Unit-based incident reporting and root cause analysis: variation at three hospital unit types.

OBJECTIVES: To minimise adverse events in healthcare, various large-scale incident reporting and learning systems have been developed worldwide. Nevertheless, learning from patient safety incidents is going slowly. Local, unit-based reporting systems can help to get faster and more detailed insight into unit-specific safety issues. The aim of our study was to gain insight into types and causes of patient safety incidents in hospital units and to explore differences between unit types. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: 10 emergency medicine units, 10 internal medicine units and 10 general surgery units in 20 hospitals in the Netherlands participated. Patient safety incidents were reported by healthcare providers. Reports were analysed with root cause analysis. The results were compared between the 3 unit types. RESULTS: A total of 2028 incidents were reported in an average reporting period of 8 weeks per unit. More than half had some consequences for patients, such as a prolonged hospital stay or longer waiting time, and a small number resulted in patient harm. Significant differences in incident types and causes were found between unit types. Emergency units reported more incidents related to collaboration, whereas surgical and internal medicine units reported more incidents related to medication use. The distribution of root causes of surgical and emergency medicine units showed more mutual similarities than those of internal medicine units. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable incidents and causes have been found in all units, but there were also differences between units and unit types. Unit-based incident reporting gives specific information and therefore makes improvements easier. We conclude that unit-based incident reporting has an added value besides hospital-wide or national reporting systems that already exist in various countries.

An eHealth Application in Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care: Health Care Professionals' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Although many cancer survivors could benefit from supportive care, they often do not utilize such services. Previous studies have shown that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) could be a solution to meet cancer survivors' needs, for example through an eHealth application that monitors quality of life and provides personalized advice and supportive care options. In order to develop an effective application that can successfully be implemented in current health care, it is important to include health care professionals in the development process. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate health care professionals' perspectives toward follow-up care and an eHealth application, OncoKompas, in follow-up cancer care that monitors quality of life via PROs, followed by automatically generated tailored feedback and personalized advice on supportive care. METHODS: Health care professionals involved in head and neck cancer care (N=11) were interviewed on current follow-up care and the anticipated value of the proposed eHealth application (Step 1). A prototype of the eHealth application, OncoKompas, was developed (Step 2). Cognitive walkthroughs were conducted among health care professionals (N=21) to investigate perceived usability (Step 3). Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by 2 coders. RESULTS: Health care professionals indicated several barriers in current follow-up care including difficulties in detecting symptoms, patients' perceived need for supportive care, and a lack of time to encourage survivors to obtain supportive care. Health care professionals expected the eHealth application to be of added value. The cognitive walkthroughs demonstrated that health care professionals emphasized the importance of tailoring care. They considered the navigation structure of OncoKompas to be complex. Health care professionals differed in their opinion toward the best strategy to implement the application in clinical practice but indicated that it should be incorporated in the HNC cancer care pathway to ensure all survivors would benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals experienced several barriers in directing patients to supportive care. They were positive toward the development and implementation of an eHealth application and expected it could support survivors in obtaining supportive care tailored to their needs. The cognitive walkthroughs revealed several points for optimizing the application prototype and developing an efficient implementation strategy. Including health care professionals in an early phase of a participatory design approach is valuable in developing an eHealth application and an implementation strategy meeting stakeholders' needs.

High risk of adverse events in hospitalised hip fracture patients of 65 years and older: results of a retrospective record review study.

OBJECTIVES: Hip fracture patients of 65 years and older are a complex patient group who often suffer from complications and difficult rehabilitation with disappointing results. It is unknown to what extent suboptimal hospital care contributes to these poor outcomes. This study reports on the scale, preventability, causes and prevention strategies of adverse events in patients, aged 65 years and older, admitted to the hospital with a primary diagnosis of hip fracture. DESIGN, SETTING AND OUTCOME MEASURES: A retrospective record review study was conducted of 616 hip fracture patients (≥65 years) admitted to surgical or orthopaedic departments in four Dutch hospitals in 2007. Experienced physician reviewers determined the presence and preventability of adverse events, causes and prevention strategies using a structured review form. The main outcome measures were frequency of adverse events and preventable adverse events in hospitalised hip fracture patients of 65 years and older, and strategies to prevent them in the future. RESULTS: 114 (19%) of the 616 patients in the study experienced one or more adverse events; 49 of these were preventable. The majority of the adverse events (70%) was related to the surgical procedure and many resulted in an intervention or additional treatment (67%). Human causes contributed to 53% of the adverse events, followed by patient-related factors (39%). Training and close monitoring of quality of care and the health professional's performance were the most often selected strategies to prevent these adverse events in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The high percentage of preventable adverse events found in this study shows that care for older hospitalised hip fracture patients should be improved. More training and quality assurance is required to provide safer care and to reduce the number of preventable adverse events in this vulnerable patient group.

