Safety Culture in Cardiac Surgical Teams: Data From Five Programs and National Surgical Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about safety culture in the area of cardiac surgery as compared with other types of surgery. The unique features of cardiac surgical teams may result in different perceptions of patient safety and patient safety culture. METHODS: We measured and described safety culture in five cardiovascular surgical centers using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, and compared the data with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 2010 comparative database in surgery and anesthesiology (all types). We reported mean scores, standard deviations, and percent positive responses for the two single-item measures and 12 patient safety climate dimensions in the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. RESULTS: In the five cardiac surgical programs, the dimension of teamwork within hospital units had the highest positive score (74% positive responses), and the dimension of nonpunitive response to error had the lowest score (38% positive responses). Surgeons and support staff perceived better safety climate than nurses, perfusionists, and anesthesia practitioners. The cardiac surgery cohort reported more positive safety climate than the AHRQ all-type surgery cohort in four dimensions but lower frequency of reporting mistakes. The cardiac anesthesiology cohort scored lower on two dimensions compared with the AHRQ all-type anesthesiology cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies patient safety areas for improvement in cardiac surgical teams in comparison with all-type surgical teams. We also found that different professional disciplines in cardiac surgical teams perceive patient safety differently.

The perioperative handoff protocol: evaluating impacts on handoff defects and provider satisfaction in adult perianesthesia care units.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new perioperative handoff protocol in the adult perianesthesia care units (PACUs). DESIGN: Prospective, unblinded cross-sectional study. SETTING: Perianesthesia care unit in a tertiary care facility serving 55,000 patients annually. PATIENTS: One hundred three surgery patients. INTERVENTIONS: During a 4-week preintervention phase, 53 perioperative handoffs were observed, and data were collected daily by a trained observer. Educational sessions were conducted to train perioperative practitioners on the new protocol. Two weeks after implementation, 50 consecutive handoffs were observed, and practitioners were surveyed with the same methodology as in the preintervention phase. MEASUREMENTS: Type of information shared, type and duration of procedure, total duration of handoff, number and type of providers at the bedside, number of report interruptions, environmental distractions, and any other disruptive events. Observers also tracked technical/equipment problems to include malfunctioning or compromised operation of medical equipment, such as the cardiac monitor, transducer, oxygen tank, and pulse oximeter. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 103 handoffs were observed (53 preintervention and 50 postintervention). The mean number of defects per handoff decreased from 9.92 to 3.68 (P < .01). The mean number of missed information items from the surgery report decreased from 7.57 to 1.2 items per handoff and from 2.02 to 0.94 (P < .01) for the anesthesia report. Technical defects reported by unit nurses decreased from 0.34 to 0.10 (P = .04). Verbal reports delivered by surgeons increased from 21.2% to 83.3%. Although the mean duration of handoffs increased by 2 minutes (P = .01), the average time from patient arrival at PACU to handoff start was reduced by 1.5 minutes (P = .01). Satisfaction with the handoff improved significantly among PACU nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative handoff protocol implementation was associated with improved information sharing and reduced handoff defects.

Locating Errors Through Networked Surveillance: A Multimethod Approach to Peer Assessment, Hazard Identification, and Prioritization of Patient Safety Efforts in Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to develop a scientifically sound and feasible peer-to-peer assessment model that allows health-care organizations to evaluate patient safety in cardiovascular operating rooms and to establish safety priorities for improvement. METHODS: The locating errors through networked surveillance study was conducted to identify hazards in cardiac surgical care. A multidisciplinary team, composed of organizational sociology, organizational psychology, applied social psychology, clinical medicine, human factors engineering, and health services researchers, conducted the study. We used a transdisciplinary approach, which integrated the theories, concepts, and methods from each discipline, to develop comprehensive research methods. Multiple data collection was involved: focused literature review of cardiac surgery-related adverse events, retrospective analysis of cardiovascular events from a national database in the United Kingdom, and prospective peer assessment at 5 sites, involving survey assessments, structured interviews, direct observations, and contextual inquiries. A nominal group methodology, where one single group acts to problem solve and make decisions was used to review the data and develop a list of the top priority hazards. RESULTS: The top 6 priority hazard themes were as follows: safety culture, teamwork and communication, infection prevention, transitions of care, failure to adhere to practices or policies, and operating room layout and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: We integrated the theories and methods of a diverse group of researchers to identify a broad range of hazards and good clinical practices within the cardiovascular surgical operating room. Our findings were the basis for a plan to prioritize improvements in cardiac surgical care. These study methods allowed for the comprehensive assessment of a high-risk clinical setting that may translate to other clinical settings.

Identifying meaningful outcome measures for the intensive care unit.

