Developing surgical and anesthesia resident patient safety competencies through systems-based event analysis. Guide to curricular development and evaluation of longer-term resident perceptions.

Previous studies have demonstrated that residents participating in patient safety event investigations become more engaged in future patient safety activities. Currently, there is a gap in resident participation in patient safety event analyses. The objective was to develop and implement a sustainable, faculty-led curriculum for resident participation in patient safety event investigations and to evaluate resident perceptions of the training at least one year following completion of the training. One hundred sixty-five residents from three specialties participated in a formal RCA2 training curriculum from 2013 to 2019. In November 2019, the same residents were asked to complete a survey which examined their perception of the training including the tools and techniques such as event mapping, cause-and-effect diagramming, and developing action plans for solving problems and unsafe conditions. The survey response rate was 36 % (60/165). Sixty-three percent (38/60) of the residents responding to the survey believed that RCA2 training should be provided to all residents. Former residents rated the RCA2 training tools and skills favorably, 3.6 median score (3.5-3.7, 95 % C.I.). Forty-eight percent of responding residents (29/60) believed that the previous RCA2 training improved the way they identify and solve problems. The curriculum and faculty development program provides an effective intervention to address the current, identified gaps in patient safety in graduate medical education.

Using Proactive Risk Assessment (HFMEA) to Improve Patient Safety and Quality Associated with Intraocular Lens Selection and Implantation in Cataract Surgery.

BACKGROUND: A proactive risk assessment using the Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) process was completed on the intraocular lens (IOL) selection and implantation process to analyze system vulnerabilities that could cause patient harm. The three largest ophthalmology clinics based on patient surgical volume were studied in the analysis. The analysis included in-clinic eye measurements needed for IOL selection through the actual implantation of the lens in the operating room. METHODS: The HFMEA process was used for the analysis. A detailed process and subprocess diagram was created through interviews and observations. A multidisciplinary team met 12 times over a 14-week period, evaluating 170 discrete process and subprocess steps and identifying 177 failure modes and 75 failure mode causes for analysis. RESULTS: A high degree of process variability and lack of a robust quality assurance process was found. Areas for improvement included reducing variability between and within clinics, reducing variability in processes used by surgeons, modifying equipment and software to better support the work processes, and implementing a quality assurance program requiring observation of staff performing their routine work as opposed to relying on self-reports of quality metrics. CONCLUSION: The HFMEA process provided a more complete understanding of all of the processes associated with cataract surgery. This allowed for the identification of a variety of risk factors to patient safety that had not previously been identified by the more traditional reactive analysis methods, which tend to focus only on vulnerabilities identified by a specific event.

Root Cause Analysis and Actions for the Prevention of Medical Errors: Quality Improvement and Resident Education.

The quality of care delivered by orthopedic surgeons continues to grow in importance. Multiple orthopedic programs, organizations, and committees have been created to measure the quality of surgical care and reduce the incidence of medical adverse events. Structured root cause analysis and actions (RCA2) has become an area of interest. If performed thoroughly, RCA2 has been shown to reduce surgical errors across many subspecialties. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has a new mandate for programs to involve residents in quality improvement processes. Resident engagement in the RCA2 process has the dual benefit of educating trainees in patient safety and producing meaningful changes to patient care that may not occur with traditional quality improvement initiatives. The RCA2 process described in this article can provide a model for the development of quality improvement programs. In this article, the authors discuss the history and methods of the RCA2 process, provide a stepwise approach, and give a case example. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4):e628-e635.].

How to perform a root cause analysis for workup and future prevention of medical errors: a review.

Providing quality patient care is a basic tenant of medical and surgical practice. Multiple orthopaedic programs, including The Patient Safety Committee of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), have been implemented to measure quality of surgical care, as well as reduce the incidence of medical errors. Structured Root Cause Analysis (RCA) has become a recent area of interest and, if performed thoroughly, has been shown to reduce surgical errors across many subspecialties. There is a paucity of literature on how the process of a RCA can be effectively implemented. The current review was designed to provide a structured approach on how to conduct a formal root cause analysis. Utilization of this methodology may be effective in the prevention of medical errors.

