Barriers and facilitators to incident reporting in mental healthcare settings: A qualitative study.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: The barriers and facilitators to incident reporting are becoming well known in general healthcare settings due to a large body of research in this area. At present, it is unknown if these factors also affect incident reporting in mental healthcare settings as the same amount of research has not been conducted in these settings. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: Some of the barriers and facilitators to incident reporting in mental healthcare settings are the same as general healthcare settings (i.e., learning and improvement, time and fear). Other factors appear to be specific to mental healthcare settings (i.e., the role of patient diagnosis and how incidents involving assault are dealt with). WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Interventions to improve incident reporting in mental healthcare settings may be adapted from general healthcare settings in some cases. Bespoke interventions for mental healthcare settings that focus specifically on violence and aggression should be co-designed with patients and staff. Thresholds for incident reporting (i.e., what types of incidents will not be tolerated) need to be set, communicated and adopted Trust wide to ensure parity across staff groups and services. ABSTRACT: Introduction Barriers and facilitators to incident reporting have been widely researched in general health care. However, it is unclear if the findings are applicable to mental health care where care is increasingly complex. Aim To investigate if barriers and facilitators affecting incident reporting in mental health care are consistent with factors identified in other healthcare settings. Method Data were collected from focus groups (n = 8) with 52 members of staff from across West London NHS Trust and analysed with thematic analysis. Results Five themes were identified during the analysis. Three themes (a) learning and improvement, (b) time and (c) fear were consistent with the existing wider literature on barriers and facilitators to incident reporting. Two further themes (d) interaction between patient diagnosis and incidents and (e) aftermath of an incident-prosecution specifically linked to the provision of mental health care. Conclusions Whilst some barriers and facilitators to incident reporting identified in other settings are also prevalent in the mental healthcare setting, the increased incidence of violent and aggressive behaviour within mental health care presents a unique challenge for incident reporting. Clinical implications Although interventions to improve incident reporting may be adapted/adopted from other settings, there is a need to develop specific interventions to improve reporting of violent and aggressive incidents.

Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Patients in inpatient mental health settings face similar risks (eg, medication errors) to those in other areas of healthcare. In addition, some unsafe behaviours associated with serious mental health problems (eg, self-harm), and the measures taken to address these (eg, restraint), may result in further risks to patient safety. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the literature on patient safety within inpatient mental health settings using robust systematic methodology. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-synthesis. Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science were systematically searched from 1999 to 2019. Search terms were related to 'mental health', 'patient safety', 'inpatient setting' and 'research'. Study quality was assessed using the Hawker checklist. Data were extracted and grouped based on study focus and outcome. Safety incidents were meta-analysed where possible using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of the 57 637 article titles and abstracts, 364 met inclusion criteria. Included publications came from 31 countries and included data from over 150 000 participants. Study quality varied and statistical heterogeneity was high. Ten research categories were identified: interpersonal violence, coercive interventions, safety culture, harm to self, safety of the physical environment, medication safety, unauthorised leave, clinical decision making, falls and infection prevention and control. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings is under-researched in comparison to other non-mental health inpatient settings. Findings demonstrate that inpatient mental health settings pose unique challenges for patient safety, which require investment in research, policy development, and translation into clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016034057.

Identifying research priorities for patient safety in mental health: an international expert Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: Physical healthcare has dominated the patient safety field; research in mental healthcare is not as extensive but findings from physical healthcare cannot be applied to mental healthcare because it delivers specialised care that faces unique challenges. Therefore, a clearer focus and recognition of patient safety in mental health as a distinct research area is still needed. The study aim is to identify future research priorities in the field of patient safety in mental health. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted with the experts to ascertain their views on research priorities in patient safety in mental health. A three-round online Delphi study was used to ascertain consensus on 117 research priority statements. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Academic and service user experts from the USA, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement in research priorities on a five-point scale. RESULTS: Seventy-nine statements achieved consensus (>70%). Three out of the top six research priorities were patient driven; experts agreed that understanding the patient perspective on safety planning, on self-harm and on medication was important. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first international Delphi study to identify research priorities in safety in the mental field as determined by expert academic and service user perspectives. A reasonable consensus was obtained from international perspectives on future research priorities in patient safety in mental health; however, the patient perspective on their mental healthcare is a priority. The research agenda for patient safety in mental health identified here should be informed by patient safety science more broadly and used to further establish this area as a priority in its own right. The safety of mental health patients must have parity with that of physical health patients to achieve this.

