Design and preliminary evaluation of a newly designed patient-friendly discharge letter - a randomized, controlled participant-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Low health literacy has been associated with poor health outcome and impaired use of healthcare services. The hospital discharge letter represents a key source of medical information for patients and can be used to address the problem of low health literacy. The aim of this project was to develop and evaluate a new, patient-directed, version of the discharge letter. METHODS: Based upon two conventional discharge letters (CDL; one surgical and one medical letter), two new, patient-friendly discharge letters (PFDL) were designed following 5 key principles: short sentences, few abbreviations, large font size, avoidance of technical terms and no more than 4 pages length. Medical undergraduates were randomized into two blinded groups (CDL, PFDL) and asked to assess the assigned letter for the 3 domains structure, content and patient-friendliness. Subsections were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = completely agree, 6 = completely disagree), the results of the survey were compared using the Mann-Whitney-U-Test with a p < 0.05 being the level of significance. RESULTS: In total, 74 undergraduates participated in this study. PFDL (35 participants) were rated significantly better than CDL (39 participants) regarding structure (median 1 vs. 2, p = 0.005), content (1 vs. 3, p < 0.001) and patient-friendliness (2 vs. 6, p < 0.001). Of all 17 subsections, PFDL were rated significantly better in 12 cases, and never worse than CDL. CONCLUSIONS: PFDL were rated significantly better than their CDL counterparts. Medical undergraduates were considered the ideal cohort, not being medical lays and yet unbiased regarding everyday clinical practice procedures. Further tests evaluating the impact of the PFDL on patient comprehension and health literacy are necessary.

Implementation status of morbidity and mortality conferences in Austrian hospitals-A cross-sectional national survey study.

INTRODUCTION: Morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs) are an instrument for learning from past complications, unexpected follow-ups and deaths in hospitals and are important for improving patient safety. However, there are currently no quantitative data on the implementation of M&MCs in Austria. The aim of the study was to determine the status quo of the M&MCs in Austria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national cross-sectional study was conducted by means of a survey of 982 chief physicians of surgical disciplines, internal medicine, anesthesiology, intensive care, gynecology/obstetrics and pediatrics. The questionnaire focused on overall goals, structure and procedures of hospital M&MCs. RESULTS: Of the 982 contacted chief physicians, 314 (32.0%) completed the survey. Almost two thirds of the respondents, i.e. 203 (64.7%), had already implemented M&MCs. Of the 111 chief physicians who had not yet introduced M&MCs, 62 (55.9%) were interested in introducing such conferences in the future. Of the 203 respondents that had implemented M&MCs, 100 stated that their M&MC could be improved. They reported issues with "shame and blame" culture, hierarchical structures, too little knowledge about the capability of M&MC and, in particular, time constraints. Overall, the participating chief physicians showed that they are striving to improve their existing M&MCs. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: While we found a relatively high number of already implemented M&MCs we also identified a large heterogeneity in the format of the M&MCs. A highly structured M&MC including guidelines, checklists or templates does not only considerably improve its outcome but can also alleviate the main limiting factor which is the lack of time.

Evaluation of an implemented new insulin chart to improve quality and safety of diabetes care in a large university hospital: a follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate structure, documentation, treatment quality of a new implemented standardised insulin chart in adult medical inpatient wards at a university hospital. DESIGN: A before-after study (3 to 5 months after implementation) was used to compare the quality of old versus new insulin charts. SETTING: University Hospital Graz, Austria. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals (n=237) were questioned regarding structure quality of blank insulin charts. INTERVENTIONS: A new standardised insulin chart was implemented and healthcare professionals were trained regarding features of this chart. Data from insulinised inpatients were evaluated regarding documentation and treatment quality of filled-in insulin charts (n=108 old insulin charts vs n=100 new insulin charts). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary endpoint was documentation error for insulin administration. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals reported an improved structure quality of the new insulin chart with a Likert type response scale increase in all nine items. Documentation errors for insulin administration (primary endpoint) occurred more often on old than new insulin charts (77% vs 5%, p<0.001). Documentation errors for insulin prescription were more frequent on old insulin charts (100% vs 42%) whereas documentation errors for insulin management rarely occurred in any group (10% vs 8%). Patients of both chart evaluation groups (age: 71±11 vs 71±12 years, 47% vs 42% women, 75% vs 87% type 2 diabetes for old vs new charts, respectively) had a mean of 4±2 good diabetes days. Overall, 26 vs 18 hypoglycaemic episodes (blood glucose (BG) <4.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL), p=0.28), including 7 vs 2 severe hypoglycaemic episodes (BG <3.0 mmol/L (54 mg/dL), p=0.17) were documented on old versus new insulin charts. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a structured documentation form together with training measures for healthcare professionals led to less documentation errors and safe management of glycaemic control in hospitalised patients in a short time follow-up. A rollout at further medical wards is recommended, and sustainability in the long-term has to be demonstrated.