Development, implementation and evaluation of a patient handoff tool to improve safety in orthopaedic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To develop, implement and test the effect of a handoff tool for orthopaedic trauma residents that reduces adverse events associated with the omission of critical information and the transfer of erroneous information. DESIGN: Components of this project included a literature review, resident surveys and observations, checklist development and refinement, implementation and evaluation of impact on adverse events through a chart review of a prospective cohort compared with a historical control group. SETTING: Large teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Findings of a literature review were presented to orthopaedic residents, epidemiologists, orthopaedic surgeons and patient safety experts in face-to-face meetings, during which we developed and refined the contents of a resident handoff tool. The tool was tested in an orthopaedic trauma service and its impact on adverse events was evaluated through a chart review. The handoff tool was developed and refined during the face-to-face meetings and a pilot implementation. Adverse event data were collected on 127 patients (n = 67 baseline period; n = 60 test period). INTERVENTION: A handoff tool for use by orthopaedic residents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Adverse events in patients handed off by orthopaedic trauma residents. RESULTS: After controlling for age, gender and comorbidities, testing resulted in fewer events per person (25-27% reduction; P < 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests that our resident handoff tool may contribute to a decrease in adverse events in orthopaedic patients.

Examination of the effectiveness of the Mental Health Environment of Care Checklist in reducing suicide on inpatient mental health units.

CONTEXT: Suicide is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. While suicides occurring during psychiatric hospitalization represent a very small proportion of the total number of suicides, these events are highly preventable owing to the controlled nature of the environment. Many methods have been proposed, but no interventions have been tested. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of identification and abatement of hazards on inpatient suicides in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The effect of implementation of a checklist (the Mental Health Environment of Care Checklist) and abatement process designed to remove suicide hazards from inpatient mental health units in all VHA hospitals was examined by measuring change in the rate of suicides before and after the intervention. INTERVENTION: Implementation of the Mental Health Environment of Care Checklist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of completed suicides on inpatient mental health units in VHA hospitals. RESULTS: Implementation of the Mental Health Environment of Care Checklist was associated with a reduction in the rate of completed inpatient suicide in VHA hospitals nationally. This reduction remained present when controlling for number of admissions (2.64 per 100 000 admissions before to 0.87 per 100 000 admissions after implementation; P < .001) and bed days of care (2.08 per 1 million bed days before to 0.79 per 1 million bed days after implementation; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Mental Health Environment of Care Checklist was associated with a substantial reduction in the inpatient suicide rate occurring on VHA mental health units. Use of the checklist in non-VHA hospitals may be warranted.

Suicide attempts and completions in the emergency department in Veterans Affairs Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: This is the first study of suicide attempts and completions in the emergency department (ED) in a large national medical system. METHODS: All root cause analysis (RCA) reports completed of suicides and suicide attempts that occurred in ED in the Veterans Health Administration between 1 December 1999 and 31 December 2009 were reviewed. The method, location, anchor point for hanging and implement for cutting as well as the root causes were categorised. RESULTS: Ten per cent of all RCA reports of suicides and suicide attempts that occur within the hospital occur in the ED. Hanging, cutting and strangulation were the most common methods. The most common anchor point for hanging was doors, and the most common implement for cutting was a razor blade. In eight of the 10 cases of cutting, the implement was brought into the ED. The most common root causes were problems communicating risk and being short-staffed. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results the following recommendations are made for helping to reduce suicide attempts in the ED: (1) use a systematic protocol and checklist to review mental health holding areas periodically in the ED for suicidal hazards; (2) develop and implement specialised protocols for suicidal patients that include continuous observation when possible; (3) conduct thorough contraband searches with suicidal patients; (4) designate specialised holding areas, when practically possible, for suicidal patients that are free of anchor points for hanging, sharps and medications, and medical equipment; and are isolated from exits to reduce the risk of elopement.

A checklist to identify inpatient suicide hazards in veterans affairs hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1,500 suicides take place in inpatient hospital units in the United States each year. This study, the first of its kind, examines the implementation and effectiveness of using a standardized checklist for mental health units to improve patient safety in a large health care system. METHODS: In 2006 a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) committee was charged with developing a checklist to explicitly identify environmental hazards on acute mental health units treating suicidal patients. The committee developed both general guidelines to be applied to all areas of the psychiatric unit and detailed guidelines for specific rooms, such as bathrooms, bedrooms, and seclusion rooms. RESULTS: Some 113 VA facilities used the Mental Health Environment of Care Checklist to evaluate their mental health units, identifying and rating 7,642 hazards. At the end of the first year of the project, because of the checklist, 5,834 (76.3%) of these hazards had been abated by facilities; approximately 2% were identified as critical hazards, and another 27% were rated as serious. The most common hazard was anchor points for hanging, followed by material that could be used as a weapon against staff or other patients and problems keeping patients in the secured unit environment. Anchor points had the greatest risk-level classification, followed by suffocation risk and poison risk. High-risk locations included bedrooms and bathrooms. DISCUSSION: Anchor points represented almost 44% of the total number of identified hazards, and materials that could be used as weapons comprised nearly 14% of the total. It is critical to review the mental health environment of care with an eye for these potential weapons. The checklist and resulting mitigations of hazards represent steps toward the overall goal of preventing inpatient suicides.

