BMJ Quality & Safety最新文献

Background: Evaluation of neck trauma is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits. There are several validated clinical decision rules, such as the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Cervical Spine (C-spine) Rule, that can be used to risk stratify these patients and identify low-risk patients who do not require CT imaging. Overutilisation of CT imaging exposes patients to unnecessary radiation, impairs hospital throughput and increases healthcare costs. Various audit-and-feedback strategies have been described in other settings, but it is not known whether these strategies are effective for reducing imaging overutilisation in the ED. Additionally, the effectiveness of face-to-face feedback strategies as compared with digital feedback strategies for addressing this problem has not been previously evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare audit-and-feedback strategies to reduce CT overutilisation in the ED.

Methods: This was a prospective randomised controlled trial, in which emergency medicine clinicians were randomised into three arms to receive digital feedback, hybrid face-to-face/digital feedback or no feedback. Each clinician received three rounds of feedback on patient encounters in which they ordered a CT of the C-spine. Patient encounters were retrospectively reviewed to determine each clinician's overutilisation rate, defined as the percentage of patients who underwent CT of the C-spine despite being classified as low risk by NEXUS criteria.

Results: A total of 78 emergency medicine clinicians were randomised into three arms. Baseline overutilisation rates for each group were 46%-47% of CT of the C-spine studies. After three rounds of audit-and-feedback strategy, the clinicians in the digital feedback group had an overutilisation rate of 33%, compared with 44% in the control group (p=0.020). The hybrid feedback group had an overutilisation rate of 36% (p=0.055 vs control; p=0.577 vs digital feedback). Over the study period, the digital group saw a reduction of 1.26 CT of the C-spine studies per provider per month (p=0.049), and the hybrid feedback group saw a reduction of 1.43 CTs per provider per month (p=0.044).

Conclusion: A digital audit-and-feedback strategy is effective for reducing overutilisation of CT imaging of the C-spine in the ED, while the effectiveness of a hybrid strategy requires further investigation.

Background: Understaffing by nursing staff in hospitals is linked to patients coming to harm and dying unnecessarily. There is a vicious cycle whereby poor work conditions, including understaffing, can lead to nursing vacancies, which in turn leads to further understaffing. Is hospital investment in nursing staff, to eliminate understaffing on wards, cost-effective?

Methods: This longitudinal observational study analysed data on 185 adult acute units in four hospital Trusts in England over a 5-year period. We modelled the association between a patient's exposure to ward nurse understaffing (days where staffing was below the ward mean) over the first 5 days of stay and risk of death, risk of readmission and length of stay, using survival analysis and linear mixed models. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of eliminating understaffing by registered nurses (RN) and nursing support (NS) staff, estimating net costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). We took a hospital cost perspective.

Findings: Exposure to RN understaffing is associated with increased hazard of death (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.079, 95% CI 1.070 to 1.089), increased chance of readmission (aHR 1.010, 95% CI 1.005 to 1.016) and increased length of stay (ratio 1.687, 95% CI 1.666 to 1.707), while exposure to NS understaffing is associated with smaller increases in hazard of death (aHR 1.072, 95% CI 1.062 to 1.081) and length of stay (ratio 1.608, 95% CI 1.589 to 1.627) but reduced readmissions (aHR 0.994, 95% CI 0.988 to 0.999). Eliminating both RN and NS understaffing is estimated to cost £2778 per QALY (staff costs only), £2685 (including benefits of reduced staff sickness and readmissions) or save £4728 (including benefits of reduced lengths of stay). Using agency staff to eliminate understaffing is less cost-effective and would save fewer lives than using permanent members of staff. Targeting specific patient groups with improved staffing would save fewer lives and, in the scenarios tested, cost more per QALY than eliminating all understaffing.

Interpretation: Rectifying understaffing on inpatient wards is crucial to reduce length of stay, readmissions and deaths. According to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence £10 000 per QALY threshold, it is cost-effective to eliminate understaffing by nursing staff. This research points towards investing in RNs over NS staff and permanent over temporary workers. Targeting particular patient groups would benefit fewer patients and is less cost-effective.

Objectives: In the intensive care unit (ICU), antibiotics are often given longer than recommended in guidelines. A better understanding of the factors influencing antibiotic therapy duration is needed to develop improvement strategies to effectively address these drivers of excessive duration. This study aimed to explore the determinants of adherence to recommended antibiotic therapy durations among healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic decision-making within the ICU, focusing on multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs).

Methods: Semistructured interviews were held with healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic decision-making during MDMs in four Dutch ICUs. Participants included intensivists, clinical microbiologists and ICU residents. Transcripts were analysed using deductive and inductive content analysis methods.

Results: A total of 20 participants were interviewed. The interviews revealed that decision-making regarding antibiotic therapy duration is a complex process, primarily centred around professional interactions during MDMs and involving a broad range of determinants. These determinants were categorised into the following four steps: (1) the introduction of duration as a topic for discussion in the MDM (eg, lack of priority to discuss antibiotic therapy duration); (2) the discussion of antibiotic therapy duration itself (eg, lack of core members during MDM); (3) the establishment of a concrete decision (eg, lack of documentation of the decisions made); (4) the execution of the decision (eg, forgetting to stop antibiotics).

