Randomized controlled evaluation of an insulin pen storage policy.

PURPOSE: Results of a quality-improvement project to enhance safeguards against "wrong-pen-to-patient" insulin pen errors by permitting secure bedside storage of insulin pens are reported. METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled evaluation was conducted at an academic medical center to assess adherence with institutional policy on insulin pen storage before and after implementation of a revised policy allowing pen storage in locking boxes in patient rooms. In phase 1 of the study, baseline data on policy adherence were captured for 8 patient care units (4 designated as intervention units and 4 designated as control units). In phase 2, policy adherence was assessed through direct observation during weekly audits after lock boxes were installed on intervention units and education on proper insulin pen storage was provided to nurses in all 8 units. RESULTS: Phase 1 rates of adherence to insulin pen storage policy were 59% in the intervention units and 49% in the control units (p = 0.56). During phase 2, there was no significant change from baseline in control unit adherence (67%, p = 0.26), but adherence in intervention units improved significantly, to 89% (p = 0.005). Common types of observed nonadherence included pens being unsecured in patient rooms or nurses' pockets or left in patient-specific medication drawers after patient discharge. CONCLUSION: An institutional policy change permitting secure storage of insulin pens close to the point of care, paired with nurse education, increased adherence more than education alone.

Data-Driven Implementation of Alarm Reduction Interventions in a Cardiovascular Surgical ICU.

BACKGROUND: Alarm fatigue in the ICU setting has been well documented in the literature. The ICU's high-intensity environment requires staff's vigilant attention, and distraction from false and non-actionable alarms pulls staff away from important tasks, creates dissatisfaction, and is a potential patient safety risk if alarms are missed or ignored. This project was intended to improve patient safety by optimizing alarm systems in a cardiovascular surgical intensive care unit (CVSICU). Specific aims were to examine nurses' attitudes toward clinical alarm signals, assess nurses' ability to discriminate audible alarm signals, and implement a bundled set of best practices for monitor alarm reduction without undermining patient safety. METHODS: CVSICU nurses completed an alarm perception survey and participated in alarm discriminability testing. Nurse survey data and baseline monitor alarm data were used to select targeted alarm reduction interventions, which were progressively phased in. Monitor alarm data and cardiorespiratory event data were trended over one year. RESULTS: Five of the most frequent CVSICU monitor alarm types-pulse oximetry, heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse oximetry sensor, and ventricular tachycardia > 2-were targeted. After implementation, there was a 61% reduction in average alarms per monitored bed and a downward trend in cardiorespiratory events. CONCLUSION: To reduce alarm fatigue it is important to decrease alarm burden through targeted interventions. Methods to reduce non-actionable alarms include adding short delays to allow alarm self-correction, adjusting default alarm threshold limits, providing alarm notification through a secondary device, and teaching staff to optimize alarm settings for individual patients.

Patient safety reporting systems: sustained quality improvement using a multidisciplinary team and "good catch" awards.

BACKGROUND: Since 1999, hospitals have made substantial commitments to health care quality and patient safety through individual initiatives of executive leadership involvement in quality, investments in safety culture, education and training for medical students and residents in quality and safety, the creation of patient safety committees, and implementation of patient safety reporting systems. At the Weinberg Surgical Suite at The Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore), a 16-operating-room inpatient/outpatient cancer center, a patient safety reporting process was developed to maximize the usefulness of the reports and the long-term sustainability of quality improvements arising from them. METHODS: A six-phase framework was created incorporating UHC's Patient Safety Net (PSN): Identify, report, analyze, mitigate, reward, and follow up. Unique features of this process included a multidisciplinary team to review reports, mitigate hazards, educate and empower providers, recognize the identifying/reporting individuals or groups with "Good Catch" awards, and follow up to determine if quality improvements were sustained over time. RESULTS: Good Catch awards have been given in recognition of 29 patient safety hazards identified since 2008; in each of these cases, an initiative was developed to mitigate the original hazard. Twenty-five (86%) of the associated quality improvements have been sustained. Two Good Catch award-winning projects--vials of heparin with an unusually high concentration of the drug that posed a potential overdose hazard and a rapid infusion device that resisted practitioner control--are described in detail. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary team's analysis and mitigation of hazards identified in a patient safety reporting process entailed positive recognition with a Good Catch award, education of practitioners, and long-term follow-up.

A practical framework for patient care teams to prospectively identify and mitigate clinical hazards.

BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges facing both practitioners and risk managers is the identification of previously unknown clinical hazards and defects. With the rapid proliferation of new health care services, unknown hazards may propagate as new therapies are integrated into the existing health care system. The main goal of risk analysis is to make these hazards visible by proactively searching and probing the system. Yet, a comprehensive approach by which to safely integrate new therapies into the existing clinical environment has yet to be clearly articulated. Patient care teams can use the proposed framework when introducing new therapies. A PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK: The framework includes a background investigation and literature search; an in situ simulation (in the actual clinical setting used for patients); a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis to determine the severity, probability, and risk of the potential hazards; and a multidisciplinary protocol and safety checklist to standardize practice and ensure provider accountability. CASE EXAMPLES: Application of this framework to three operative scenarios--intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and an interventional pulmonology program--demonstrates its flexibility. Its use prospectively identified and mitigated 20 IORT, 5 HIPEC, and 18 interventional pulmonology hazards/defects. Subsequent patient cases were largely uneventful. All cases and patient safety reporting systems are monitored to identify any new defects in an effort to continuously improve patient care. CONCLUSION: The use of a comprehensive framework to identify and mitigate hazards in an on-site simulated environment promotes safer care for target patient populations; results in familiarity with procedures, amelioration of staff concerns, and standardization of practice; and facilitates teamwork and communication.