Limited Documentation and Treatment Quality of Glycemic Inpatient Care in Relation to Structural Deficits of Heterogeneous Insulin Charts at a Large University Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Insulin charts represent a key component in the inpatient glycemic management process. The aim was to evaluate the quality of structure, documentation, and treatment of diabetic inpatient care to design a new standardized insulin chart for a large university hospital setting. METHODS: Historically grown blank insulin charts in use at 39 general wards were collected and evaluated for quality structure features. Documentation and treatment quality were evaluated in a consecutive snapshot audit of filled-in charts. The primary end point was the percentage of charts with any medication error. RESULTS: Overall, 20 different blank insulin charts with variable designs and significant structural deficits were identified. A medication error occurred in 55% of the 102 audited filled-in insulin charts, consisting of prescription and management errors in 48% and 16%, respectively. Charts of insulin-treated patients had more medication errors relative to patients treated with oral medication (P < 0.01). Chart design did support neither clinical authorization of individual insulin prescription (10%), nor insulin administration confirmed by nurses' signature (25%), nor treatment of hypoglycemia (0%), which resulted in a reduced documentation and treatment quality in clinical practice 7%, 30%, 25%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A multitude of charts with variable design characteristics and structural deficits were in use across the inpatient wards. More than half of the inpatients had a chart displaying a medication error. Lack of structure quality features of the charts had an impact on documentation and treatment quality. Based on identified deficits and international standards, a new insulin chart was developed to overcome these quality hurdles.

Hand hygiene compliance in intensive care units: An observational study.

AIM: Health care-associated infections along with antibiotic resistance are a leading risk for patient safety in intensive care units. Hygienic hand disinfection is still regarded as the most effective, simplest, and most cost-effective measure to reduce health care-associated infections. To improve hand hygiene compliance and to prevent health care-associated infections, interventions of the "German Clean Hands Campaign" were implemented in a university hospital. METHODS: Observational single-center study using direct observation and feedback. Hand hygiene performance was assessed in 12 intensive care units between 2013 and 2017. Linear mixed model regression analyses were used to estimate the compliance trend over time. RESULTS: In total, 10 315 "my five moments for hand hygiene" were observed. The mean hand hygiene compliance rates increased from 75.1% to 88.6% during the study period, yielding an estimated increase of about 4.5% per year. However, there are differences in compliance between occupational groups (physicians: between 61.2% and 77.1%; nurses: between 80.2% and 90.9%; others: between 61.3% and 82.4%). CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of the "German Clean Hands Campaign" interventions, an overall significant improvement of hand hygiene was detected. Compliance measurements helped to raise awareness among health care professional groups.

Attitudes of physicians towards target groups and content of the discharge summary: a cross-sectional analysis in Styria, Austria.

