Systematic review of clinical debriefing tools: attributes and evidence for use.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical debriefing (CD) following a clinical event has been found to confer benefits for staff and has potential to improve patient outcomes. Use of a structured tool to facilitate CD may provide a more standardised approach and help overcome barriers to CD; however, we presently know little about the tools available. This systematic review aimed to identify tools for CD in order to explore their attributes and evidence for use. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in line with PRISMA standards. Five databases were searched. Data were extracted using an electronic form and analysed using critical qualitative synthesis. This was guided by two frameworks: the '5 Es' (defining attributes of CD: educated/experienced facilitator, environment, education, evaluation and emotions) and the modified Kirkpatrick's levels. Tool utility was determined by a scoring system based on these frameworks. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in the systematic review. All the tools were designed for use in an acute care setting. Criteria for debriefing were related to major or adverse clinical events or on staff request. Most tools contained guidance on facilitator role, physical environment and made suggestions relating to psychological safety. All tools addressed points for education and evaluation, although few described a process for implementing change. Staff emotions were variably addressed. Many tools reported evidence for use; however, this was generally low-level, with only one tool demonstrating improved patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for practice based on the findings are made. Future research should aim to further examine outcomes evidence of these tools in order to optimise the potential of CD tools for individuals, teams, healthcare systems and patients.

Training items for trainee residents in community medicine in rural areas.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the significant events experienced by initial trainees during community medicine training, evaluate their impact on community medicine practice, and support improvements in rural community medicine training. RESULTS: Three faculty teachers independently evaluated the reports of 25 residents who had completed a four-week community medicine training in a rural area to analyze major events. The reports were analyzed using topics from the Model Core Curriculum for Medical Education that relate to rural medicine. The most frequently reported items were identified as follows: Primary care: 9 (36.0%); integrated community care systems: 8 (32.0%); medical care in the local community: 7 (28.0%); home health care and systems, patient-physician relationship, and end-of-life medical treatment and care: 6 each (24.0%). Reports from residents describing events related to home health care and systems and end-of-life medical treatment and care were related to more than one item.

Current Irish medicolegal landscape: an unsustainable trajectory.

A number of outstanding clinical claims that are yet to be resolved as well as their associated estimated costs are at a record high in Ireland. By the end of 2022, the Irish government face 3875 active clinical claims which are expected to cost €3.85 billion in total. This does not account for future claims yet to be brought. The financial burden will be borne by the Irish healthcare system which is already facing unprecedented pressures on its services and staff. If current trends continue, the opportunity costs of the current medicolegal landscape will impact the future provision of healthcare. Aside from the financial consequences, clinical claims have numerous negative impacts on all parties involved. Gaining an understanding as to why claims and costs continue to increase relies on access to, and analysis of high-quality patient safety data, including learning from previous litigation. Addressing the causal and perpetuating factors requires efficient implementation of evidence-based recommendations through engagement with stakeholders, including the public. It is necessary to continuously assess the implementation of recommendations as well as measure their impact. This is to ensure that novel efforts from this point onwards do not suffer the same fate as many previous recommendations that, because of a lack of follow-on research, appear to go no further than the page of the report they are written. Action is required now to change the course of the currently unsustainable trajectory of the Irish medicolegal landscape.

SEA change - the use of significant event analysis in primary care teaching.

BACKGROUND: Significant event analysis (SEA) is a concept familiar to clinicians as a means to facilitate group learning. Our academic primary care teaching team recognised that often significant educational events are not afforded the same formal evaluation and reflection. We designed a proforma for the analysis of events in our setting and scheduled regular meetings to discuss those events raised. In this paper we describe a year long trial of our novel Significant Event Analysis for Education (SEAFE). EVALUATION: The pilot was evaluated using an online questionnaire. DISCUSSION: Over the 12 months of the pilot 19 SEAFEs raised and discussed with a wide range of subjects covered. 78% of our team felt that the use of SEAFEs had imporved their practice as clinical academics and 89% supported the continued use of SEAFE. CONCLUSION: We have demontrated that SEA can be used in an academic primary care educational setting to bring about group learning and improvement in academic practice. We are planning to continue the use of SEAFE within our team with plans to try to pilot this outside of a primary care setting soon.

