Taxonomy development methods regarding patient safety in health sciences - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Taxonomies are needed for automated analysis of clinical data in healthcare. Few reviews of the taxonomy development methods used in health sciences are found. This systematic review aimed to describe the scope of the available taxonomies relative to patient safety, the methods used for taxonomy development, and the strengths and limitations of the methods. The purpose of this systematic review is to guide future taxonomy development projects. METHODS: The CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies from January 2012 to April 25, 2023. Two authors selected the studies using inclusion and exclusion criteria and critical appraisal checklists. The data were analysed inductively, and the results were reported narratively. RESULTS: The studies (n = 13) across healthcare concerned mainly taxonomies of adverse events and medication safety but little for specialised fields and information technology. Critical appraisal indicated inadequate reporting of the used taxonomy development methods. Ten phases of taxonomy development were identified: (1) defining purpose and (2) the theory base for development, (3) relevant data sources' identification, (4) main terms' identification and definitions, (5) items' coding and pooling, (6) reliability and validity evaluation of coding and/or codes, (7) development of a hierarchical structure, (8) testing the structure, (9) piloting the taxonomy and (10) reporting application and validation of the final taxonomy. Seventeen statistical tests and seven software systems were utilised, but automated data extraction methods were used rarely. Multimethod and multi-stakeholder approach, code- and hierarchy testing and piloting were strengths and time consumption and small samples in testing limitations. CONCLUSION: New taxonomies are needed on diverse specialities and information technology related to patient safety. Structured method is needed for taxonomy development, reporting and appraisal to strengthen taxonomies' quality. A new guide was proposed for taxonomy development, for which testing is required. Prospero registration number CRD42023411022.

Health professionals' perceptions of the development needs of incident reporting software: A qualitative systematic review.

AIM: To systemically identify and synthesize information on health professionals' and students' perceptions regarding the development needs of incident reporting software. DESIGN: A systematic review of qualitative studies. DATA SOURCES: A database search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Medic without time or language limits in February 2023. REVIEW METHODS: A total of 4359 studies were identified. Qualitative studies concerning the perceptions of health professionals and students regarding the development needs of incident reporting software were included, based on screening and critical appraisal by two independent reviewers. A thematic synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: From 10 included studies, five analytical themes were analysed. Health professionals and students desired the following improvements or changes to incident reporting software: (1) the design of reporting software, (2) the anonymity of reporting, (3) the accessibility of reporting software, (4) the classification of fields and answer options and (5) feedback and tracking of reports. Wanted features included suitable reporting forms for various specialized fields that could be integrated into existing hospital information systems. Rapid, user-friendly reporting software using multiple reporting platforms and with flexible fields and predefined answer options was preferred. While anonymous reporting was favoured, the idea of reporting serious incidents with both patient and reporter names was also suggested. CONCLUSION: Health professionals and students provided concrete insights into the development needs for reporting software. Considering the underreporting of healthcare cases, the perspectives of healthcare professionals must be considered while developing user-friendly reporting tools. Reporting software that facilitates the reporting process could reduce underreporting. REPORTING METHOD: The ENTREQ reporting guideline was used to support the reporting of this systematic review. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no patient or public contribution. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with register number CRD42023393804.

Measuring health professionals' perceptions of communication contributing to medication incidents in hospitals - scale development and primary results of weekly perceived communication challenges.

