BMJ Quality & Safety最新文献

Objective: To develop and evaluate measures of patient work system factors in medication management that may be modifiable for improvement during the care transition from hospital to home among older adults.

Design, settings and participants: Measures were developed and evaluated in a multisite prospective observational study of older adults (≥65 years) discharged home from medical units of two US hospitals from August 2018 to July 2019.

Main measures: Patient work system factors for managing medications were assessed during hospital stays using six capacity indicators, four task indicators and three medication management practice indicators. Main outcomes were assessed at participants' homes approximately a week after discharge for (1) Medication discrepancies between the medications taken at home and those listed in the medical record, and (2) Patient experiences with new medication regimens.

Results: 274 of the 376 recruited participants completed home assessment (72.8%). Among capacity indicators, most older adults (80.6%) managed medications during transition without a caregiver, 41.2% expressed low self-efficacy in managing medications and 18.3% were not able to complete basic medication administration tasks. Among task indicators, more than half (57.7%) had more than 10 discharge medications and most (94.7%) had medication regimen changes. Having more than 10 discharge medications, more than two medication regimen changes and low self-efficacy in medication management increased the risk of feeling overwhelmed (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.38, OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.29 to 7.74 and OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.26, respectively). Low transportation independence, not having a home caregiver, low medication administration skills and more than 10 discharge medications increased the risk of medication discrepancies (incidence rate ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.91, incidence rate ratio 1.73, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.66, incidence rate ratio 1.99, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.89 and incidence rate ratio 1.91, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.93, respectively).

Conclusions: Patient work system factors could be assessed before discharge with indicators for increased risk of poor patient experience and medication discrepancies during older adults' care transition from hospital to home.

Objective: To (a) examine whether the effect of the Choosing Wisely consumer questions on question-asking and shared decision-making (SDM) outcomes differs based on individuals' health literacy and (b) explore the relationship between health literacy, question-asking and other decision-making outcomes in the context of low value care.

Methods: Preplanned analysis of randomised trial data comparing: the Choosing Wisely questions, a SDM video, both interventions or control (no intervention). Randomisation was stratified by participant health literacy ('adequate' vs 'limited'), as assessed by the Newest Vital Sign.

Main outcome measures: Self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making, and intention to engage in SDM.

Participants: 1439 Australian adults, recruited online.

Results: The effects of the Choosing Wisely questions and SDM video did not differ based on participants' health literacy for most primary or secondary outcomes (all two-way and three-way interactions p>0.05). Compared with individuals with 'adequate' health literacy, those with 'limited' health literacy had lower knowledge of SDM rights (82.1% vs 89.0%; 95% CI: 3.9% to 9.8%, p<0.001) and less positive attitudes towards SDM (48.3% vs 58.1%; 95% CI: 4.7% to 15.0%, p=0.0002). They were also more likely to indicate they would follow low-value treatment plans without further questioning (7.46/10 vs 6.94/10; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.72, p<0.001) and generated fewer questions to ask a healthcare provider which aligned with the Choosing Wisely questions (χ² (1)=73.79, p<.001). On average, 67.7% of participants with 'limited' health literacy indicated that they would use video interventions again compared with 55.7% of individuals with 'adequate' health literacy.

Conclusion: Adults with limited health literacy continue to have lower scores on decision-making outcomes in the context of low value care. Ongoing work is needed to develop and test different intervention formats that support people with lower health literacy to engage in question asking and SDM.

Background: Early mobilisation of intensive care unit (ICU) patients has been recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Therefore, the Japanese universal health insurance system introduced an additional fee for early mobilisation and/or rehabilitation, which can be claimed by hospitals when starting rehabilitation of ICU patients within 48 hours after their ICU admission. However, the effect of this fee is unknown.

Objective: To measure the proportion of ICU patients who received early rehabilitation and the impact on length of ICU stay, the length of hospital stay and discharged to home after the introduction of the financial incentive (additional fee for early mobilisation and/or rehabilitation).

Design/methods: We included patients who were admitted to ICU within 2 days of hospitalisation between April 2016 and January 2020. We conducted interrupted time series analyses to assess the effects of the introduction of the financial incentive.

Results: The proportion of patients who received early rehabilitation immediately increased after the introduction of the financial incentive (rate ratio (RR) 1.293, 95% CI 1.240 to 1.349). The RR for proportion of patients received early rehabilitation was 1.008 (95% CI 1.005 to 1.011) in the period after the introduction of the financial incentive compared with period before its introduction. There was no statistically significant change in the mean length of ICU stay, the mean length of hospital stay and the proportion of patients who were discharged to home.

Conclusion: After the introduction of the financial incentive, the proportion of ICU patients who received early rehabilitation increased. However, the effects of the financial incentive on the length of ICU stay, the length of hospital stay and the proportion of patients who were discharged to home were limited.

