phases of anesthetic care to increase providers' awareness and vigilance surrounding patient falls.

Introduction: Second-victim phenomena may lead to severe reactions like depression or posttraumatic disorder, as well as dysfunction and absenteeism. Medical error as a cause for second victims is not limited to professionals, as family caregivers care for millions of patients at home. It remains unclear whether these are first, second, or double victims in case of error. This explorative study investigated whether second victim effects and signs of moral injury are detectable in family caregivers and whether existing instruments are applicable in lay persons.

Methods: In an open convenience sampling online survey, we recruited 66 German family caregivers. Propensity score matching was conducted to obtain a balanced sample of family caregivers and qualified nurses who took part in the previous study by adjusting for age and sex. The groups were compared regarding the German Version of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool-Revised and the German version of the Moral Injury Symptom and Support Scale for Health Professionals.

Results: Sixty-six caregivers participated, of whom 31 completed the survey. Of all, 58% experienced a second victim-like effect, 35% experienced a prolonged effect, and 45% reported to still suffer from it. In a matched sample (22 family caregivers and 22 nurses), no significant differences were observed between the groups.

Discussion: Regarding the limitations of this pilot study, demanding for resampling in larger populations, we could show that second victim effects and moral injury are detectable in family caregivers by validated instruments and are not inferior to professionals' experiences. Concerning the demand for further studies, we confirmed the applicability of the testing instruments but with need for item reduction to lower response burden.

Objectives: Preventable adverse events (PAEs) occur across the healthcare spectrum; and, unfortunately, errors, adverse events, and PAEs are common in pediatric care. Historically, the role of disclosure of PAEs to patients and their families occurred between the dyad of physician and patient, with physicians assuming the responsibility of disclosure. In recent years, a trend toward a multidisciplinary team-based approach has emerged in some institutions, yet the role of pediatric nurses within the team disclosing a PAE is not fully understood. Given the unique relationship between pediatric nurses and their patients and their families, it is essential to understand does the literature tell us about the role of pediatric nurses during PAE disclosure?

Methods: The Arksey and O'Malley scoping review method guided this study protocol and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews framework guided reporting.

Results: The final sample included five articles for synthesis: none reported or described a specific role for pediatric nurses during PAE disclosure.

Conclusions: There is a gap in the literature on the role of pediatric nurses during PAE disclosure. Two themes emerged from this review: the use of a team-based approach to disclosure, and the need to provide emotional support to the pediatric patient and their family. There is a need for additional investigation into the role of pediatric nurses as part of a team-based disclosure process and how pediatric nurses currently provide, or desire to provide, emotional support to the patient and their family.

Objectives: The impact of incident investigations in improving patient safety may be linked to the quality of risk controls recommended in investigation reports. We aimed to identify the range and apparent strength of risk controls generated from investigations into serious incidents, map them against contributory factors identified in investigation reports, and characterize the nature of the risk controls proposed.

Methods: We undertook a content analysis of 126 action plans of serious incident investigation reports from a multisite and multispeciality UK hospital over a 3-year period to identify the risk controls proposed. We coded each risk control against the contributory factor it aimed to address. Using a hierarchy of risk controls model, we assessed the strength of proposed risk controls. We used thematic analysis to characterize the nature of proposed risk controls.

Results: A substantial proportion (15%) of factors identified in investigation reports as contributing to serious incidents were not addressed by identifiable risk controls. Of the 822 proposed risk controls in action plans, most (74%) were assessed as weak, typically focusing on individualized interventions-even when the problems were organizational or systemic in character. The following 6 broad approaches to risk controls could be identified: improving individual or team performance; defining, standardizing, or reinforcing expected practice; improving the working environment; improving communication; process improvements; and disciplinary actions.

Conclusions: The identified shortfalls in the quality of risk controls following serious incident investigations-including a 15% mismatch between contributory factors and aligned risk controls and 74% of proposed risk controls centering on weaker interventions-represent significant gaps in translating incident investigations into meaningful systemic improvements. Advancing the quality of risk controls after serious incident investigations will require involvement of human factors specialists in their design, a theory-of-change approach, evaluation, and curation and sharing of learning, all supported by a common framework.

Objective: The aim of the study is to determine diagnostic traction for shoulder dystocia and to assess whether applied traction is modifiable with force training.

Methods: We tethered a force-measuring fetal mannequin (PROMPT, Limbs & Things) within a simulated pelvis such that it would not deliver. We asked participants to apply traction to diagnose shoulder dystocia then stop. Blinded from participants' view, we recorded the peak traction. We then asked them to apply what they perceived to be 20 lb (89 N) traction. Each participant estimated the traction s/he applied. The actual force applied was then revealed to the participants and another blinded sequence was performed. We then allowed participants to view actual force measurements in real time while they practiced getting to their diagnostic traction and to 20 lb (89 N); this was followed by another blinded sequence of traction applications and estimations. Median diagnostic traction and injury threshold values (20 lb [89 N]), and mean ratio of estimated to actual force applied were compared pretraining and posttraining, using Wilcoxon signed rank sum test and t test. Rates of clinical shoulder dystocia and associated brachial plexus injury before and after the study period were compared using chi-square. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results: One hundred participants demonstrated a range of diagnostic traction. For 23 participants, traction exceeded injury thresholds, but the average was lowered with training. Before training, participants underestimated their own applied traction by an average of 30%.

