ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite the emphasis on patient safety in health care, few organizations have evaluated the extent to which safety is a strategic priority or their culture supports patient safety. In response to the Institute of Medicine's report and to an organizational commitment to patient safety, we conducted a systematic assessment of safety at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) and, from this, developed a strategic plan to improve safety. The specific aims of this study were to evaluate the extent to which the culture supports patient safety at JHH and the extent to which safety is a strategic priority. METHODS: During July and August 2001 we implemented two surveys in disparate populations to assess patient safety. The Safety Climate Scale (SCS) was administered to a sample of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other ICU staff. SCS assesses perceptions of a strong and proactive organizational commitment to patient safety. The second survey instrument, called Strategies for Leadership (SLS), evaluated the extent to which safety was a strategic priority for the organization. This survey was administered to clinical and administrative leaders. RESULTS: We received 395 completed SCS surveys from 82% of the departments and 86% of the nursing units. Staff perceived that supervisors had a greater commitment to safety than senior leaders. Nurses had higher scores than physicians for perceptions of safety. Twenty three completed SLS surveys were received from 77% of the JHH Patient Safety Committee members and 50% of the JHH Management Committee members. Management Committee responses were more positive than Patient Safety Committee, indicating that management perceived safety efforts to be further developed. Strategic planning received the lowest scores from both committees. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this is one of the first large scale efforts to measure institutional culture of safety and then design improvements in health care. The survey results suggest that strategic planning of patient safety needs enhancement. Several efforts to improve our culture of safety were initiated based on these results, which should lead to measurable improvements in patient safety.
Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers/organization & administration , Attitude of Health Personnel , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Organizational Culture , Safety Management/organization & administration , Academic Medical Centers/standards , Baltimore , Health Priorities , Humans , Leadership , Personnel, Hospital/psychology , Systems AnalysisSubject(s)
Advance Directive Adherence , Decision Making , Dissent and Disputes , Family Relations , Group Processes , Terminally Ill/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Advance Directives , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Ethics, Professional , Female , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Advocacy , Personal Autonomy , Physician-Patient Relations , Surveys and Questionnaires , TrustABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients' loved ones often make end-of-life treatment decisions, but the accuracy of their substituted judgments and the factors associated with accuracy are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of judgments made by surrogate decision makers; ascertain the beliefs, practices, and clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with accuracy of surrogates' decisions; assess the preferences of patients for life-sustaining treatments; and compare differences in accuracy across diagnoses. DESIGN: Cross-sectional paired interviews. SETTING: Outpatient practices of three university hospitals. PATIENTS: 250 patients with terminal diagnoses of congestive heart failure, AIDS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (50 patient-surrogate pairs in each group) and 50 general medical patients and their surrogates. MEASUREMENTS: The accuracy of surrogate predictions was measured by using scales based on 10 potential treatments in each of three hypothetical clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Preferences varied according to mode of treatment and scenario. On average, surrogates made correct predictions in 66% of instances. Accuracy was better for the permanent coma scenario than for the scenarios of severe dementia or coma with a small chance of recovery (P < 0.001). In a binary logit model, the accuracy of substituted judgments was positively associated with the patient having spoken with the surrogate about end-of-life issues (odds ratio [OR], 1.9 [95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3]), the patient having private insurance (OR, 1.4 [CI, 1.1 to 1.7]), the surrogate's level of education (OR, 1.5 [CI, 1.2 to 1.9]), and the patient's level of education (OR, 1.7 [CI, 1.4 to 2.2]). Accuracy was negatively associated with the patient's belief that he or she would live longer than 10 years (OR, 0.6 [CI, 0.5 to 0.7]), surrogate experience with life-sustaining treatment (OR, 0.4 [CI, 0.3 to 0.5]), surrogate participation in religious services (OR, 0.67 [CI, 0.50 to 0.91]), and a diagnosis of heart failure (OR, 0.6 [CI, 0.5 to 0.8]). Age, ethnicity, marital status, religion, and advance directives were not associated with accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of substituted judgments is associated with multiple clinically apparent patient and surrogate factors. This information can help clinicians identify conditions under which substituted judgments are likely to be accurate or inaccurate and can help target populations for education designed to improve the accuracy of surrogate decision making.
