Impact of an evidence-based intervention on urinary catheter utilization, associated process indicators, and infectious and non-infectious outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Multi-centre intervention studies tackling urinary catheterization and its infectious and non-infectious complications are lacking. AIM: To decrease urinary catheterization and, consequently, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and non-infectious complications. METHODS: Before/after non-randomized multi-centre intervention study in seven hospitals in Switzerland. Intervention bundle consisting of: (1) a concise list of indications for urinary catheterization; (2) daily evaluation of the need for ongoing catheterization; and (3) education on proper insertion and maintenance of urinary catheters. The primary outcome was urinary catheter utilization. Secondary outcomes were CAUTIs, non-infectious complications and process indicators (proportion of indicated catheters and frequency of catheter evaluation). FINDINGS: In total, 25,880 patients were included in this study [13,171 at baseline (August-October 2016) and 12,709 post intervention (August-October 2017)]. Catheter utilization decreased from 23.7% to 21.0% (P=0.001), and catheter-days per 100 patient-days decreased from 17.4 to 13.5 (P=0.167). CAUTIs remained stable at a low level with 0.02 infections per 100 patient-days (baseline) and 0.02 infections (post intervention) (P=0.98). Measuring infections per 1000 catheter-days, the rate was 1.02 (baseline) and 1.33 (post intervention) (P=0.60). Non-infectious complications decreased significantly, from 0.79 to 0.56 events per 100 patient-days (P<0.001), and from 39.4 to 35.4 events per 1000 catheter-days (P=0.23). Indicated catheters increased from 74.5% to 90.0% (P<0.001). Re-evaluations increased from 168 to 624 per 1000 catheter-days (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: A straightforward bundle of three evidence-based measures reduced catheter utilization and non-infectious complications, whereas the proportion of indicated urinary catheters and daily evaluations increased. The CAUTI rate remained unchanged, albeit at a very low level.

Oncology nurses' beliefs and attitudes towards the double-check of chemotherapy medications: a cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Double-checking medications is a widely used strategy to enhance safe medication administration in oncology, but there is little evidence to support its effectiveness. The proliferated use of double-checking may be explained by positive attitudes towards checking among nurses. This study investigated oncology nurses' beliefs towards double-checking medication, its relation to beliefs about safety and the influence of nurses' level of experience and proximity to clinical care. METHODS: This was a survey of all oncology nurses in three Swiss hospitals. The questionnaire contained 41 items on 6 domains. Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors linked to strong beliefs in the effectiveness of double-checking. RESULTS: Overall, 274 (70%) out of 389 nurses responded (91% female, mean age 37 (standard deviation = 10)). Nurses reported very strong beliefs in the effectiveness and utility of double-checking. They were also confident about their own performance in double-checking. Nurses widely believed that double checking produced safety (e.g., 86% believed errors of individuals could be intercepted with double-checks). In contrast, some limitations of double-checking were also recognized, e.g., 33% of nurses reported that double checking caused frequent interruptions and 28% reported that double-checking was done superficially in their unit. Regression analysis revealed that beliefs in effectiveness of double-checking were mainly associated with beliefs in safety production (p < 0.001). Nurses with experience in barcode scanning held less strong beliefs in effectiveness of double-checking (p = 0.006). In contrast to our expectations, there were no differences in beliefs between any professional sub-groups. CONCLUSION: The widespread and strong believe in the effectiveness of double-checking is linked to beliefs about safety production and co-exists with acknowledgement of the major disadvantages of double-checking by humans. These results are important factors to consider when any existing procedures are adapted or new checking procedures are implemented.

Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Double-checking is widely recommended as an essential method to prevent medication errors. However, prior research has shown that the concept of double-checking is not clearly defined, and that little is known about actual practice in oncology, for example, what kind of checking procedures are applied. OBJECTIVE: To study the practice of different double-checking procedures in chemotherapy administration and to explore nurses' experiences, for example, how often they actually find errors using a certain procedure. General evaluations regarding double-checking, for example, frequency of interruptions during and caused by a check, or what is regarded as its essential feature was assessed. METHODS: In a cross-sectional survey, qualified nurses working in oncology departments of 3 hospitals were asked to rate 5 different scenarios of double-checking procedures regarding dimensions such as frequency of use in practice and appropriateness to prevent medication errors; they were also asked general questions about double-checking. RESULTS: Overall, 274 nurses (70% response rate) participated in the survey. The procedure of jointly double-checking (read-read back) was most commonly used (69% of respondents) and rated as very appropriate to prevent medication errors. Jointly checking medication was seen as the essential characteristic of double-checking-more frequently than 'carrying out checks independently' (54% vs 24%). Most nurses (78%) found the frequency of double-checking in their department appropriate. Being interrupted in one's own current activity for supporting a double-check was reported to occur frequently. Regression analysis revealed a strong preference towards checks that are currently implemented at the responders' workplace. CONCLUSIONS: Double-checking is well regarded by oncology nurses as a procedure to help prevent errors, with jointly checking being used most frequently. Our results show that the notion of independent checking needs to be transferred more actively into clinical practice. The high frequency of reported interruptions during and caused by double-checks is of concern.