OBJECTIVES: The discharge summary (DS) represents one of the most important instruments to ensure a safe patient discharge from the hospital. They sometimes have poor quality in content and often include medical jargon, which the patient and their relatives cannot easily understand. Therefore, many risks for patient safety exist. This study investigated the questions for whom the DS is and which contents are necessary to ensure a safe treatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Styria, Austria. PARTICIPANTS: 3948 internal and external physicians were consulted. INTERVENTIONS: An online survey consisting of 24 questions was conducted. The survey was distributed to physicians working in the province of Styria, Austria, in 2018 over a period of 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Attitudes of internal and external physicians in terms of target group, content and health literacy. RESULTS: In total, 1060 physicians participated in the survey. The DS is considered as a communication tool among physicians (97.9%) and the patients are also indicated as addressees (73.5%). Furthermore, there is a high level of agreement that understandable information in the DS leads to fewer questions of the patients (67.9%). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the DS is not only seen as a document for the further treating physician but is also relevant for the patient. Incorporating the patient into their treatment at all levels may possibly strengthen the individual health literacy of the patient and their caring relatives.

Speaking up culture of medical students within an academic teaching hospital: Need of faculty working in patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Speaking up behavior is a manifestation the culture of safety in an organization; however, withholding voice is commonly observed. Within one academic teaching hospital, it was the aim to assess students' speaking up behaviors and perceived culture in order to stimulation of the academic development in terms of patient safety. METHODS: Survey amongst medical students using a validated questionnaire. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 326 individuals completed the questionnaire (response rate 24%). 37% of responders were in their 5th- 6th clinical term, 32% were in their 7th-8th term and 31% were in the 9th-12th term. 69% of students had a specific safety concern in the past four weeks, 48% had observed an error and 68% noticed the violation of a patient safety rule. Though students perceived specific patient safety concerns, 56% did not speak up in a critical situation. All predefined barriers seemed to play an important role in inhibiting students' voicing concerns. The scores on the psychological safety scale were overall moderately favourable. Students felt little encouraged by colleagues and, in particular, by supervisors to speak up. CONCLUSION: Speaking up behaviour of students was assessed for the first time in an Austrian academic teaching hospital. The higher the term the more frequent students reported perceived patient safety concerns or rule violations and withholding voice. These results suggest the need to adapt the curriculum concept of the faculty in order to address patient safety as a relevant topic.

Deployment of Critical Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in public Styrian hospitals: a five year perspective.

BACKGROUND: To increase patient safety, so-called Critical Incident Reporting Systems (CIRS) were implemented. For Austria, no data are available on how CIRS is used within a healthcare facility. Therefore, the aim of this study was to present the development of CIRS within one of the biggest hospital providers in Austria. METHODS: In the province of Styria, CIRS was introduced in 2012 within KAGes (holder of public hospitals) in 22 regional hospitals and one tertiary university hospital. CIRS is available in all of these hospitals using the same software solution. For reporting a CIRS case an overall guideline exists. RESULTS: As of 2013, 2.504 CIRS cases were reported. Predominantly, CIRS-cases derived from surgical and associated disciplines (ranging from 35 to 45%). According to the list of hazards (also called "risk atlas"), errors in patient identification (ranging from 7 to 12%), errors in management of medicinal products (ranging from < 5 to 9%), errors in management of medical devices (ranging from < 5 to 10%) and errors in communication (ranging from < 5 to 6%) occurred most frequently. Most often, a CIRS case was reported due to individual error-related reasons (48%), followed by errors caused by organization, team factors, communication or documentation failures (34%). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, CIRS has been used for 5 years and 2.504 CIRS-cases were reported. There is a steady increase of reported CIRS cases per year. It became also obvious that disregarding guidelines or standards are a very common reason for reporting a CIRS case. CIRS can be regarded as a helpful supportive tool in clinical risk management and supports organizational learning and thereby collective knowledge management.

A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis on the risks of medical discharge letters for patients' safety.

BACKGROUND: The medical discharge letter is an important communication tool between hospitals and other healthcare providers. Despite its high status, it often does not meet the desired requirements in everyday clinical practice. Occurring risks create barriers for patients and doctors. This present review summarizes risks of the medical discharge letter. METHODS: The research question was answered with a systematic literature research and results were summarized narratively. A literature search in the databases PubMed and Cochrane Library for Studies between January 2008 and May 2018 was performed. Two authors reviewed the full texts of potentially relevant studies to determine eligibility for inclusion. Literature on possible risks associated with the medical discharge letter was discussed. RESULTS: In total, 29 studies were included in this review. The major identified risk factors are the delayed sending of the discharge letter to doctors for further treatments, unintelligible (not patient-centered) medical discharge letters, low quality of the discharge letter, and lack of information as well as absence of training in writing medical discharge letters during medical education. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risks factors are associated with the medical discharge letter. There is a need for further research to improve the quality of the medical discharge letter to minimize risks and increase patients' safety.