Practice of Significant Event Analysis as a Vehicle of Remediation for Learners with Recognized Misconducts / 医学教育

Significant event analysis (SEA) is a method of reflecting on the cause of things in a semi-structural manner and utilizing the analysis in the planning of subsequent improvement measures. SEA can be applied to a wide variety of events. In the field of medicine, it is widely used as a tool for promoting patient safety by medical teams in nations such as the United Kingdom. In Japan, the subjects of SEA mainly reflect on their own behavior (reflection) to learn from their experience. Unlike the results of observations done by third parties, the results of self-reflection cannot be denie by the subjects. Therefore, this method is particularly suitable for events in which the actor has been greatly moved emotionally.　The first paper presents an individual SEA method that utilizes individual reflection to improve behavior, the second paper introduces a group SEA method to share lessons learned from individual reflections.

Video intervention to improve incident reporting among medical trainees.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Improving graduate medical trainee involvement with patient safety and incident reporting is an important task in teaching hospitals that has been recognised across the country and led to numerous efforts to address barriers to incident reporting. A variety of studies have started to define the reasons why trainees are not optimally involved and interventions that may be helpful. The present study aims to add to this literature by primarily addressing barriers that can be considered 'non-technical' such as fears surrounding potential professional repercussions after submitting a report, perceptions that reporting incidents is not useful, and concerns about anonymity. METHODS: Barriers to incident reporting were previously analysed at our institution. A video was produced to directly target the barriers discovered. A 2-hour educational session was delivered which included the video intervention. The educational session was part of the standard patient safety curriculum at our institution. Paper surveys were used to capture changes in perceived barriers to incident reporting. Baseline and postintervention surveys were analysed for changes using t-tests and a p value of <0.05 to determine significance. Survey development included literature review, patient safety expert discussion and cognitive interviews. RESULTS: Perceived knowledge about the reporting process significantly improved after the intervention (t=-4.49; p<0.05). Attitudes about reporting also significantly improved with reduction in fear of negative consequences and anonymity. Perceptions of reporting being a futile activity were also diminished after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that targeting non-technical barriers to incident reporting with a video intervention is an effective way to improve perceived knowledge and attitude about incident reporting.

International recommendations for national patient safety incident reporting systems: an expert Delphi consensus-building process.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety incident reporting systems (PSRS) have been established for over a decade, but uncertainty remains regarding the role that they can and ought to play in quantifying healthcare-related harm and improving care. OBJECTIVE: To establish international, expert consensus on the purpose of PSRS regarding monitoring and learning from incidents and developing recommendations for their future role. METHODS: After a scoping review of the literature, semi-structured interviews with experts in PSRS were conducted. Based on these findings, a survey-based questionnaire was developed and subsequently completed by a larger expert panel. Using a Delphi approach, consensus was reached regarding the ideal role of PSRSs. Recommendations for best practice were devised. RESULTS: Forty recommendations emerged from the Delphi procedure on the role and use of PSRS. Experts agreed reporting system should not be used as an epidemiological tool to monitor the rate of harm over time or to appraise the relative safety of hospitals. They agreed reporting is a valuable mechanism for identifying organisational safety needs. The benefit of a national system was clear with respect to medication error, device failures, hospital-acquired infections and never events as these problems often require solutions at a national level. Experts recommended training for senior healthcare professionals in incident investigation. Consensus recommendation was for hospitals to take responsibility for creating safety solutions locally that could be shared nationally. CONCLUSIONS: We obtained reasonable consensus among experts on aims and specifications of PSRS. This information can be used to reflect on existing and future PSRS, and their role within the wider patient safety landscape. The role of PSRS as instruments for learning needs to be elaborated and developed further internationally.