The impact of medical errors on Swiss anaesthesiologists: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians involved in medical errors can experience significant distress. This study aims to examine (1) how medical errors impact anaesthesiologists in key work and life domains; (2) anaesthesiologists' attitudes regarding support after errors; (3) and which anaesthesiologists are most affected by errors. METHODS: This study is a mailed cross-sectional survey completed by 281 of the 542 clinically active anaesthesiologists (52% response rate) working at Switzerland's five university hospitals between July 2012 and April 2013. RESULTS: Respondents reported that errors had negatively affected anxiety about future errors (51%), confidence in their ability as a doctor (45%), ability to sleep (36%), job satisfaction (32%), and professional reputation (9%). Respondents' lives were more likely to be affected as error severity increased. Ninety per cent of respondents disagreed that hospitals adequately support them in coping with the stress associated with medical errors. Nearly all of the respondents (92%) reported being interested in psychological counselling after a serious error, but many identified barriers to seeking counselling. However, there were significant differences between departments regarding error-related stress levels and attitudes about error-related support. Respondents were more likely to experience certain distress if they were female, older, had previously been involved in a serious error, and were dissatisfied with their last error disclosure. CONCLUSION: Medical errors, even minor errors and near misses, can have a serious effect on clinicians. Health-care organisations need to do more to support clinicians in coping with the stress associated with medical errors.

Frequency of and predictors for withholding patient safety concerns among oncology staff: a survey study.

Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and to improve a culture of safety. This study investigated the prevalence of non-speaking up despite concerns for safety and aimed to identify predictors for withholding voice among healthcare professionals (HCPs) in oncology. A self-administered questionnaire assessed safety concerns, speaking up beliefs and behaviours among nurses and doctors from nine oncology departments. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify predictors for withholding safety concerns. A total of 1013 HCPs returned the completed survey (response rate 65%). Safety concerns were common among responders. Fifty-four per cent reported to recognise their colleagues making potentially harmful errors at least sometimes. A majority of responders reported at least some episodes of withholding concerns about patient safety. Thirty-seven per cent said they remained silent at least once when they had information that might have helped prevent an incident. Respondents believed that a high level of interpersonal, communication and coping skills are necessary to speak up about patient safety issues at their workplace. Higher levels of perceived advocacy for patient safety and psychological safety significantly decreased the frequency of withholding voice. Remaining silent about safety concerns is a common phenomenon in oncology. Improved strategies are needed to support staff in effective communication and make cancer care safer.

Predictors of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards family involvement in safety-relevant behaviours: a cross-sectional factorial survey study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate predictors of healthcare professionals' (HCPs) attitudes towards family involvement in safety-relevant behaviours. DESIGN: A cross-sectional fractional factorial survey that assessed HCPs' attitudes towards family involvement in two error scenarios relating to hand hygiene and medication safety. Each survey comprised two randomised vignettes that described the potential error, how the family member communicated with the HCP about the error and how the HCP responded to the family member's question. SETTING: 5 teaching hospitals in London, the Midlands and York. HCPs were approached on a range of medical and surgical wards. PARTICIPANTS: 160 HCPs (73 doctors; 87 nurses) aged between 21 and 65 years (mean 37) 102 were female. OUTCOME MEASURES: HCP approval of family member's behaviour; HCP reaction to the family member; anticipated effects on the family member-HCP relationship; HCP support for being questioned about hand hygiene/medication; affective rating responses. RESULTS: HCPs supported family member's intervening (88%) but only 41% agreed this would have positive effects on the family member/HCP relationship. Across vignettes and error scenarios the strongest predictors of attitudes were how the HCP (in the scenario) responded to the family member and whether an error actually occurred. Doctors (vs nurses) provided systematically more positive affective ratings to the vignettes. CONCLUSIONS: Important predictors of HCPs' attitudes towards family members' involvement in patient safety have been highlighted. In particular, a discouraging response from HCP's decreased support for family members being involved and had strong perceived negative effects on the family member/HCP relationship.

'Saying it without words': a qualitative study of oncology staff's experiences with speaking up about safety concerns.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of oncology staff with communicating safety concerns and to examine situational factors and motivations surrounding the decision whether and how to speak up using semistructured interviews. SETTING: 7 oncology departments of six hospitals in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Diverse sample of 32 experienced oncology healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Nurses and doctors commonly experience situations which raise their concerns and require questioning, clarifying and correcting. Participants often used non-verbal communication to signal safety concerns. Speaking-up behaviour was strongly related to a clinical safety issue. Most episodes of 'silence' were connected to hygiene, isolation and invasive procedures. In contrast, there seemed to exist a strong culture to communicate questions, doubts and concerns relating to medication. Nearly all interviewees were concerned with 'how' to say it and in particular those of lower hierarchical status reflected on deliberate 'voicing tactics'. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a widely accepted culture to discuss any concerns relating to medication safety while other issues are more difficult to voice. Clinicians devote considerable efforts to evaluate the situation and sensitively decide whether and how to speak up. Our results can serve as a starting point to develop a shared understanding of risks and appropriate communication of safety concerns among staff in oncology.