Quality of teamwork in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor boards (TB) play an important role to formulate a management plan for the treatment of patients with a malignancy. Recent evidence suggests that optimally functioning teams (teamwork, communication and decision making) are major prerequisites to conduct efficient TB meetings. The aims of this study were i) to use a readily published tool as a template for the development of a teamwork perspective extended assessment tool and ii) to evaluate the tool in a feasibility study by clinical and non-clinical observers. METHODS: A systematic literature search in four databases revealed the "Metric for the Observation of Decision-making (MODe)" to be consistently used. MODe served as a template for the clinical evaluation, additional, notably teamwork items were integrated, and the resulting tool was tested in a feasibility study in TBs by clinical and non-clinical observers. The percentage of agreement between observers was assessed in a two-step approach: first, agreement of raters on discussion of items by TB members, and second, agreement of raters based on ordinal scale. RESULTS: In total, 244 patients were discussed in 27 TB sessions, thereof 136 (56%) fast track cases and 108 (44%) complex cases. In 228 (93%) of all cases an agreement for recommendation of a treatment plan was reached. Observers showed in general high agreement on discussion of the items. For the majority of items, the percentage of agreement between the different pairs of rater was similar and mostly high. CONCLUSION: A newly developed TB team performance tool using MODe as a template was piloted in a German-speaking country and enabled the assessment of specialized multidisciplinary teams with a special focus on teamwork patterns. The developed assessment tool requires evaluation in a larger collective for validation, and additional assessment whether it can be applied equally by non-clinicians and clinicians.

Interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance in a tertiary university hospital over a period of 5 years: An iterative process of information, training and feedback.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To explore whether an iterative process of information and training paired with a feedback system to observed healthcare professionals and the respective management improves hand hygiene (HH) compliance. BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections are a major risk for patient safety, and adherence to the "My five moments" (M5M) for HH varies significantly within organisations as well as within healthcare professional groups. Identified barriers in a baseline survey revealed the need of more information, training, repetitive compliance measurements and feedback to all healthcare professionals. DESIGN: A quality improvement project using the method of direct observation of healthcare professionals in nonsurgical and surgical wards. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2017, 6,009 healthcare professionals were informed and trained, and HH compliance measurements were performed by hygiene experts. Compliance measurement results were documented in an online tool to give an immediate feedback to observed healthcare professionals. Additionally, a report was forwarded to the management of the respective department to raise awareness. Compliance rates per year were descriptively summarised. The research and reporting methodology followed SQUIRE 2.0. RESULTS: In total, 84 compliance measurements with 19,295 "M5M for HH" were observed in 49 wards. Overall, mean HH compliance increased from 81.9 ± 5.2% in 2013 to 94.0 ± 3.6% in 2017. Physicians' HH compliance rate improved from 69.0 ± 16.6% to 89.3 ± 6.6%, that of nurses from 86.0 ± 6.9% to 96.4 ± 3.1%, and that of others from 60.5 ± 27.9% to 83.8 ± 20.2%. All M5M for HH (#1-#5) increased over the study period (#1: +16.9%; #2: +20.5%; #3: +7.6%; #4: +5.9%; #5: +12.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrated that an iterative process of information, training, observation and feedback over a period of 5 years can be successful in increasing HH compliance. Positive trends were observed for HH compliance rates across all healthcare professional groups as well as for all M5M for HH.

Official definitions for undesirable medical events : Are they correctly applied in medicine?