Despite important progress in measuring the safety of health care delivery in a variety of health care settings, a comprehensive set of metrics for benchmarking is still lacking, especially for patient outcomes. Even in high-risk settings where similar procedures are performed daily, such as hospital intensive care units (ICUs), these measures largely do not exist. Yet we cannot compare safety or quality across institutions or regions, nor can we track whether safety is improving over time. To a large extent, ICU outcome measures deemed valid, important, and preventable by clinicians are unavailable, and abstracting clinical data from the medical record is excessively burdensome. Even if a set of outcomes garnered consensus, ensuring adequate risk adjustment to facilitate fair comparisons across institutions presents another challenge. This study reports on a consensus process to build 5 outcome measures for broad use to evaluate the quality of ICU care and inform quality improvement efforts.

Quality, patient safety, and the cardiac surgical team.

After more than a decade of attention, the risks inherent in cardiac surgery have been well documented, but examples of effective interventions to reduce this risk remain scarce. The need is great, because the patient population is vulnerable and the potential consequences of poor outcomes are ever present and significant. This article reviews a decade of discussion surrounding quality and safety issues in cardiac surgery, and concludes with examples of strategies that have shown great promise for improving cardiac surgery quality and safety.

Technologies in the wild (TiW): human factors implications for patient safety in the cardiovascular operating room.

We describe different sources of hazards from cardiovascular operating room (CVOR) technologies, how hazards propagate in the CVOR and their impact on cognitive processes. Previous studies have examined hazards from poor design of a specific CVOR technology. However, the impact of different CVOR technologies functioning in context is not clearly understood. In addition, the impact of non-design hazards in technology devices is unclear. Our study identified hazards from organisational, physical/environmental elements, in addition to design of technology in a CVOR. We used observations, follow-up interviews and photographs. With qualitative analyses, we categorised the different hazard sources and their potential impact on cognitive processes. Patient safety can be built into technologies by incorporating user needs in design, decision-making and implementation of medical technologies. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: Effective design and implementation of technology in a safety-critical system requires prospective understanding of technology-related hazards. Our research fills this gap by studying different technologies in context of a CVOR using observations. Qualitative analyses identified different sources for technology-related hazards besides design, and their impact on cognitive processes.

Intermediate acting non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents and risk of postoperative respiratory complications: prospective propensity score matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents during general anesthesia increases the incidence of postoperative respiratory complications. DESIGN: Prospective, propensity score matched cohort study. SETTING: General teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 2006-10. PARTICIPANTS: 18,579 surgical patients who received intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents during surgery were matched by propensity score to 18,579 reference patients who did not receive such agents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were oxygen desaturation after extubation (hemoglobin oxygen saturation <90% with a decrease in oxygen saturation after extubation of >3%) and reintubations requiring unplanned admission to an intensive care unit within seven days of surgery. We also evaluated effects on these outcome variables of qualitative monitoring of neuromuscular transmission (train-of-four ratio) and reversal of neuromuscular blockade with neostigmine to prevent residual postoperative neuromuscular blockade. RESULTS: The use of intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents was associated with an increased risk of postoperative desaturation less than 90% after extubation (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.51) and reintubation requiring unplanned admission to an intensive care unit (1.40, 1.09 to 1.80). Qualitative monitoring of neuromuscular transmission did not decrease this risk and neostigmine reversal increased the risk of postoperative desaturation less than 90% (1.32, 1.20 to 1.46) and reintubation (1.76, 1.38 to 2.26). CONCLUSION: The use of intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents during anesthesia was associated with an increased risk of clinically meaningful respiratory complications. Our data suggest that the strategies used in our trial to prevent residual postoperative neuromuscular blockade should be revisited.

Identifying and categorising patient safety hazards in cardiovascular operating rooms using an interdisciplinary approach: a multisite study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgery is a complex, high-risk procedure with potential vulnerabilities for patient safety. The evidence base describing safety hazards in the cardiovascular operating room is underdeveloped but is essential to guide future safety improvement efforts. OBJECTIVE: To identify and categorise hazards (anything that has the potential to cause a preventable adverse patient safety event) in the cardiovascular operating room. METHODS: An interdisciplinary team of researchers used prospective methods, including direct observations, contextual inquiry and photographs to collect hazard data pertaining to the cardiac surgery perioperative period, which started immediately before the patient was transferred to the operating room and ended immediately after patient handoff to the post-anaesthesia/intensive care unit. Data were collected between February and September 2008 in five hospitals. An interdisciplinary approach that included a human factors and systems engineering framework was used to guide the study. RESULTS: Twenty cardiac surgeries including the corresponding handoff processes from operating room to post-anaesthesia/intensive care unit were observed. A total of 58 categories of hazards related to care providers (eg, practice variations), tasks (eg, high workload), tools and technologies (eg, poor usability), physical environment (eg, cluttered workspace), organisation (eg, hierarchical culture) and processes (eg, non-compliance with guidelines) were identified. DISCUSSION: Hazards in cardiac surgery services are ubiquitous, indicating numerous opportunities to improve safety. Future efforts should focus on creating a stronger culture of safety in the cardiovascular operating room, increasing compliance with evidence-based infection control practices, improving communication and teamwork, and developing a partnership among all stakeholders to improve the design of tools and technologies.