Our current approach to root cause analysis: is it contributing to our failure to improve patient safety?

BACKGROUND: Despite over a decade of efforts to reduce the adverse event rate in healthcare, the rate has remained relatively unchanged. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a process used by hospitals in an attempt to reduce adverse event rates; however, the outputs of this process have not been well studied in healthcare. This study aimed to examine the types of solutions proposed in RCAs over an 8-year period at a major academic medical institution. METHODS: All state-reportable adverse events were gathered, and those for which an RCA was performed were analysed. A consensus rating process was used to determine a severity rating for each case. A qualitative approach was used to categorise the types of solutions proposed by the RCA team in each case and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: 302 RCAs were reviewed. The most common event types involved a procedure complication, followed by cardiopulmonary arrest, neurological deficit and retained foreign body. In 106 RCAs, solutions were proposed. A large proportion (38.7%) of RCAs with solutions proposed involved a patient death. Of the 731 proposed solutions, the most common solution types were training (20%), process change (19.6%) and policy reinforcement (15.2%). We found that multiple event types were repeated in the study period, despite repeated RCAs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the most commonly proposed solutions were weaker actions, which were less likely to decrease event recurrence. These findings support recent attempts to improve the RCA process and to develop guidance for the creation of effective and sustainable solutions to be used by RCA teams.

Understanding and responding when things go wrong: key principles for primary care educators.

Learning from events with unwanted outcomes is an important part of workplace based education and providing evidence for medical appraisal and revalidation. It has been suggested that adopting a 'systems approach' could enhance learning and effective change. We believe the following key principles should be understood by all healthcare staff, especially those with a role in developing and delivering educational content for safety and improvement in primary care. When things go wrong, professional accountability involves accepting there has been a problem, apologising if necessary and committing to learn and change. This is easier in a 'Just Culture' where wilful disregard of safe practice is not tolerated but where decisions commensurate with training and experience do not result in blame and punishment. People usually attempt to achieve successful outcomes, but when things go wrong the contribution of hindsight and attribution bias as well as a lack of understanding of conditions and available information (local rationality) can lead to inappropriately blame 'human error'. System complexity makes reduction into component parts difficult; thus attempting to 'find-and-fix' malfunctioning components may not always be a valid approach. Finally, performance variability by staff is often needed to meet demands or cope with resource constraints. We believe understanding these core principles is a necessary precursor to adopting a 'systems approach' that can increase learning and reduce the damaging effects on morale when 'human error' is blamed. This may result in 'human error' becoming the starting point of an investigation and not the endpoint.

Patient safety in primary care: incident reporting and significant event reviews in British general practice.

Over the past 20 years, healthcare has adapted to the 'quality revolution' by moving away from direct provision and hierarchical control mechanisms. In their place, new structures based on contractual relationships are being developed coupled with attempts to create an organisational culture that shares learning and that scrutinises existing practice so that it can be improved. The issue here is that contractual arrangements require surveillance, monitoring, regulation and governance systems that can be perceived as antipathetic to the examination of practice and subsequent learning. Historically, reporting levels from general practice have remained low; little information is shared and consequently lessons are not shared across the general practice community. Given large-scale under-engagement of general practitioners (GPs) in incident reporting systems, significant event analysis is advocated to encourage sharing of information about incidents to inform the patient safety agenda at a local and national level. Previous research has concentrated on the secondary care environment and little is known about the situation in primary care, where the majority of patient contacts with healthcare occur. To explore attitudes to incident reporting, the study adopted a qualitative approach to GPs working in a mixture of urban and rural practices reporting to a Welsh Local Health Board. The study found that GPs used significant event analysis methodology to report incidents within their practice, but acknowledged under-reporting. They were less enthusiastic about reporting externally. A number of barriers exist to reporting, including insufficient time to report, lack of feedback, fear of blame, and damage to reputations and patient confidence in a competitive environment. If incident reporting processes are perceived as supportive and formative, and where protected time is allocated to discuss incidents, then GPs are willing to participate. They also need to know how the information is used, and whether lessons are being learnt from errors.