Improving access to supportive cancer care through an eHealth application: a qualitative needs assessment among cancer survivors.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into cancer survivors' needs towards an eHealth application monitoring quality of life and targeting personalised access to supportive care. BACKGROUND: Supportive care in cancer addresses survivors' concerns and needs. However, many survivors are not taking advantage of supportive care provided. To enable cancer survivors to benefit, survivors' needs must be identified timely and effectively. An eHealth application could be a solution to meet patients' individual supportive care needs. DESIGN: A qualitative approach. METHODS: Thirty cancer survivors (15 head and neck and 15 breast cancer survivors) participated. The majority were female (n = 20·67%). The mean age was 60 (SD 8·8) years. Mean time interval since treatment was 13·5 months (SD 10·5). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. During the interviews, participants were asked about their unmet needs during follow-up care and a potential eHealth application. Data were analyzed independently by two coders and coded into key issues and themes. RESULTS: Cancer survivors commented that they felt unprepared for the post-treatment period and that their symptoms often remained unknown to care providers. Survivors also mentioned a suboptimal referral pattern to supportive care services. Mentioned advantages of an eHealth application were as follows: insight into the course of symptoms by monitoring, availability of information among follow-up appointments, receiving personalised advice and tailored supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors identified several unmet needs during follow-up care. Most survivors were positive towards the proposed eHealth application and expressed that it could be a valuable addition to follow-up cancer care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Study results provide care providers with insight into barriers that impede survivors from obtaining optimal supportive care. This study also provides insight into the characteristics needed to design, build and implement an eHealth application targeting personalised access to supportive care from the survivors' perspective. Future studies should address the viewpoints of care providers, and investigate the usability of the eHealth application prototype to facilitate implementation.

The nature and causes of unintended events reported at 10 internal medicine departments.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the nature and causes of unintended events (UEs) at internal medicine departments (IMD). METHODS: An observational study was conducted at 10 IMDs in 8 Dutch hospitals. The study period per participating department was 5 to 14 weeks. During this period, staff were asked to report all UEs concerning patient safety. To identify underlying root causes, experienced researchers analyzed the reports using a standardized root cause analysis method called PRISMA medical. RESULTS: Hospital staff reported 625 UEs. Medication-related UEs were the most reported events (42%). Of all reported UEs, 12% involved the collaboration between the IMD and other departments within the hospital.On the basis of the 625 UEs, 920 root causes were identified. The mean (SD) number of root causes per incident was 1.47 (0.68). Human root causes were related to 83.2% of the UEs, organizational root causes were related to 15.7%, technical root causes were related to 7%, and other root causes were related to 8.6% of the UEs.More than half of the reported UEs reached the patient (62%), with suboptimal care as the most frequently occurring consequence (44.7%). Physical injury occurred in 10.3% of the UEs. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital staff reporting UEs seems to be a good method for gaining insight into the types of UEs that occur at hospital departments. Although many UEs had human causes, identifying technical and organizational causes is important for the development of successful improvement strategies considering their contribution to human error. Important targets for these strategies are the medication process and collaboration within the hospital.

To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?

BACKGROUND: Patient record review is believed to be the most useful method for estimating the rate of adverse events among hospitalised patients. However, the method has some practical and financial disadvantages. Some of these disadvantages might be overcome by using existing reporting systems in which patient safety issues are already reported, such as incidents reported by healthcare professionals and complaints and medico-legal claims filled by patients or their relatives. The aim of the study is to examine to what extent the hospital reporting systems cover the adverse events identified by patient record review. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using a database from a record review study of 5375 patient records in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands. Trained nurses and physicians using a method based on the protocol of The Harvard Medical Practice Study previously reviewed the records. Four reporting systems were linked with the database of reviewed records: 1) informal and 2) formal complaints by patients/relatives, 3) medico-legal claims by patients/relatives and 4) incident reports by healthcare professionals. For each adverse event identified in patient records the equivalent was sought in these reporting systems by comparing dates and descriptions of the events. The study focussed on the number of adverse event matches, overlap of adverse events detected by different sources, preventability and severity of consequences of reported and non-reported events and sensitivity and specificity of reports. RESULTS: In the sample of 5375 patient records, 498 adverse events were identified. Only 18 of the 498 (3.6%) adverse events identified by record review were found in one or more of the four reporting systems. There was some overlap: one adverse event had an equivalent in both a complaint and incident report and in three cases a patient/relative used two or three systems to complain about an adverse event. Healthcare professionals reported relatively more preventable adverse events than patients.Reports are not sensitive for adverse events nor do reports have a positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: In order to detect the same adverse events as identified by patient record review, one cannot rely on the existing reporting systems within hospitals.

Patient safety in elderly hip fracture patients: design of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical environment in which health care providers have to work everyday is highly complex; this increases the risk for the occurrence of unintended events. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to improve patient safety for a vulnerable group of patients that have to go through a complex care chain, namely elderly hip fracture patients. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial that consists of three interventions; these will be implemented in three surgical wards in Dutch hospitals. One surgical ward in another hospital will be the control group. The first intervention is aimed at improving communication between care providers using the SBAR communication tool. The second intervention is directed at stimulating the role of the patient within the care process with a patient safety card. The third intervention consists of a leaflet for patients with information on the most common complications for the period after discharge. The primary outcome measures in this study are the incidence of complications and adverse events, mortality rate within six months after discharge and functional mobility six months after discharge. Secondary outcome measures are length of hospital stay, quality and completeness of information transfer and patient satisfaction with the instruments. DISCUSSION: The results will give insight into the nature and scale of complications and adverse events that occur in elderly hip fracture patients. Also, the implementation of three interventions aimed at improving the communication and information transfer provides valuable possibilities for improving patient safety in this increasing patient group. This study combines the use of three interventions, which is an innovative aspect of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR1562.