Implementing a perioperative handoff tool to improve postprocedural patient transfers.

Handoffs in the perioperative setting--the period during which the patient leaves the operating room (OR) and arrives at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) or intensive care unit (ICU)--have received little attention. A perioperative handoff tool consisting of an OR-to-ICU/PACU protocol and checklists incorporates a defined process, a specified team structure, a procedure for technology transfer, and clearly defined information elements to share. The tool could be applied to any periprocedural setting in which a patient is physically transferred from the procedural location (with the associated procedural team) to a postprocedural care unit with a different care team.

Using human factors engineering to improve patient safety in the cardiovascular operating room.

Despite significant medical advances, cardiac surgery remains a high risk procedure. Sub-optimal work system design characteristics can contribute to the risks associated with cardiac surgery. However, hazards due to work system characteristics have not been identified in the cardiovascular operating room (CVOR) in sufficient detail to guide improvement efforts. The purpose of this study was to identify and categorize hazards (anything that has the potential to cause a preventable adverse patient safety event) in the CVOR. An interdisciplinary research team used prospective hazard identification methods including direct observations, contextual inquiry, and photographing to collect data in 5 hospitals for a total 22 cardiac surgeries. We performed thematic analysis of the qualitative data guided by a work system model. 60 categories of hazards such as practice variations, high workload, non-compliance with evidence-based guidelines, not including clinicians' in medical device purchasing decisions were found. Results indicated that hazards are common in cardiac surgery and should be eliminated or mitigated to improve patient safety. To improve patient safety in the CVOR, efforts should focus on creating a culture of safety, increasing compliance with evidence based infection control practices, improving communication and teamwork, and designing better tools and technologies through partnership among all stakeholders.

Pilot implementation of a perioperative protocol to guide operating room-to-intensive care unit patient handoffs.

OBJECTIVES: Perioperative handoffs are a particularly high-risk period given patients' postprocedural physiology, their physical transport through the hospital, and the triad transfer of personnel, information, and technology. The authors piloted a new perioperative handoff process to guide patient transfers from the cardiac operating room (OR) to the cardiac surgical intensive care unit (CSICU). The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of a standardized handoff process on patient care and provider satisfaction. DESIGN: A prospective, unblinded intervention study. SETTING: A CSICU in a teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred thirty-eight health care practitioners during the transfer of care of 60 patients. INTERVENTIONS: The implementation of a standardized handoff protocol and checklist. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After the protocol's implementation, the presence of all handoff core team members at the bedside increased from 0% at baseline to 68% after intervention. The percentage of missed information in the surgery report decreased from 26% to 16% (p = 0.03), but the percentage of missed information in the anesthesia report showed no significant change (19% to 17%, p > 0.05). Handoff satisfaction scores among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses increased from 61% to 81%. On average, the duration of handoff increased by 1 minute. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized handoff protocol that guides the transfer of care from the OR team to the CSICU team can reduce the risk of missed information and improve satisfaction among perioperative providers.

Variation in local institutional review board evaluations of a multicenter patient safety study.

Several highly visible quality improvement (QI) projects led to controversy over their ethical oversight, attracting attention from institutional review boards (IRBs) and the Office for Human Research Protection. While QI research has increased dramatically, there is limited empirical evidence regarding how multiple IRBs review the same study. This paper describes the variations in local IRB reviews for the same a multicenter QI study. The study, entitled "Locating Errors through Networked Surveillance", used multiple data collection methods to identify patient safety risks in cardiovascular operating room services. This study involved 2-day site visits to 5 hospitals by the research team to observe cardiac surgery procedures and interview staff regarding clinical practice and hazards. Surveys were self-administered. The IRB process varied widely across the 5 hospitals. Reviews ranged from full committee review and approval with verbal consent required from patients and operating room staff, to an IRB determining the study exempt from review and participant consent. The time to IRB approval ranged from 6 weeks to 6 months. This variation suggests there is wide interpretation of the Federal regulations put in place to guide IRBs. The adoption of uniformity would not only reduce inefficiencies but also attenuate the perceived arbitrary nature of current IRB review processes that often inappropriately influence hypothesis-generation and study design.

