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 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.

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.

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".

[The evolution of the Critical Incident Reporting System in an Austrian university hospital]. / Die Entwicklung des Critical Incident Reporting Systems in einem Österreichischen Universitätsspital.

BACKGROUND: Critical Incident Reporting Systems (CIRS) are an important tool to identify potential hazards in healthcare. However, in Europe CIR systems are differently used with respect to whether its use is voluntary or mandatory. The aim of the present paper was to describe the development of the recently implemented CIRS in the University Hospital Graz. METHODOLOGY: In 2012, in a pilot unit CIRS was implemented within an intensive care unit. After evaluating its results, CIRS was then implemented in all organizational units of the University Hospital Graz in 2013. The definition of a CIRS report as well as the processing of CIRS reports was described in a CIRS manual. RESULTS: On average, 1.6 CIRS reports per week were submitted in the University Hospital Graz. Compared to data from a university hospital in Switzerland (27 CIRS reports per week), it becomes evident that, in general, CIRS is used, but the question arises whether CIRS is commonly known and whether information on the proceeding of CIRS cases is sufficiently transparent. CONCLUSION: Overall, the implementation of CIRS is relatively simple, but in order to achieve acceptance and thereby continuous reports, trust and a value-free handling of critical reports is required. Meetings with openly discussed case analysis could help to increase the awareness of CIRS among healthcare professionals. In Europe CIR systems are used in different ways. In Austria, both an academic exchange process on how to use CIRS and a common definition of CIRS reports has so far been lacking. The preparation of a guidance document for Austria is recommended.

The Gap between Individual Perception and Compliance: A Qualitative Follow-Up Study of the Surgical Safety Checklist Application.

BACKGROUND: "The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is important, but we don't use it adequately" is a well-suited statement that reflects the SSC's application in hospitals. Our aim was to follow up on our initial study on compliance (2014) by analysing differences between individual perception and compliance with the SSC. METHODS: We conducted a follow-up online survey to assess healthcare professionals' individual perception of, as well as satisfaction and compliance with the SSC three years following its thorough implementation. RESULTS: 171 (19.5%) of 875 operating team members completed the online survey. 99.4% confirmed using the SSC. Self-estimated subjective knowledge about the intention of the checklist was high, whereas objective knowledge was moderate, but improved as compared to 2014. According to an independent audit the SSC was used in 93.1% of all operations and among the SSCs used the completion rate was 57.2%. The use of the SSC was rated as rather easy [median (IQR): 7 (6-7)], familiar [7 (6-7)], generally important [7 (7-7)], and good for patients [7 (6-7)] as well as for employees [7 (7-7)]. Only comfort of use was rated lower [6 (5-7)]. CONCLUSION: There is a gap between individual perception and actual application of the SSC. Despite healthcare professionals confirming the importance of the SSC, compliance was moderate. The introduction of SSCs in the health care sector remains a constant challenge and requires continuous re-evaluation as well as a sensible integration into existing workflows in hospitals.

Systematic implementation of clinical risk management in a large university hospital: the impact of risk managers.

BACKGROUND: For health care systems in recent years, patient safety has increasingly become a priority issue. National and international strategies have been considered to attempt to overcome the most prominent hazards while patients are receiving health care. Thereby, clinical risk management (CRM) plays a dominant role in enabling the identification, analysis, and management of potential risks. CRM implementation into routine procedures within complex hospital organizations is challenging, as in the past, organizational change strategies using a top-down approach have often failed. Therefore, one of our main objectives was to educate a certain number of risk managers in facilitating CRM using a bottom-up approach. METHODS: To achieve our primary purpose, five project strands were developed, and consequently followed, introducing CRM: corporate governance, risk management (RM) training, CRM process, information, and involvement. The core part of the CRM process involved the education of risk managers within each organizational unit. To account for the size of the existing organization, we assumed that a minimum of 1 % of the workforce had to be trained in RM to disseminate the continuous improvement of quality and safety. Following a roll-out plan, CRM was introduced in each unit and potential risks were identified. RESULTS: Alongside the changes in the corporate governance, a hospital-wide CRM process was introduced resulting in 158 trained risk managers correlating to 2.0 % of the total workforce. Currently, risk managers are present in every unit and have identified 360 operational risks. Among those, 176 risks were scored as strategic and clustered together into top risks. Effective meeting structures and opportunities to share information and knowledge were introduced. Thus far, 31 units have been externally audited in CRM. CONCLUSION: The CRM approach is unique with respect to its dimension; members of all health care professions were trained to be able to identify potential risks. A network of risk managers supported the centrally coordinated CRM process. There is a strong commitment among management, academia, clinicians, and administration to foster cooperation. The introduction of CRM led to a visible shift with regard to patient safety culture throughout the entire organization. Still, there is a long way to go to keep people engaged in CRM and work on national and international patient safety initiatives to continuously decrease potential hazards.