Inpatient suicide and suicide attempts in Veterans Affairs hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is the eleventh leading cause of death in the United States. Approximately 1,500 suicides occur in inpatient hospital units in the United States each year. In an attempt to determine the methods and environmental factors involved in inpatient suicide and suicide attempts in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, all root cause analysis (RCA) reports of inpatient suicides and suicide attempts submitted to the VA National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) before June 2006 were reviewed. METHODS: VA medical centers are required to conduct RCAs on all inpatient suicides and report all suicides and serious suicide attempts to the NCPS. All reports of inpatient suicide and suicide attempts submitted between December 1999 and June 2006 were reviewed, including methods and environmental factors involved in the events. RESULTS: A total of 185 inpatient suicide and suicide attempts were reported; 42 were completed suicides and 143 were suicide attempts. Approximately 52% of the total number of events occurred while the patient was on an inpatient psychiatry unit. Three methods of self harm--intentional drug overdose, cutting with a sharp object, and hanging--accounted for 71% of the total number of events. Doors and wardrobe cabinets accounted for 41% of the anchor points when hanging was the method of self-harm. For suicide attempts involving cutting behaviors, razor blades accounted for 37% of the total number of events; 57% of jumping-related events occurred from balconies and walkways. CONCLUSIONS: Careful review of RCA reports of inpatient suicide has resulted in focused interventions to improve patient care and patient safety in VA medical centers, including a comprehensive environment-of-care checklist for reviewing inpatient psychiatry units.

Awareness and use of a cognitive aid for anesthesiology.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration's (VHA's) National Center for Patient Safety developed a cognitive aid to help anesthesiologists manage rare, high-mortality adverse events. METHODS: Six months after the aids were sent to VHA facilities with anesthesia machines, anesthesia providers were surveyed about their knowledge and use of the aid. RESULTS: Seven percent of respondents had used the cognitive aid in an emergency ("emergent users"). Most (87%) of respondents were aware of the aid. Half used it only as a reference ("reference users"), 30% were nonusers, and 13% of respondents were unaware of the aid. User groups did not differ regarding exposure to emergencies. All emergent users reported that it helped during an emergency, and 93% reported that it was well designed and easy to use. Emergent users were more likely than other groups to have first found out about it through formal orientation (53%; p < .001). Nonusers (46%) and reference users (38%) were more likely than emergent users (30%) and those who never saw it (5%) to have first found out about it through informal communication with a colleague (p = < 0.001). The majority of those who never saw the aid first became aware of it through this survey (71%; p < .001). The aid was used most commonly for difficult airway. DISCUSSION: A cognitive aid for use in rare emergencies proved clinically useful to anesthesia providers.

A cognitive aid for cardiac arrest: you can't use it if you don't know about it.

BACKGROUND: A cognitive aid developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and distributed to all VA facilities provides caregivers with information to minimize omission of critical steps when diagnosing and treating cardiac arrest. In 2002, caregivers were surveyed about the usefulness of the cognitive aid and the success of its dissemination throughout the VA. METHODS: Fifty randomly selected VA hospitals were sent a letter to alert them of the upcoming survey. Twenty surveys were sent to each of the selected hospitals with instructions to distribute the survey to specific caregiver types. RESULTS: Nine (18%) of the VA hospitals had not used the cognitive aid tool because of dissemination problems. Of the 565 caregivers responding to the survey, 59% (332) were aware of the cognitive aid. Of these 332, 96% agreed that putting the cognitive aid on code carts is a good idea. There were 234 respondents who were both aware of the cognitive aid and had been involved in at least one code within the past 30 days. Of these 234, some 29 (12%) used the aid during a code, 28 of whom agreed that the cognitive aid was helpful during the code. DISCUSSION: Both new and experienced caregivers find the cognitive aid helpful when responding to "code" situations. However, cognitive aids cannot be helpful if theintended users are unaware of their availability. Dissemination and awareness of the aids can be problematic in large health care systems.