BACKGROUND: Communication challenges are one of the main contributors for medication incidents in hospitals, but health professionals' perceptions about variety of the contributing communication factors and the factors' occurrence frequencies are studied little. This cross-sectional descriptive study aimed to (1) operationalize a literature-based framework into a scale for measuring health professionals' perceptions of communication factors, which contribute to medication incidents either directly or indirectly in hospitals, (2) to measure the construct validity and internal consistency of the scale and (3) to describe the primary results of the measured weekly perceived communication challenges. METHODS: The structured online questionnaire with 82 communication related items was developed based on a framework in literature. A content validity index of expert panelists' answers was used for item reduction. Data was collected between November 1st, 2019, and January 31st, 2020, by convenience sampling. The study sample (n = 303) included multiple health professional groups in diverse specialties, unit types and organizational levels in two specialized university hospital districts in Finland. Exploratory factor analysis with Maximum Likelihood method and Oblique rotation produced a six factors scale consisting of 57 items and having acceptable construct validity and internal consistency. RESULTS: The six communication factors contributing to medication incidents concerned (1) medication prescriptions, (2) guidelines and reporting, (3) patient and family, (4) guideline implementation,5) competencies and responsibilities, and 6) attitude and atmosphere. The most frequently perceived communication challenges belonged to the Medication prescription related factor. Detailed item frequencies suggested that the most usual weekly challenges were: (1) lack or unclarity of communication about medication prescriptions, (2) missing the prescriptions which were written outside of the regular physician-ward-rounds and (3) digital software restricting information transfer. CONCLUSIONS: The scale can be used for determining the most frequent detailed communication challenges. Confirmatory factor analysis of the scale is needed with a new sample for the scale validation. The weekly perceived communication challenges suggest that interventions are needed to standardize prescribing documentation and to strengthen communication about prescriptions given outside of regular ward-rounds.

Abuse of social care clients committed by nurses and other social service employees-Analysis of employees' reports.

AIM: The aim of the study was to describe the alleged abuse of social care clients committed by nurses and other social services employees and actions as well as sanctions that followed the alleged abuse. DESIGN: A retrospective study using a descriptive qualitative analysis. METHODS: The data comprised mandatory reports made by social service employees under the Social Welfare Act. This study focused on the reported abuses of clients (n = 75) by social services employees from 11 October 2016 to 31 December 2020 in Finland. The data were analysed using inductive content analysis and quantification. RESULTS: The majority of the reports were submitted practical nurses and other nursing personnel and by registered nurses. The severity of the abuse was most often mild or moderate. The most common abusers were nurses. The types of alleged abuse committed by professionals were as follows: (1) neglect of care, (2) physical violence/strong-arm treatments, (3) neglect of hygiene, (4) inappropriate or threatening behaviour and (5) sexual abuse. The actions and sanctions that followed the alleged abuse were: (1) discussing the situation together, requesting an explanation, initiating hearing or defining developmental measures, (2) initiating disciplinary actions and providing verbal or written warnings, (3) dismissing or terminating the employee and (4) initiating a police investigation. CONCLUSION: Nurses are an important group working in social services and might also be involved in cases of abuse. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: It is important that risks, wrongdoings and abuses are reported. Transparent reporting indicates strong professional ethics. IMPACT: Knowledge about abuse in social services from the viewpoint of nursing is important for ensuring the quality and safety of services. REPORTING METHOD: The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guideline was followed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Communication related to medication incidents-A concept analysis and literature review.

