SafetyNET Community-based patient safety initiatives: development and application of a Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To: 1) develop/adapt and validate an instrument to measure patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) providers; 2) implement the instrument; and 3) compare results among healthcare professions. METHODS: A review of the literature and content validation were used for the survey development. Community-based chiropractors and physiotherapists in 4 Canadian provinces were invited. RESULTS: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture was the preferred instrument. The survey was modified and validated, measuring 14 patient safety dimensions. 276 SMT providers volunteered to respond to the survey. Generally, SMT providers had similar or better patient safety dimension scores compared to the AHRQ 2016 medical offices database. DISCUSSION: We developed the first instrument measuring patient safety attitudes and opinions of community-based SMT providers. This instrument provides understanding of SMT providers' opinions and attitudes on patient safety and identifies potential areas for improvement.

OBJECTIFS: 1) Élaborer/adapter et valider un instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité du patient et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des manipulations vertébrales (MV); 2) adopter cet instrument; et 3) comparer les résultats obtenus entre les professionnels de la santé. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Pour élaborer le sondage, on a revu la littérature, on a validé le contenu et on a invité des chiropraticiens et des physiothérapeutes de quatre provinces canadiennes à participer. RÉSULTATS: Le Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture de l'Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) était l'instrument préféré. Le sondage a été modifié et validé et a servi à mesurer 14 aspects de la sécurité du patient. 276 professionnels effectuant des MV ont accepté de répondre au sondage. En règle générale, les cotes obtenues chez les professionnels effectuant des MV pour ce qui des aspects de la sécurité étaient comparables ou meilleurs que celles des professionnels de la santé enregistrés dans la base de données de 2016 de l'AHRQ. DISCUSSION: On a élaboré le premier instrument servant à évaluer les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité et les opinions des praticiens effectuant des MV dans une collectivité. Cet instrument permet de comprendre les opinions et les attitudes à l'égard de la sécurité du patient des professionnels effectuant des MV et de cerner les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés.

Creating European guidelines for Chiropractic Incident Reporting and Learning Systems (CIRLS): relevance and structure.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the heads of the Executive Council of the European Chiropractors' Union (ECU) and the European Academy of Chiropractic (EAC) involved in the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) process for the chiropractic profession, set out to establish European guidelines for the reporting of adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment. There were a number of reasons for this: first, to improve the overall quality of patient care by aiming to reduce the application of potentially harmful interventions and to facilitate the treatment of patients within the context of achieving maximum benefit with a minimum risk of harm; second, to inform the training objectives for the Graduate Education and Continuing Professional Development programmes of all 19 ECU member nations, regarding knowledge and skills to be acquired for maximising patient safety; and third, to develop a guideline on patient safety incident reporting as it is likely to be part of future CEN standards for ECU member nations. OBJECTIVE: To introduce patient safety incident reporting within the context of chiropractic practice in Europe and to help individual countries and their national professional associations to develop or improve reporting and learning systems. DISCUSSION: Providing health care of any kind, including the provision of chiropractic treatment, can be a complex and, at times, a risky activity. Safety in healthcare cannot be guaranteed, it can only be improved. One of the most important aspects of any learning and reporting system lies in the appropriate use of the data and information it gathers. Reporting should not just be seen as a vehicle for obtaining information on patient safety issues, but also be utilised as a tool to facilitate learning, advance quality improvement and to ultimately minimise the rate of the occurrence of errors linked to patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Before a reporting and learning system can be established it has to be clear what the objectives of the system are, what resources will be required and whether the implementing organisation has the capacity to operate the system to its full advantage. Responding to adverse event reports requires the availability of experts to analyse the incidents and to provide feedback in a timely fashion. A comprehensive strategy for national implementation must be in place including, but not limited to, presentations at national meetings, the provision of written information to all practitioners and the running of workshops, so that all stakeholders fully understand the purposes of adverse event reporting. Unless this is achieved, any system runs the risk of failure, or at the very least, limited usefulness.

Predictors for immediate and global responses to chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with nonspecific musculoskeletal disorders may vary in their response to treatment. This study set out to identify the predictors for either improvement or worsening in symptoms for which cervical spine manipulation is indicated. METHOD: A large prospective study recorded details on patients, their presenting symptoms, and type of treatment. At the end of the consultation, any immediate improvement or worsening in presenting symptoms was noted. At the follow-up visit, information was collected on the patients' self-reported improvement. RESULTS: Data were collected from 28,807 treatment consultations (in 19,722 patients) and 13,873 follow-up treatments. The presenting symptoms of "neck pain," "shoulder, arm pain," "reduced neck, shoulder, arm movement, stiffness," "headache," "upper, mid back pain," and "none or one presenting symptom" emerged in the final model as significant predictors for an immediate improvement. The presence of any 4 of these predictors raised the probability for an immediate improvement in presenting symptoms after treatment from 70% to approximately 95%. With regard to immediate worsening, "neck pain," "shoulder, arm pain, "headache," "numbness, tingling upper limbs," "upper, mid back pain," and "fainting, dizziness, light-headedness" emerged as predictors; and the presence of any 4 of these raised the probability for immediate worsening from 4.4% to approximately 12%. For global improvement, only 2 predictors were identified; but these did not enhance the postprediction probability. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first attempt to identify variables that can predict immediate outcomes in terms of improvement and worsening of presenting symptoms, and global improvement, after cervical spine manipulation. The predictor variables were strongest for immediate improvement.

Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective national survey. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of serious and relatively minor adverse events following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine by a sample of U.K. chiropractors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The risk of a serious adverse event following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine is largely unknown. Estimates range from 1 in 200,000 to 1 in several million cervical spine manipulations. METHODS: We studied treatment outcomes obtained from 19,722 patients. Manipulation was defined as the application of a high-velocity/low-amplitude or mechanically assisted thrust to the cervical spine. Serious adverse events, defined as "referred to hospital A&E and/or severe onset/worsening of symptoms immediately after treatment and/or resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity," and minor adverse events reported by patients as a worsening of presenting symptoms or onset of new symptoms, were recorded immediately, and up to 7 days, after treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 28,807 treatment consultations and 50,276 cervical spine manipulations. There were no reports of serious adverse events. This translates to an estimated risk of a serious adverse event of, at worse approximately 1 per 10,000 treatment consultations immediately after cervical spine manipulation, approximately 2 per 10,000 treatment consultations up to 7 days after treatment and approximately 6 per 100,000 cervical spine manipulations. Minor side effects with a possible neurologic involvement were more common. The highest risk immediately after treatment was fainting/dizziness/light-headedness in, at worse approximately 16 per 1000 treatment consultations. Up to 7 days after treatment, these risks were headache in, at worse approximately 4 per 100, numbness/tingling in upper limbs in, at worse approximately 15 per 1000 and fainting/dizziness/light-headedness in, at worse approximately 13 per 1000 treatment consultations. CONCLUSION: Although minor side effects following cervical spine manipulation were relatively common, the risk of a serious adverse event, immediately or up to 7 days after treatment, was low to very low.