Analysis of applying a patient safety taxonomy to patient and clinician-reported incident reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruption to healthcare delivery worldwide causing medical services to adapt their standard practices. Learning how these adaptations result in unintended patient harm is essential to mitigate against future incidents. Incident reporting and learning system data can be used to identify areas to improve patient safety. A classification system is required to make sense of such data to identify learning and priorities for further in-depth investigation. The Patient Safety (PISA) classification system was created for this purpose, but it is not known if classification systems are sufficient to capture novel safety concepts arising from crises like the pandemic. We aimed to review the application of the PISA classification system during the COVID-19 pandemic to appraise whether modifications were required to maintain its meaningful use for the pandemic context. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study integrating two phases in an exploratory, sequential design. This included a comparative secondary analysis of patient safety incident reports from two studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, where we coded patient-reported incidents from the UK and clinician-reported incidents from France. The findings were presented to a focus group of experts in classification systems and patient safety, and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resultant transcript. RESULTS: We identified five key themes derived from the data analysis and expert group discussion. These included capitalising on the unique perspective of safety concerns from different groups, that existing frameworks do identify priority areas to investigate further, the objectives of a study shape the data interpretation, the pandemic spotlighted long-standing patient concerns, and the time period in which data are collected offers valuable context to aid explanation. The group consensus was that no COVID-19-specific codes were warranted, and the PISA classification system was fit for purpose. CONCLUSIONS: We have scrutinised the meaningful use of the PISA classification system's application during a period of systemic healthcare constraint, the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these constraints, we found the framework can be successfully applied to incident reports to enable deductive analysis, identify areas for further enquiry and thus support organisational learning. No new or amended codes were warranted. Organisations and investigators can use our findings when reviewing their own classification systems.

What matters to families about the healthcare of preterm or low birth weight infants: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: We examined what matters to families about the healthcare provided to preterm or LBW infants in hospital and the community, to ensure that care meets the needs of infants and parents. METHODS: We searched databases to identify eligible studies examining the views and expectations of families. Study quality was assessed using the CASP checklist for qualitative studies. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess confidence in review findings. Studies were sampled and data analysed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: 222 studies (227 papers) were eligible for inclusion. 54 studies (57 papers) were sampled based on data richness, methodological quality, and representation across settings. Eight analytical themes were identified. Confidence in results was moderate to high. What mattered was a positive outcome for the child; active involvement in care; being supported to cope at home after discharge; emotional support; the healthcare environment; information needs met; logistical support available; and positive relationships with staff. CONCLUSION: Although parents and family members reported a variety of experiences in the care of their infant, we found high consistency in what matters to families. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This review identifies approaches to improve experiences of parents which are consistent with the Family Centred Care model of healthcare.

Effectiveness of technological interventions to improve healthcare communication with children with long-term conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of technological interventions used to improve communication between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and children with long-term conditions (LTCs). METHODS: PROSPERO: CRD42020221977. Five electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2021 for randomised controlled trials. Study characteristics were described and random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, involving 1995 participants. Technological interventions were found to significantly improve participants' knowledge of their condition (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.39; 95% CI 0.07-0.71; p = 0.02) and lead to a more internal health locus of control (SMD 0.50; 95% CI 0.25-0.76; p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant improvement in physiological measures or emergency healthcare use. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed some benefits of using technology to improve communication between HCPs and children with LTCs. Future primary research should use rigorous methods for subsequent reviews to draw conclusions with greater confidence in the evidence. Establishing a core outcome set within this field of study would enable consistent measurement of outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings indicate value in integrating communication technologies in the child health setting, aiming to establish greater continuity of care and maintain patient-clinician relationships between healthcare visits.