Toward improving patient safety through voluntary peer-to-peer assessment.

Health care has primarily used retrospective review approaches to identify and mitigate hazards, with little evidence of measurable and sustained improvements in patient safety. Conversely, the nuclear power industry has used a prospective peer-to-peer (P2P) assessment process grounded in open information exchange and cooperative organizational learning to realize substantial and sustainable improvements in safety. In comparing approaches, it is evident that health care's sluggish progress stems from weaknesses in hazard identification and mitigation and in organizational learning. This article proposes creating and implementing a structured prospective P2P assessment model in health care, similar to that used in the nuclear power industry, to accelerate improvements in patient safety.

Successful implementation of a perioperative glycemic control protocol in cardiac surgery: barrier analysis and intervention using lean six sigma.

Although the evidence strongly supports perioperative glycemic control among cardiac surgical patients, there is scant literature to describe the practical application of such a protocol in the complex ICU environment. This paper describes the use of the Lean Six Sigma methodology to implement a perioperative insulin protocol in a cardiac surgical intensive care unit (CSICU) in a large academic hospital. A preintervention chart audit revealed that fewer than 10% of patients were admitted to the CSICU with glucose <200 mg/dL, prompting the initiation of the quality improvement project. Following protocol implementation, more than 90% of patients were admitted with a glucose <200 mg/dL. Key elements to success include barrier analysis and intervention, provider education, and broadening the project scope to address the intraoperative period.

Review article: high stakes and high risk: a focused qualitative review of hazards during cardiac surgery.

Cardiac surgery is a high-risk procedure performed by a multidisciplinary team using complex tools and technologies. Efforts to improve cardiac surgery safety have been ongoing for more than a decade, yet the literature provides little guidance regarding best practices for identifying errors and improving patient safety. This focused review of the literature was undertaken as part of the FOCUS initiative (Flawless Operative Cardiovascular Unified Systems), a multifaceted effort supported by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Foundation to identify hazards and develop evidence-based protocols to improve cardiac surgery safety. Hazards were defined as anything that posed a potential or real risk to the patient, including errors, near misses, and adverse events. Of the 1438 articles identified for title review, 390 underwent full abstract screening, and 69 underwent full article review, which in turn yielded 55 meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Two key themes emerged. First, studies were predominantly reactive (responding to an event or report) instead of proactive (using prospective designs such as self-assessments and external reviewers, etc.) and very few tested interventions. Second, minor events were predictive of major problems: multiple, often minor, deviations from normal procedures caused a cascade effect, resulting in major distractions that ultimately led to major events. This review fills an important gap in the literature on cardiac surgery safety, that of systematically identifying and categorizing known hazards according to their primary systemic contributor (or contributors). We conclude with recommendations for improving patient outcomes by building a culture of safety, promoting transparency, standardizing training, increasing teamwork, and monitoring performance. Finally, there is an urgent need for studies that evaluate interventions to mitigate the inherent risks of cardiac surgery.

Reduction of regulated medical waste using lean sigma results in financial gains for hospital.

This article describes how anesthesiologists can lead innovation and process improvement focused on regulated medical waste reduction and cost savings using a process improvement methodology known as Lean Sigma.

Cardiac surgery errors: results from the UK National Reporting and Learning System.

OBJECTIVE: To describe cardiac surgery-related incidents and compare the types and severity of incidents occurring in the operating room (OR) versus non-OR locations. We hypothesized that the type and severity of incidents in cardiac surgery would differ in the OR compared with non-OR locations. DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional study of all incidents categorized as cardiac surgery in the UK National Reporting and Learning System database between January 2003 and February 2007. Differences in proportions were evaluated by χ(2) or Fischer's exact test. The odds ratio of an event occurring in the OR compared with all non-OR settings was calculated using logistic regression. The harm susceptibility ratio ranked locations by the degree of harm. SETTING: All trusts performing cardiac surgery. PARTICIPANTS: None. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cardiac surgery incidents occurring in the OR versus non-OR. RESULTS: A total of 4828 (<1%) incidents from 55 trusts were designated as involving cardiac surgery patients during the study period; 21% occurred in the OR. Overall, 32% of incidents resulted in harm: 23% of OR and 34% of non-OR incidents. The distribution of incident type and harmful incidents differed in the OR compared with the non-OR setting (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings offer unique insights into the types of incidents occurring during cardiac surgical care in the UK. In the OR, interventions should focus on reducing errors associated with medical devices/equipment, whereas outside the OR, they may focus on medication errors and patient accidents.