Patient safety incident reporting: a qualitative study of thoughts and perceptions of experts 15†years after 'To Err is Human'.

One of the key recommendations of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) report, To Err is Human, 15 years ago was for greater attention to incident reporting in healthcare, analogous to the role it has played in aviation and other high-risk industries. With the passage of time and maturation of the patient safety field, we conducted semistructured interviews with 11 international patient safety experts with knowledge of the US healthcare and meeting at least one of the following criteria: (1) involved in the development of the IOM's recommendations, (2) responsible for the design and/or implementation of national or regional incident reporting systems, (3) conducted research on patient safety/incident reporting at a national level. Five key challenges emerged to explain why incident reporting has not reached its potential: poor processing of incident reports (triaging, analysis, recommendations), inadequate engagement of doctors, insufficient subsequent visible action, inadequate funding and institutional support of incident reporting systems and inadequate usage of evolving health information technology. Leading patient safety experts acknowledge the current challenges of incident reports. The future of incident reporting lies in targeted incident reporting, effective triaging and robust analysis of the incident reports and meaningful engagement of doctors. Incident reporting must be coupled with visible, sustainable action and linkage of incident reports to the electronic health record. If the healthcare industry wants to learn from its mistakes, miss or near miss events, it will need to take incident reporting as seriously as the health budget.

Evaluating inpatient mortality: a new electronic review process that gathers information from front-line providers.

IMPORTANCE: Accurately and routinely identifying factors contributing to inpatient mortality remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development, implementation and performance of a new electronic mortality review method 1 year after implementation. METHODS: An analysis of data gathered from an electronic instrument that queries front-line providers on their opinions on quality and safety related issues, including potential preventability, immediately after a patient's death. Comparison was also made with chart reviews and administrative data. RESULTS: In the first 12 months, reviewers responded to 89% of reviews sent (2547 responses from 2869 requests), resulting in at least one review in 99% (1058/1068) of inpatient deaths. Clinicians provided suggestions for improvement in 7.7% (191/2491) of completed reviews, and reported that 4.8% (50/1052) of deaths may have been preventable. Quality and safety issues contributing to potentially preventable inpatient mortality included delays in obtaining or responding to tests (15/50, 30%), communication barriers (10/50, 20%) and healthcare associated infections (9/50, 18%). Independent, blinded chart review of a sample of clinician reviews detected potential preventability in 10% (2/20) of clinician reported cases as potentially preventable. Comparison with administrative data showed poor agreement on the identification of complications with neither source consistently identifying more complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our early experience supports the feasibility and utility of an electronic tool to collect real-time clinical information related to inpatient deaths directly from front-line providers. Caregivers reported information that was complementary to data available from chart review and administrative sources in identifying potentially preventable deaths and informing quality improvement efforts.

Exploring students' impressions of community medicine clerkship experience by means of significant event analysis / 医学教育

Community medicine clerkships are said to be an important element of current undergraduate medical education. However, little is known about what medical students actually learn from them.Therefore, we performed a study by means of significant event analysis to examine what medical students had learned from 2-week community medicine clerkships.<BR>1) Students in 2006 took part in 2-week community medicine clerkships and then in sessions at the end of their clerkships to review their experiences.<BR>2) The review sessions were recorded, and the students'impressions were extracted and categorized.<BR>3) The depth of their impressions was categorized into 4 depth levels (describing, commenting, generalizing, and planning).<BR>4) Students gave their impressions of the medical system, the role of physicians, patient-centered care, role models, and clinical ethics, and the impressions of most students were at the levels of commenting and generalizing.<BR>5) Medical students learned system-based practice and medical professionalism during their community medicine clerkships, and significant event analysis was a valuable tool for understanding their experiences.