Physical restraint use in intensive care units across Europe: the PRICE study.

The use of physical restraint has been linked to delirium in ICU patients and a range of physical and psychological outcomes in non-ICU patients. However, the extent of restraint practice in ICUs is largely unknown. This study was designed to examine physical restraint practices across European ICUs. A prospective point prevalence survey was conducted in adult ICUs across European countries to examine: physical and chemical restraint use during the weekend and weekdays, reasons for physical restraint use, timing of restraint use, type of restraint used and availability of restraint policies. Thirty-four general (adult) ICUs in nine countries participated in the study providing information on 669 patients with details of physical and chemical restraint use in 566 patients. Prevalence of physical restraint use in individual units ranged from 0 to 100% of patients. Thirty-three per cent of patients were physically restrained; those that were restrained were more likely to be ventilated (χ(2)=87.56, p<0.001), sedated (χ(2)34.66, p<0.001), managed in a larger unit (χ(2)=10.741, p=.005) and managed in a unit with a lower daytime nurse:patient ratio (χ(2)=17.17, p=0.001). Larger units were more likely to use commercial wrist restraints and smaller units were more likely to have a restraint policy, although these results did not reach significance. As an initial exploration, this study provides evidence of the range of restraint practice across Units in Europe. Variation in the number of units per country limits generalization of findings. However, further examination is needed to determine whether there is a causal element to these relationships. Attention should be paid to developing evidence based guidelines to underpin restraint practices.

Using a database to demonstrate the clinical nurse specialist's contribution to patient care.

Specialist nurse roles appear to beunder threat in the UK and the role of the clinical nurse specialist has been subject to scrutiny recently. A trust developed a database so that data on the CNS workload and contribution to patient care could be collected and analysed. This showed the components of the role and the dear benefits to patient care.

"Identifying the hospitalised patient in crisis"--a consensus conference on the afferent limb of rapid response systems.

BACKGROUND: Most reports of Rapid Response Systems (RRS) focus on the efferent, response component of the system, although evidence suggests that improved vital sign monitoring and recognition of a clinical crisis may have outcome benefits. There is no consensus regarding how best to detect patient deterioration or a clear description of what constitutes patient monitoring. METHODS: A consensus conference of international experts in safety, RRS, healthcare technology, education, and risk prediction was convened to review current knowledge and opinion on clinical monitoring. Using established consensus procedures, four topic areas were addressed: (1) To what extent do physiologic abnormalities predict risk for patient deterioration? (2) Do workload changes and their potential stresses on the healthcare environment increase patient risk in a predictable manner? (3) What are the characteristics of an "ideal" monitoring system, and to what extent does currently available technology meet this need? and (4) How can monitoring be categorized to facilitate comparing systems? RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The major findings include: (1) vital sign aberrations predict risk, (2) monitoring patients more effectively may improve outcome, although some risk is random, (3) the workload implications of monitoring on the clinical workforce have not been explored, but are amenable to study and should be investigated, (4) the characteristics of an ideal monitoring system are identifiable, and it is possible to categorize monitoring modalities. It may also be possible to describe monitoring levels, and a system is proposed.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for preventing central venous catheter-related infection: results of a knowledge test among 3405 European intensive care nurses.

OBJECTIVE: To determine European intensive care unit (ICU) nurses' knowledge of guidelines for preventing central venous catheter-related infection from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. DESIGN: Multicountry survey (October 2006-March 2007). SETTING: Twenty-two European countries. PARTICIPANTS: ICU nurses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using a validated multiple-choice test, knowledge of ten recommendations for central venous catheter-related infection prevention was evaluated (one point per question) and assessed in relation to participants' gender, ICU experience, number of ICU beds, and acquisition of a specialized ICU qualification. We collected 3405 questionnaires (70.9% response rate); mean test score was 44.4%. Fifty-six percent knew that central venous catheters should be replaced on indication only, and 74% knew this also concerns replacement over a guidewire. Replacing pressure transducers and tubing every 4 days, and using coated devices in patients requiring a central venous catheter >5 days in settings with high infection rates only were recognized as recommended by 53% and 31%, respectively. Central venous catheters dressings in general are known to be changed on indication and at least once weekly by 43%, and 26% recognized that both polyurethane and gauze dressings are recommended. Only 14% checked 2% aqueous chlorhexidine as the recommended disinfection solution; 30% knew antibiotic ointments are not recommended because they trigger resistance. Replacing administration sets within 24 hrs after administering lipid emulsions was recognized as recommended by 90%, but only 26% knew sets should be replaced every 96 hrs when administering neither lipid emulsions nor blood products. Professional seniority and number of ICU beds showed to be independently associated with better test scores. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist to optimize knowledge of central venous catheter-related infection prevention among European ICU nurses. We recommend including central venous catheter-related infection prevention guidelines in educational curricula and continuing refresher education programs.