Conclusions: Subjective diagnosis of shoulder dystocia during simulation training varies widely and exceeds possible injury threshold for 22% of participants. Accuracy of self-assessment applied delivery traction improves significantly with force training as does clinical diagnosis of shoulder dystocia and decrease in brachial plexus injury incidence.

Objectives: Nurse practitioners (NPs) are key to delivery of primary care services. However, poor organizational support for independent NP practice, such as lack of access to clinic resources, may lead to prioritizing patient physical health over emotional health. We investigated the relationship between organizational support for independent NP practice and emotional health care delivery.

Methods: This was a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data collected from 397 NPs in 2017. We measured organizational support for independent NP practice using the independent practice and support subscale of the NP Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire. Emotional health care delivery was measured by asking NPs how frequently they addressed emotional concerns of patients. We utilized multilevel mixed effects linear regression models, adjusting for NP and practice covariates.

Results: Controlling for NP age, gender, marital status, race, and ethnicity, along with practice setting and size, as the independent practice and support score increased, NPs reported addressing emotional concerns of patients more frequently (beta = 0.34, 95% confidence interval = 0.02-0.66, P = 0.04). This indicates that as organizations provided more support for independent NP practice, NPs were able to more frequently address emotional concerns of patients.

Conclusions: Organizational support for independent NP practice is associated with addressing emotional concerns of patients. To support NP practice, primary care organizations should ensure that NPs manage patients independently and have access to ancillary staff and support for care management.

Objectives: Diagnostic errors contribute substantially to preventable medical errors. Especially, the emergency department (ED) is a high-risk environment. Previous research showed that in 15%-30% of the ED patients, there is a difference between the primary diagnosis assigned by the emergency physician and the discharge diagnosis. This study aimed to determine the number and types of diagnostic discrepancies and to explore factors predicting discrepancies.

Methods: A retrospective record review was conducted in an academic medical center. The primary diagnosis assigned in the ED was compared with the discharge diagnosis after hospital admission. For each patient, we gathered additional information about the diagnostic process to identify possible predictors of diagnostic discrepancies.

Results: The electronic health records of 200 patients were reviewed. The primary diagnosis assigned in the ED was substantially different from the discharge diagnosis in 16.0%. These diagnostic discrepancies were associated with a higher number of additional diagnostics applied for (2.4 versus 2.0 diagnostics; P = 0.002) and longer stay in the ED (5.9 versus 4.7 hours; P = 0.008).

Conclusions: A difference between the diagnosis assigned by the emergency physician and the discharge diagnosis was found in almost 1 in 6 patients. The increased number of additional diagnostics and the longer stay at the ED in the group of patients with a diagnostic discrepancy suggests that these cases reflect the more difficult cases. More research should be done on predictive factors of diagnostic discrepancies.

Objective: The objective of this paper is to assess the diagnostic value of an antithrombotic questionnaire tool compared with the hospital's medical record information tool. The hypothesis of this study was that the antithrombotic questionnaire tool could identify patients with potentially incorrect antithrombotic therapy.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in eight community pharmacies in the Netherlands. A standardized questionnaire was developed as antithrombotic questionnaire tool. The pharmacist assessed whether the antithrombotic therapy was correct or potentially incorrect based on answers given by patients and based on the medical record. The primary outcome of the study was the sensitivity and specificity of the antithrombotic questionnaire tool to identify patients with potentially incorrect antithrombotic therapy.

Results: For 95 patients, the pharmacist assessed that in 81 (85%) the antithrombotic therapy was correct and in 14 (15%) potentially incorrect. Based on the medical record, 86 patients (91%) were assessed as correct and 9 (9%) as potentially incorrect. The sensitivity of the tool was 100% and the specificity 94%.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the antithrombotic questionnaire tool is a suitable tool to assess whether the patient's antithrombotic therapy is potentially incorrect. It can be applied to identify patients with potentially incorrect antithrombotic therapy.

Background: Raising concerns is essential for the early detection and appropriate response to patient deterioration. However, factors such as hierarchy, leadership, and organizational culture can impact negatively on the willingness to raise concerns.

Objectives: This study aims to delve into how leadership, organizational cultures, and professional hierarchies in healthcare settings influence healthcare workers, patients, and caregivers in raising concerns about patient deterioration and their willingness to do so.

Methods: The study used a qualitative approach, conducting focus group discussions (N = 27), utilizing authentic audio-visual vignettes to prompt discussions about raising concerns. Deductive thematic analysis was employed to explore themes related to hierarchy, leadership, and organizational culture.

Results: Positive leadership that challenged traditional professional hierarchies by embracing multidisciplinary teamwork, valuing the input of all stakeholders, and championing person-centered practice fostered a positive working culture. This culture has the potential to empower clinical staff, patients, caregivers, and family members to confidently raise concerns. Staff development, clinical supervision, and access to feedback, all underpinned by psychological safety, were viewed as facilitating the escalation of concerns and, subsequently, have the potential to improve patient safety.

Conclusions: This study offers crucial insights into the intricate dynamics of leadership, hierarchy, and organizational culture, and their profound impact on the willingness of staff and patients to voice concerns in healthcare settings. Prioritizing the recommendations of this study can contribute to reducing avoidable deaths and elevating the quality of care in healthcare settings.