Conclusions: Our study identified numerous factors that influence decisions about the duration of antibiotic therapy during MDMs in the ICU. By describing these factors throughout the decision-making process, we provided valuable insights into barriers that commonly arise in specific steps, highlighting critical areas for improvement. Daily MDMs were deemed essential for informed decision-making regarding antibiotic therapy duration by the interviewees. Strategies to improve appropriate duration in the ICU should prioritise strengthening interdisciplinary communication between healthcare professionals and adding structure to these meetings.

Objectives: The aim of this article is to provide an estimate of the proportion of the general public reporting healthcare-related harm in Great Britain, its location, impact, responses post-harm and desired reactions from healthcare providers.

Design: We used a cross-sectional survey, using quota sampling.

Setting: This research was conducted in Great Britain.

Participants: The survey had 10 064 participants (weighted analysis).

Results: In our survey 9.7% participants reported harm caused by the National Health Service (NHS) in the last 3 years through treatment or care (6.2%) or the lack of access to care (3.5%). The main location where the harm first occurred was hospitals. A total of 37.6% of participants reported a moderate impact and 44.8% a severe impact of harm. The most common response to harm was to share their experience with others (67.1%). Almost 60% sought professional advice and support, with 11.6% contacting the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS). Only 17% submitted a formal complaint, and 2.1% made a claim for financial compensation. People wanted treatment or care to redress the harm (44.4%) and an explanation (34.8%). Two-thirds of those making a complaint felt it was not handled well and approximately half were satisfied with PALS. Experiences and responses differed according to sex and age (eg, women reported more harm). People with long-term illness or disability, those in lower social grades, and people in other disadvantaged groups reported higher rates and more severe impact of harm.

Conclusions: We found that 9.7% of the British general population reported harm by the NHS, a higher rate than reported in two previous surveys. Our study used a broader and more inclusive definition of harm and was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, making comparison to previous surveys challenging. People responded to harm in different ways, such as sharing experiences with others and seeking professional advice and support. Mostly, people who were harmed wanted help to redress the harm or to gain access to the care needed. Low satisfaction with PALS and complaints services may reflect that these services do not always deliver the required support. There is a need to better understand the patient perspective following harm and for further consideration of what a person-centred approach to resolution and recovery might look like.

Background: Hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems are widely used to detect and respond to patient harm. Despite increasing recognition of the link between equity and safety, equity remains poorly integrated into the design and function of these systems. Consequently, these systems risk obscuring or reproducing inequities rather than revealing and attending to them.

Objective: To examine how issues of equity are currently considered in research about hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems and identify opportunities to more systematically include equity in how patient safety is addressed.

Methods: A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted to develop a theoretical understanding of the topic through inductive analysis and interpretation. The databases CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to 6 February 2024. Select social science, patient safety and health services literature supported the interpretive process.

Results: After screening 6508 abstracts and conducting hand searches, we included 30 articles in our review. Our analysis identified four equity-related themes. The first theme describes how knowledge injustices in 'what counts as a safety event or contributor' shape what patient issues are recognised, recorded and addressed. The second theme examines how individual bias and systemic discrimination affect which safety events and concerns get reported. The third theme explores both opportunities and limitations of stratifying data to uncover equity-related patterns of harm. The fourth theme presents alternate frameworks, including restorative and human rights approaches, as ways to address inequities and humanise harm.

Conclusion: The findings provide direction for changes within incident reporting and patient concerns practices (eg, expanding definitions of harms; creating accessible and culturally safe patient concerns systems). They also affirm the opportunity to learn from, and build on, initiatives such as taking a restorative approach that moves beyond a customer service and risk management framing.

Background: Voluntary clinician engagement in audit and feedback (A&F) initiatives is often suboptimal. We compared a range of characteristics between physicians who voluntarily engaged and those who did not.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative databases and a survey. The cohort included Ontario primary care physicians practising between April 2017 and March 2020. The A&F group voluntarily enrolled in an A&F intervention; control physicians did not enrol. We compared demographic, practice and patient characteristics between groups. Four validated questionnaires measured beliefs about feedback and improvement. Logistic regression modelled adjusted odds of A&F engagement.

Results: Of 10 654 active primary care physicians in Ontario, 1400 voluntarily engaged in A&F compared with 9254 controls. Physicians had higher odds of engaging with A&F if they had a larger roster size (OR (95% CI) 2.75 (2.15 to 3.51), p<0.001) and worked in home care (1.75 (1.55 to 1.97), p<0.001), and lower odds of engaging if they had higher continuity of care (0.66 (0.49 to 0.90), p=0.008), practised for more years (0.53 (0.44 to 0.62), p<0.001) and enrolled in a fee-for-service model (0.74 (0.65 to 0.85), p<0.001). Physicians engaged with A&F had fewer racialised or immigrant patients (25% vs 30% in marginalisation quintile 5, standardised mean difference=0.10), while other demographic characteristics were similar. Among the survey respondents (36 A&F physicians and 90 controls), higher principal support (2.28 (1.29 to 4.48), p=0.008), lower perceived need for change (discrepancy) (0.39 (0.20 to 0.70), p=0.003) and lower engagement in QI (0.43 (0.18 to 0.88), p=0.032) predicted A&F engagement.

Conclusion: To expand A&F's reach and impact, future efforts should (1) tailor outreach to physicians with larger, more diverse practice populations, (2) seek to understand why physicians with higher perceived need for change engage less, (3) understand which physicians are most likely to benefit and (4) co-design how to make A&F more relevant and actionable for those serving marginalised communities.