The provision of critical care outreach services in England: findings from a national survey.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the development, introduction, implementation, and current models of critical care outreach services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a national postal survey of National Health Service acute care hospitals in England that routinely provide care for level 1 patients (n = 239). RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 191 (79.9%) hospitals; 139 (72.8%) had a formal critical care outreach service. A third (32.8%, 45/137) of services covered more than one hospital; 33.8% (45/133) of hospitals provided telephone advice 24 hours a day for 7 days per week, but less than 15% of hospitals offered follow-up or direct bedside clinical support on the same basis. There was wide variation in the proportion of hospital wards covered, the size and composition of the team, the aims of the service, and the balance between provision of direct care and advice. CONCLUSIONS: There are still a significant number of National Health Service acute care hospitals in England with no formal critical care outreach service. In addition, critical care outreach is being delivered in many different ways across the country, and thus means different things in different hospitals. The variation may reflect the lack of evidence as to which approaches are likely to be most effective.

Systematic review and evaluation of physiological track and trigger warning systems for identifying at-risk patients on the ward.

OBJECTIVE: Physiological track and trigger warning systems (TTs) are used to identify patients outside critical care areas at risk of deterioration and to alert a senior clinician, Critical Care Outreach Service, or equivalent. The aims of this work were: to describe published TTs and the extent to which each has been developed according to established procedures; to review the published evidence and available data on the reliability, validity and utility of existing systems; and to identify the best TT for timely recognition of critically ill patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of studies identified from electronic, citation and hand searching, and expert informants. Cohort study of data from 31 acute hospitals in England and Wales. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Thirty-six papers were identified describing 25 distinct TTs. Thirty-one papers described the use of a TT, and five were studies examining the development or testing of TTs. None of the studies met all methodological quality standards. For the cohort study, outcome was measured by a composite of death, admission to critical care, 'do not attempt resuscitation' or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Fifteen datasets met pre-defined quality criteria. Sensitivities and positive predictive values were low, with median (quartiles) of 43.3 (25.4-69.2) and 36.7 (29.3-43.8), respectively. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of TTs were in use, with little evidence of reliability, validity and utility. Sensitivity was poor, which might be due in part to the nature of the physiology monitored or to the choice of trigger threshold. Available data were insufficient to identify the best TT.

Investigating the effectiveness of critical care outreach services: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We explored the impact of critical care outreach activity on patient and service outcomes and aimed to contribute to developing a typology of critical care outreach services. DESIGN: Following a sample search of Medline 15 relevant electronic databases were systematically searched from 1996 to 2004. Searches for publications from nine key authors and citations of eight key articles were performed. Hand searches of journals, bibliographies of reports and review articles, and conference abstracts were conducted. Relevant experts were contacted. A further two studies published after the review date were also included. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, conducted quality assessment and extracted data. Data were synthesised using narrative techniques. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Seventeen papers and six brief reports were selected for inclusion from a list of 1,760 titles. As anticipated with a relatively new service such as critical care outreach, there were few controlled trials. There were two randomised controlled trials, 16 uncontrolled before and after studies, three quasi-experimental studies, one controlled before and after study and one post-only controlled study. The most frequent outcomes measured were mortality, cardiac arrest, unplanned critical care admissions from wards, length of stay, and critical care readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although improvements in patient outcomes were found, the evidence in this review is insufficient to demonstrate this conclusively. The many differences in service delivery do not permit identification of service typology. Our findings point to a need for more comprehensive research of this expanding service in the United Kingdom.

Differences in European critical care nursing practice: a pilot study.

The purpose of this pilot study was to determine if there are differences in nursing practice between critical care units across Europe, if these practices are related to the perceived level of incorporation of evidence into nursing practice and/or to regional differences. Nurses attending the nursing session of the bi-annual conference of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine were asked to fill out a two page questionnaire which addressed five areas of practice: physical care, pain management, monitoring, weaning and ethical issues. Some differences were found between regions although there were no differences in the perception of whether these protocols were evidence-based.