Background: Diagnostic errors have been attributed to reasoning flaws caused by cognitive biases. While experiments have shown bias to cause errors, physicians of similar expertise differed in susceptibility to bias. Resisting bias is often said to depend on engaging analytical reasoning, disregarding the influence of knowledge. We examined the role of knowledge and reasoning mode, indicated by diagnosis time and confidence, as predictors of susceptibility to anchoring bias. Anchoring bias occurs when physicians stick to an incorrect diagnosis triggered by early salient distracting features (SDF) despite subsequent conflicting information.

Methods: Sixty-eight internal medicine residents from two Dutch university hospitals participated in a two-phase experiment. Phase 1: assessment of knowledge of discriminating features (ie, clinical findings that discriminate between lookalike diseases) for six diseases. Phase 2 (1 week later): diagnosis of six cases of these diseases. Each case had two versions differing exclusively in the presence/absence of SDF. Each participant diagnosed three cases with SDF (SDF+) and three without (SDF-). Participants were randomly allocated to case versions. Based on phase 1 assessment, participants were split into higher knowledge or lower knowledge groups.

Main outcome measurements: frequency of diagnoses associated with SDF; time to diagnose; and confidence in diagnosis.

Results: While both knowledge groups performed similarly on SDF- cases, higher knowledge physicians succumbed to anchoring bias less frequently than their lower knowledge counterparts on SDF+ cases (p=0.02). Overall, physicians spent more time (p<0.001) and had lower confidence (p=0.02) on SDF+ than SDF- cases (p<0.001). However, when diagnosing SDF+ cases, the groups did not differ in time (p=0.88) nor in confidence (p=0.96).

Conclusions: Physicians apparently adopted a more analytical reasoning approach when presented with distracting features, indicated by increased time and lower confidence, trying to combat bias. Yet, extended deliberation alone did not explain the observed performance differences between knowledge groups. Success in mitigating anchoring bias was primarily predicted by knowledge of discriminating features of diagnoses.

Background: Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on sharing perspectives among team members and avoiding information asymmetries. Patients/Families hold unique diagnostic process (DxP) information, including knowledge of diagnostic safety blindspots-information that patients/families know, but may be invisible to clinicians. To improve information sharing, we co-developed with patients/families an online tool called 'Our Diagnosis (OurDX)'. We aimed to characterise patient/family contributions in OurDX and how they differed between individuals with and without diagnostic concerns.

Method: We implemented OurDX in two academic organisations serving patients/families living with chronic conditions in three subspecialty clinics and one primary care clinic. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to contribute visit priorities, recent histories and potential diagnostic concerns. Responses were available in the electronic health record and could be incorporated by clinicians into visit notes. We randomly sampled OurDX reports with and without diagnostic concerns for chart review and used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to assess patient/family contributions.

Results: 7075 (39%) OurDX reports were submitted at 18 129 paediatric subspecialty clinic visits and 460 (65%) reports were submitted among 706 eligible adult primary care visits. Qualitative analysis of OurDX reports in the chart review sample (n=450) revealed that participants contributed DxP information across 10 categories, most commonly: clinical symptoms/medical history (82%), tests/referrals (54%) and diagnosis/next steps (51%). Participants with diagnostic concerns were more likely to contribute information on DxP risks including access barriers, recent visits for the same problem, problems with tests/referrals or care coordination and communication breakdowns, some of which may represent diagnostic blindspots.

Conclusion: Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions through OurDX may help clinicians gain a broader perspective of the DxP, including unique information to coproduce diagnostic safety.

Background: Temporal structuring is determined by practices and social norms and affects the quality and timing of care. In this case study of hyperacute stroke wards which provide initial stroke investigation, treatment and care, we explored temporal structuring patterns to explain how these may affect quality of care.

Methods: This paper presents a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with hyperacute stroke staff (n=76), non-participant observations (n=41, ~102 hours) and documentary analysis of the relevant service standards guidance. We used an inductive coding process to generate thematic findings around the concept of temporal structuring, with graphically illustrated examples.

Results: Five temporal structures influence what-happens-when: (1) clinical priorities and quality assurance metrics motivate rapid activity for the initial life-prolonging assessments and interventions; (2) static features of ward organisation such as rotas and ward rounds impact consistency of care, determining timing and quality of care for patients; (3) some services experimented with staff rotas to try to meet peaks in demand, sometimes unsuccessfully; (4) implicit social norms or heuristics about perceived necessity affected staff motivation to make changes or improvements to consistency of care, particularly around weekend work; and (5) after-effects such as bottlenecks or backlogs affect quality of care, which are hard to measure effectively to drive service improvement.

Conclusions: Patients need temporally consistent high quality of care. Temporal consistency stems from the design of services, including staffing, targets and patient pathway design as well as cultural attitudes to working patterns. Improvements to consistency of care will be limited without changes to structures such as rotas and ward rounds, but also social norms around weekend work for certain professional groups.

Background: Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them.

Setting and sample: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023.

Methods: Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts.

Results: Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions.

Conclusion: While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.