Caring for Acutely Ill Patients in General Wards: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: The number of acutely ill patients has risen in general wards due to the aging population, more advanced and complicated therapeutic methods, economic changes in the health system, therapeutic choices and shortage of intensive care unit beds. This may lead to adverse events and outcomes with catastrophic results. The purpose of this study was to describe the conditions of acutely ill patients, from the perspective of caregivers. METHODS: The study was conducted in Tehran University of Medical Sciences and its two affiliated general teaching hospitals. Ten nurses and physicians participated in interviews, which were analyzed using qualitative content analysis methods. RESULTS: Four main categories of difficulties in caring for acutely ill patients in general wards were described: problems in identifying acutely ill patients, problems in clinical management of acutely ill patients, inappropriate use of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds, and poor structure for mortality control. The staff do not appropriately diagnose the signs of deterioration. There are problems with the appropriate management of acutely ill patients, even if they are considered to be acutely ill and in need of special attention in general wards. CONCLUSION: Many shortcomings exist caring for acutely ill patients, ranging from identification to clinical management; there are also structural and contextual problems. An immediate plan is necessary to circumvent the challenges and to improve the care for acutely ill patients. These challenges highlight the need for changes in current levels of care for acutely ill patients, as well as the need for appropriate support systems.

Root-cause analysis of a potentially sentinel transfusion event: lessons for improvement of patient safety.

Errors prevention and patient safety in transfusion medicine are a serious concern. Errors can occur at any step in transfusion and evaluation of their root causes can be helpful for preventive measures. Root cause analysis as a structured and systematic approach can be used for identification of underlying causes of adverse events. To specify system vulnerabilities and illustrate the potential of such an approach, we describe the root cause analysis of a case of transfusion error in emergency ward that could have been fatal. After reporting of the mentioned event, through reviewing records and interviews with the responsible personnel, the details of the incident were elaborated. Then, an expert panel meeting was held to define event timeline and the care and service delivery problems and discuss their underlying causes, safeguards and preventive measures. Root cause analysis of the mentioned event demonstrated that certain defects of the system and the ensuing errors were main causes of the event. It also points out systematic corrective actions. It can be concluded that health care organizations should endeavor to provide opportunities to discuss errors and adverse events and introduce preventive measures to find areas where resources need to be allocated to improve patient safety.

Development of an effective risk management system in a teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Unsafe health care provision is a main cause of increased mortality rate amongst hospitalized patients all over the world. A system approach to medical error and its reduction is crucial that is defined by clinical and administrative activities undertaken to identify, evaluate, and reduce the risk of injury. The aim of this study was to develop and implement a risk management system in a large teaching hospital in Iran, especially of the basis of WHO guidelines and patient safety context. METHODS: WHO draft guideline and patient safety reports from different countries were reviewed for defining acceptable framework of risk management system. Also current situation of mentioned hospital in safety matter and dimensions of patient safety culture was evaluated using HSOPSC questionnaire of AHRQ. With adjustment of guidelines and hospital status, the conceptual framework was developed and next it was validated in expert panel. The members of expert panel were selected according to their role and functions and also their experiences in risk management and patient safety issues. The validated framework consisted of designating a leader and coordinator core, defining communications, and preparing the infrastructure for patient safety education and culture-building. That was developed on the basis of some values and commitments and included reactive and proactive approaches. RESULTS: The findings of reporting activities demonstrated that at least 3.6 percent of hospitalized patients have experienced adverse events and 5.3 percent of all deaths in the hospital related with patient safety problems. Beside the average score of 12 dimensions of patient safety culture was 46.2 percent that was considerably low. The "non-punitive responses to error" had lowest positive score with 21.2 percent. CONCLUSION: It is of paramount importance for all health organizations to lay necessary foundations in order to identify safety risks and improve the quality of care. Inadequate participation of staff in education, reporting and analyzing, underreporting and uselessness of aggregated data, limitation of human and financial resources, punitive directions and management challenges for solutions were the main executive problems which could affect the effectiveness of system.