BACKGROUND: In Austria, elaborate definitions exist for the undesirable medical events side effect, adverse event, complication and medical malpractice. We aimed at investigating whether the official definitions for the abovementioned terms can be understood by a sample population representing a cross-section of the Austrian population. METHODS: In this study 1021 Austrian citizens were interviewed. Demographic parameters (age, gender, occupation, level of education, monthly income, number of inhabitants at place of residence) were assessed. Participants were told the official definitions for complication, side effect, adverse event and medical malpractice and asked to select the correct definition for "complication". The impact of sample characteristics on the ability to identify the correct definition was investigated. RESULTS: Of the participants 315 (31%) identified the correct definition of a complication. Almost the same number (n = 302, 30%; χ2 for single samples: p = 0.087) falsely selected the definition for side effect. Significantly fewer (both p < 0.001) chose the definitions for adverse event (n = 220, 22%) and medical malpractice (n = 155, 15%). Only the respective state of origin showed significant influence on the probability of choosing the correct definition out of the four. The probability was highest in Vorarlberg (0.400) and lowest in Upper Austria (0.216, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For the majority the present official definitions for undesirable medical events are too complex to understand. Simple definitions for undesirable medical events should be included into patient education.

A new approach of assessing patient safety aspects in routine practice using the example of "doctors handwritten prescriptions".

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To test the method of self- and external assessment as a feedback system to decrease illegibility and incorrectness of handwritten prescriptions and to reduce additional workload for nursing staff. BACKGROUND: Illegibility and incorrectness of handwritten prescriptions occur very often and are the most crucial factors affecting patient safety. DESIGN: Self- versus external assessment using a 15 items checklist. METHODS: Nurses randomly selected five fever charts of their wards. Each fever chart was self- as well as externally assessed. Nurses and doctors took part in the self-assessment, and the external assessment was performed by external experts. According to a monitor suspension system, assessment results were considered "green," "yellow" or "red." After the first assessment and issuing feedback of the results "red" scored wards by the external assessment, additional trainings were performed. Thereafter, a second assessment was performed to rate eligibility and completeness of prescriptions. The research and reporting methodology followed squire 2.0. RESULTS: In total, 580 fever charts were self- as well as externally assessed (290 in each of the two assessment periods). Out of the 58 participating wards, 31 were surgical and 27 were non-surgical wards. Averaging over all checklist items, surgical and non-surgical wards improved only slightly over time. Linear regression models for ward means showed that there were significant improvements over time for non-surgical wards. CONCLUSIONS: This method directly involves those who commit errors and stimulate learning from errors. The approach of self- and external assessment was a useful instrument to detect inadequate prescriptions and to monitor improvements. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Significant improvements were achieved regarding correctness and legibility of handwritten prescription and helped to decrease additional workload for nursing staff and thereby enhanced patient safety.

Implementation and maintenance of a pain management quality assurance program at intensive care units: 360 degree feedback of physicians, nurses and patients.

BACKGROUND: Pain management quality assurance programs (PMQP) have been successfully implemented in numerous hospitals across Europe. We aimed to evaluate the medium-term sustainability of a PMQP implemented at intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Two surveys, the first in 2012, immediately after introduction of the PMQP, and the second in 2015, were carried out amongst patients, physicians and nurses. Demographic parameters of all participants were assessed. Patients were asked after their pain levels during ICU stay. Staff members answered a questionnaire regarding familiarity with standards and processes of PMQP and self-perception of their knowledge as well as contentment with interdisciplinary communication. RESULTS: In total (2012/2015), 267 (125/142) patients, 113 (65/48) physicians and 510 (264/246) members of the nursing staff participated. Minimum and maximum pain levels of patients did not differ between both surveys. Patients' tolerance of pain 24 hours before the survey was better (p = 0.023), and vomiting occurred less often (p = 0.037) in 2015. Physicians' and nurses' contentment with the own knowledge about pharmacological pain treatment had increased from 2012 to 2015 (p = 0.002 and 0.004). Satisfaction with communication between nurses and physicians was better in 2015 (p<0.001 and p = 0.002). Familiarity with PMQP standards and processes remained stable in both collectives. CONCLUSION: The implementation of our PMQP achieved a high standard of care, guarantying a high patient and staff member satisfaction. Continuous education, ongoing training, regular updates and implementation of feedback-loops ensure continuity, in some parameters even an increase in knowledge and competencies. This is mirrored in high patient and staff member satisfaction.