AIMS: (1) To identify and analyse the conceptual framework and operationalise the concept of communication issues related to medication incidents in hospital to facilitate the development of a future tool for measuring frequencies of the communication issues. (2) To determine how the concept is distinct from related concepts. DESIGN: Concept analysis. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-three articles from seven scientific databases covering the years 2010-2020 and two official documents. METHODS: Walker and Avant's concept analysis method was used. That was started by a systematised literature review on 2 November 2020 using specified criteria. Two authors evaluated articles' quality by Joanna Brigg's Institute's criteria. Literature review results were analysed deductive-inductively; conceptual framework was developed and concept defined presenting case scenarios. EQUATOR's standards were used in study reporting. RESULTS: A conceptual framework and the concept of 'communication related to medication incidents in hospitals' were defined, comprising six main attribute categories: (1) communication dyads involved in communication, (2) patients' or professionals' individual issues, (3) institutional, (4) contextual and process issues, (5) communication concerning medication prescriptions and (6) qualitative characteristics of communication. The categories consisted of 128 quantitatively measurable and 10 qualitative attributes describing communication issues. The concept is distinct from related concepts by collating fragmented communication issues into the same concept. CONCLUSION: The 128-item conceptual framework and the concept of communication related to medication incidents in hospitals were defined, as there was not one. The concept assembled parts of previous theories and fragmented information to one entity. The concept needs further condensing and validation to develop a tool for measuring communication issues. IMPACT ON MEDICATION SAFETY: The conceptual framework can be used in practice and education as indicative rationale for reflection of current communication issues. The concept contributes to research by providing necessary grounding for tool development for measuring communication factors relating medication incidents.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions on medication communication challenges and solutions - text mining and manual content analysis - cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Communication challenges contribute to medication incidents in hospitals, but it is unclear how communication can be improved. The aims of this study were threefold: firstly, to describe the most common communication challenges related to medication incidents as perceived by healthcare professionals across specialized hospitals for adult patients; secondly, to consider suggestions from healthcare professionals with regard to improving medication communication; and thirdly, to explore how text mining compares to manual analysis when analyzing the free-text content of survey data. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. A digital survey was sent to professionals in two university hospital districts in Finland from November 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. In total, 223 professionals answered the open-ended questions; respondents were primarily registered nurses (77.7 %), physicians (8.6 %), and pharmacists (7.3 %). Text mining and manual inductive content analysis were employed for qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: The communication challenges were: (1) inconsistent documentation of prescribed and administered medication; (2) failure to document orally given prescriptions; (3) nurses' unawareness of prescriptions (given outside of ward rounds) due to a lack of oral communication from the prescribers; (4) breaks in communication during care transitions to non-communicable software; (5) incomplete home medication reconciliation at admission and discharge; (6) medication lists not being updated during the inpatient period due to a lack of clarity regarding the responsible professional; and (7) work/environmental factors during medication dispensation and the receipt of verbal prescriptions. Suggestions for communication enhancements included: (1) structured digital prescriptions; (2) guidelines and training on how to use documentation systems; (3) timely documentation of verbal prescriptions and digital documentation of administered medication; (4) communicable software within and between organizations; (5) standardized responsibilities for updating inpatients' medication lists; (6) nomination of a responsible person for home medication reconciliation at admission and discharge; and (7) distraction-free work environment for medication communication. Text mining and manual analysis extracted similar primary results. CONCLUSIONS: Non-communicable software, non-standardized medication communication processes, lack of training on standardized documentation, and unclear responsibilities compromise medication safety in hospitals. Clarification is needed regarding interdisciplinary medication communication processes, techniques, and responsibilities. Text mining shows promise for free-text analysis.

Communication issues contributing to medication incidents: Mixed-method analysis of hospitals' incident reports using indicator phrases based on literature.

AIM: To identify the types and frequencies of communication issues (communication pairs, person related, institutional, structural, process and prescription-related issues) detected in medication incident reports and to compare communication issues that caused moderate or serious harm to patients. BACKGROUND: Communication issues have been found to be among the main contributing factors of medication incidents, thus necessitating communication enhancement. DESIGN: A sequential exploratory mixed-method design. METHODS: Medication incident reports from Finland (n = 500) for the year 2015 in which communication was marked as a contributing factor were used as the data source. Indicator phrases were used for searching communication issues from free texts of incident reports. The detected issues were analysed statistically, qualitatively and considering the harm caused to the patient. Citations from free texts were extracted as evidence of issues and were classified following main categories of indicator phrases. The EQUATOR's SRQR checklist was followed in reporting. RESULTS: Twenty-eight communication pairs were identified, with nurse-nurse (68.2%; n = 341), nurse-physician (41.6%; n = 208) and nurse-patient (9.6%; n = 48) pairs being the most frequent. Communication issues existed mostly within unit (76.6%, n = 383). The most commonly identified issues were digital communication (68.2%; n = 341), lack of communication within a team (39.6%; n = 198), false assumptions about work processes (25.6%; n = 128) and being unaware of guidelines (25.0%; n = 125). Collegial feedback and communication from patients and relatives were the preventing issues. Moderate harm cases were often linked with lack of communication within the unit, digital communication and not following guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The interventions should be prioritised to (a) enhancing communication about work-processes, (b) verbal communication about digital prescriptions between professionals, (c) feedback among professionals and (f) encouraging patients to communicate about medication. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Upon identifying the most harmful and frequent communication issues, interventions to strengthen medication safety can be implemented.