Videos of simulated after action reviews: a training resource to support social and inclusive learning from patient safety events.

Innovation in the education and training of healthcare staff is required to support complementary approaches to learning from patient safety and everyday events in healthcare. Debriefing is a commonly used learning tool in healthcare education but not in clinical practice. Little is known about how to implement debriefing as an approach to safety learning across a health system. After action review (AAR) is a debriefing approach designed to help groups come to a shared mental model about what happened, why it happened and to identify learning and improvement. This paper describes a digital-based implementation strategy adapted to the Irish healthcare system to promote AAR uptake. The digital strategy aims to assist implementation of national level incident management policies and was collaboratively developed by the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences and the National Quality and Patient Safety Directorate of the Health Service Executive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a well-established in-person AAR training programme was disrupted and this led to the development of a series of open access videos on AAR facilitation skills (which accompany the online version of this paper). These provide: (1) an introduction to the AAR facilitation process; (2) a simulation of a facilitated formal AAR; (3) techniques for handling challenging situations that may arise in an AAR and a (4) reflection on the benefits of the AAR process. These have the potential to be used widely to support learning from patient safety and everyday events including excellent care.

'What effect do safety culture interventions have on health care workers in hospital settings?' A systematic review of the international literature.

Introduction: Interventions designed to improve safety culture in hospitals foster organisational environments that prevent patient safety events and support organisational and staff learning when events do occur. A safety culture supports the required health workforce behaviours and norms that enable safe patient care, and the well-being of patients and staff. The impact of safety culture interventions on staff perceptions of safety culture and patient outcomes has been established. To-date, however, there is no common understanding of what staff outcomes are associated with interventions to improve safety culture and what staff outcomes should be measured. Objectives: The study seeks to examine the effect of safety culture interventions on staff in hospital settings, globally. Methods and Analysis: A mixed methods systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches will be conducted using the electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Health Business Elite, and Scopus. Returns will be screened in Covidence according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT) will be used as a quality assessment tool. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials and non-randomised studies of interventions will be employed to verify bias. Synthesis will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for mixed methods reviews, which recommends a convergent approach to synthesis and integration. Discussion: This systematic review will contribute to the international evidence on how interventions to improve safety culture may support staff outcomes and how such interventions may be appropriately designed and implemented.

Effect of after action review on safety culture and second victim experience and its implementation in an Irish hospital: A mixed methods study protocol.

BACKGROUND: After Action Review is a form of facilitated team learning and review of events. The methodology originated in the United States Army and forms part of the Incident Management Framework in the Irish Health Services. After Action Review has been hypothesized to improve safety culture and the effect of patient safety events on staff (second victim experience) in health care settings. Yet little direct evidence exists to support this and its implementation has not been studied. AIM: To investigate the effect of After Action Review on safety culture and second victim experience and to examine After Action Review implementation in a hospital setting. METHODS: A mixed methods study will be conducted at an Irish hospital. To assess the effect on safety culture and second victim experience, hospital staff will complete surveys before and twelve months after the introduction of After Action Review to the hospital (Hospital Survey on Safety Culture 2.0 and Second Victim Experience and Support Tool). Approximately one in twelve staff will be trained as After Action Review Facilitators using a simulation based training programme. Six months after the After Action Review training, focus groups will be conducted with a stratified random sample of the trained facilitators. These will explore enablers and barriers to implementation using the Theoretical Domains Framework. At twelve months, information will be collected from the trained facilitators and the hospital to establish the quality and resource implications of implementing After Action Review. DISCUSSION: The results of the study will directly inform local hospital decision-making and national and international approaches to incorporating After Action Review in hospitals and other healthcare settings.

The care and keeping of clinicians in quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Although frontline clinicians are crucial in implementing and spreading innovations, their engagement in quality improvement remains suboptimal. Our goal was to identify facilitators and barriers to the development and engagement of clinicians in quality improvement. DESIGN: A 25-item questionnaire informed by theoretical frameworks was developed, tested and disseminated by email. SETTINGS: Members and fellows of the International Society for Quality in Healthcare. PARTICIPANTS: 1010 eligible participants (380 fellows and 647 members). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-efficacy and effectiveness in conducting and leading quality improvement activities. RESULTS: We received 212 responses from 50 countries, a response rate of 21%. Dedicated time for quality improvement, mentorship and coaching and a professional quality improvement network were significantly related to higher self-efficacy. Factors enhancing effectiveness were dedicated time for quality improvement, multidisciplinary improvement teams, professional development in quality improvement, ability to select areas for improvement and organizational values and culture. Inadequate time, mentorship, organizational support and access to professional development resources were key barriers. Personal strengths contributing to effectiveness were the ability to identify problems that need to be fixed, reflecting on and learning from experiences and facilitating sharing of ideas. Key quality improvement implementation challenges were adopting new payment models, demonstrating the business case for quality and safety and building a culture of accountability and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight areas that organizations and professional development programs should focus on to promote clinician development and engagement in quality improvement. Barriers related to training, time, mentorship, organizational support and implementation must be concurrently addressed to augment the effectiveness of other approaches.