Reality check of using the surgical safety checklist: A qualitative study to observe application errors during snapshot audits.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) was established to address important safety issues and to reduce the number of surgical deaths. So far, numerous reports have demonstrated sub-optimal implementation of the SSC in practice and limited improvements in patient outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to audit the SSC-practice in a real-world setting in a university hospital setting. METHODS: From 2015 to 2016, independent observers performed snapshot audits in operating theatres and shadowed the three phases of the SSC. Using a 4-point Likert-scale to rate the compliance on each audit day, we generated a report highlighting possible improvements and provided feedback to the operating team members. RESULTS: Audits were performed on 36 operating days (2015: n = 19; 2016: n = 17), in which a total of 136 surgical interventions were observed. Overall, the percentage of "very good compliance" improved from 2015 to 2016: for the sign-in from 52.9% to 81.2% (p = 0.141), for the team-time-out from 33.3% to 58.8% (p = 0.181), and for the sign-out from 21.4% to 41.7% (p = 0.401). The qualitative review revealed inconsistencies when applying the SSC, of which the missing documentation of an actually performed item or the wrong timing for an item was most common. CONCLUSION: Snapshot audits revealed that SSC compliance has improved over the observed period, while its application revealed inconsistencies during the three phases of the SSC. Snapshot audits proved to be a valuable tool in the qualitative analysis of SSC compliance and gave more insight than a mere completeness check of ticks in SSC documents.

Feasibility and Design of an Electronic Surgical Safety Checklist in a Teaching Hospital: A User-Based Approach.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is routinely used in operating rooms (OR) but its acceptance is low. One promising way to improve acceptance of the SSC and thus quality of patient care is digitalization. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how a digitalization of the SSC could be implemented in a teaching hospital. Based on the identified user requirements we designed a first user interface (UI). METHOD: We performed a literature review, identified user perceptions and requirements during 12 interviews including a standardized questionnaire in surgical departments at the University Hospital Graz (Austria). Subsequently a first prototype of a UI was designed. RESULTS: Seven different approaches for digital SSC were identified in literature. Our interviews showed that 90% of the participants had a positive attitude towards a digitalization of SSC. The most favoured version of a digitalized SSC was a tablet-based client-server system with integration in the EHR and projection on an OR monitor. CONCLUSION: Digitalization of the SSC is requested by medical and nursing personnel. Based on the identified user requirements we designed a process oriented UI of a digital SSC.

Speaking up behaviors and safety climate in an Austrian university hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze speaking up behavior and safety climate with a validated questionnaire for the first time in an Austrian university hospital. DESIGN: Survey amongst healthcare workers (HCW). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha was calculated as a measure of internal consistencies of scales. Analysis of variance and t-tests were used. SETTING: The survey was conducted in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: About 2.149 HCW from three departments were asked to participate. INTERVENTION: To measure speaking up behavior and safety climate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: To explore psychological safety, encouraging environment and resignation towards speaking up. RESULTS: About 859 evaluable questionnaires were returned (response rate: 40%). More than 50% of responders perceived specific concerns about patient safety within the last 4 weeks and observed a potential error or noticed rule violations. For the different items, between 16% and 42% of HCW reported that they remained silent though concerns for safety. In contrast, between 96% and 98% answered that they did speak up in certain situations. The psychological safety for speaking up was lower for HCW with a managerial function (P < 0.001). HCW with managerial functions perceived the environment as less encouraging to speak up (P < 0.05) than HCW without managerial function. CONCLUSIONS: We identified speaking up behaviors for the first time in an Austrian university hospital. Only moderately frequent concerns were in conflict with frequent speaking up behaviors. These results clearly show that a paradigm shift is needed to increase speaking up culture.

Survey to identify depth of penetration of critical incident reporting systems in Austrian healthcare facilities.

Incident reporting systems or so-called critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) were first recommended for use in health care more than 15 years ago. The uses of these CIRS are highly variable among countries, ranging from being used to report critical incidents, falls, or sentinel events resulting in death. In Austria, CIRS have only been introduced to the health care sector relatively recently. The goal of this work, therefore, was to determine whether and specifically how CIRS are used in Austria. A working group from the Austrian Society for Quality and Safety in Healthcare (ASQS) developed a survey on the topic of CIRS to collect information on penetration of CIRS in general and on how CIRS reports are used to increase patient safety. Three hundred seventy-one health care professionals from 274 health care facilities were contacted via e-mail. Seventy-eight respondents (21.0%) completed the online survey, thereof 66 from hospitals and 12 from other facilities (outpatient clinics, nursing homes). In all, 64.1% of the respondents indicated that CIRS were used in the entire health care facility; 20.6% had not yet introduced CIRS and 15.4% used CIRS only in particular areas. Most often, critical incidents without any harm to patients were reported (76.9%); however, some health care facilities also use their CIRS to report patient falls (16.7%), needle stick injuries (17.9%), technical problems (51.3%), or critical incidents involving health care professionals. CIRS are not yet extensively or homogeneously used in Austria. Inconsistencies exist with respect to which events are reported as well as how they are followed up and reported to health care professionals. Further recommendations for general use are needed to support the dissemination in Austrian health care environments.

Results of a population-based-assessment: we need better communication and more profound patient involvement.

BACKGROUND: In Austria several regulations were published in order to support initiatives to increase patient safety. Since then, many patient safety projects were implemented in Austrian hospitals; therefore, it was the aim of the current survey to examine the perceptions of Austrian citizens with respect to topics relevant to patient safety. METHODS: Between 8 and 22 October 2015 a qualitative cross-sectional telephone interview study was performed. A sample of citizens above 14 years of age was randomly drawn. The survey contained 6 questions. In each of the nine states of Austria, a representative number of citizens were interviewed. RESULTS: In total 1021(female: 52.3%) telephone interviews were performed and 249 (24.7%) citizens stated that trust/confidence in patient safety is very high, 571 (55.9%) assessed the reputation of a hospital as very important and 739 (72.4%) stated that a detailed explanation of the treatment as well as information on associated risk factors and possibilities of further treatments is very important. Of the respondents 722 (70.7%) stated that patient safety measures in a given hospital are very important, 807 (79.0%) stated that it is important to be informed about patient safety measures and 547 (53.6%) stated that if something did not satisfactorily function they would complain to the hospital. Significant differences occurred for states with and without university hospitals. CONCLUSION: The results of the survey give cause for concern as the majority of interviewed citizens have medium or low trust/confidence in patient safety. Furthermore, more than two-thirds of Austrian citizens revealed that detailed explanation of treatment, information on associated risk factors, information about patient safety measures to predict medical errors and information about patient safety measures which are in place in a hospital are very important. The study showed that patient safety is an important topic for Austrian citizens and they want to be informed and involved. The study also indicated the need to promote patient safety aspects and to decrease the number of people who are not confident concerning patient safety in Austrian hospitals.

[New ways to evaluate patient safety relevant topics: Patient-safety feedback]. / Neue Wege zur Evaluierung von patientensicherheitsrelevanten Aspekten: Feedback-Patientensicherheit.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety has become a hot topic, and there are numerous initiatives ongoing to improve patient-relevant processes. But how can both the effectiveness and sustainability of these initiatives be evaluated? The aim of the present paper was to describe the development of an instrument to assess patient safety aspects which can be used for normal hospital ward and intensive care unit rounds or in the operating room. METHODOLOGY: All relevant patient safety guidelines and checklists of the University Hospital Graz were screened. Subsequently, questions were extracted from these documents which can be used in a checklist for "real-time" ward rounds by local observers. RESULTS: Based on the document screening two sets of criteria were prepared, one for operating rooms and one for normal hospital wards and intensive care units. Using a survey tool two checklists were then generated on the basis of these criteria, which can be used for the so-called "patient-safety feedback" from the observers. CONCLUSION: Whether guidelines or checklists, which should theoretically improve patient safety, are properly understood and applied as intended by healthcare professionals can only be evaluated by using methods like monitoring the respective processes. The checklists for conducting the so-called "patient-safety feedback" seem to be an effective instrument to assess patient safety-relevant processes in "real-time".