[Second victim : Critical incident stress management in clinical medicine]. / "Second victim" : "Critical incident stress management" in der klinischen Medizin.

BACKGROUND: Critical incidents in clinical medicine can have far-reaching consequences on patient health. In cases of severe medical errors they can seriously harm the patient or even lead to death. The involvement in such an event can result in a stress reaction, a so-called acute posttraumatic stress disorder in the healthcare provider, the so-called second victim of an adverse event. Psychological distress may not only have a long lasting impact on quality of life of the physician or caregiver involved but it may also affect the ability to provide safe patient care in the aftermath of adverse events. METHODS: A literature review was performed to obtain information on care giver responses to medical errors and to determine possible supportive strategies to mitigate negative consequences of an adverse event on the second victim. An internet search and a search in Medline/Pubmed for scientific studies were conducted using the key words "second victim, "medical error", "critical incident stress management" (CISM) and "critical incident stress reporting system" (CIRS). Sources from academic medical societies and public institutions which offer crisis management programs where analyzed. The data were sorted by main categories and relevance for hospitals. Analysis was carried out using descriptive measures. RESULTS: In disaster medicine and aviation navigation services the implementation of a CISM program is an efficient intervention to help staff to recover after a traumatic event and to return to normal functioning and behavior. Several other concepts for a clinical crisis management plan were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of CISM and CISM-related programs in a clinical setting may provide efficient support in an acute crisis and may help the caregiver to deal effectively with future error events and employee safety.

Implementation status of error disclosure standards reported by Swiss hospitals.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: To establish at what stage Swiss hospitals are in implementing an internal standard concerning communication with patients and families after an error that resulted in harm. METHODS: Hospitals were identified via the Swiss Hospital Association's website. An anonymous questionnaire was sent during September and October 2011 to 379 hospitals in German, French or Italian. Hospitals were asked to specify their hospital type and the implementation status of an internal hospital standard that decrees that patients or their relatives are to be promptly informed about medical errors that result in harm. RESULTS: Responses from a total of 205 hospitals were received, a response rate of 54%. Most responding hospitals (62%) had an error disclosure standard or planned to implement one within 12 months. The majority of responding university and acute care (75%) hospitals had introduced a disclosure standard or were planning to do so. In contrast, the majority of responding psychiatric, rehabilitation and specialty (53%) clinics had not introduced a standard. CONCLUSION: It appears that Swiss hospitals are in a promising state in providing institutional support for practitioners disclosing medical errors to patients. This has been shown internationally to be one important factor in encouraging the disclosure of medical errors. However, many hospitals, in particular psychiatric, rehabilitation and specialty clinics, have not implemented an error disclosure policy. Further research is needed to explore the underlying reasons.

[Patient safety in outpatient care - study of Swiss primary care offices]. / Die Patientensicherheit in der Grundversorgung - eine Erhebung in Schweizer Hausarztpraxen.

Knowledge of the most frequent and relevant safety problems is necessary in order to identify areas of risk in patient safety and to specify need for action. For Switzerland, there was no data available that systematically describes the type and frequency of critical incidents in outpatient care. Due to differences in primary care systems world wide, the transfer of international data to the Swiss context is of limited validity. For this reason the Patient Safety Foundation conducted a research project in cooperation with partners from primary care practice. We analysed the frequency and severity of patient safety risks in primary care offices as well as the safety climate in those practices. Results of the survey show the following areas of risk are of high relevance: medication, triage by nurse at initial contact (by phone), diagnosis as well as failures to monitor patients in the office. In addition, errors in tests and therapeutic interventions should be prioritized for future action. Several differences between professional groups could be identified regarding the perception and estimation of critical incidents as with respect to the safety climate. In conclusion, physicians and nurses should be involved when analysing risks and developing measures in order to insure high quality standards in patient care.

[Patients as vigilant partners - patient involvement in patient safety]. / Patienten als wachsame Partner - Patientenbeteiligung in der Patientensicherheit.

Patients can contribute to the improvement in patient safety. They are usually vigilant observers of the care they receive and can provide information about adverse events and safety-related processes. In addition, they can help to prevent errors by active engagement in safety. This potential for involvement in error prevention is increasingly acknowledged internationally. Educational material has been developed and can be used to instruct and motivate patients to monitor care for failures and errors and communicate their observations towards health care workers. Preliminary research suggests that this approach can be successful in improving patient safety.

["Second victim" - error, crises and how to get out of it]. / "Second victim" - Umgang mit der Krise nach dem Fehler.

Medical errors do not only harm patients ("first victims"). Almost all health care professionals become a so-called "second victim" once in their career by being involved in a medical error. Studies show that error involvement can have a tremendous impact on health care workers leading to burnout, depression and professional crisis. Moreover persons involved in errors show a decline in job performance and jeopardize therefore patient safety. Blaming the person is one of the typical psychological reactions after an error happened as the attribution theory tells. The self-esteem gets stabilized if we can put blame on someone and pick out a scapegoat. But standing alone makes the emotional situation even worse. A vicious circle can evolve with tragic effect for the individual and negative implications for patient safety and the health care setting.

Frequency of and predictors for patient-reported medical and medication errors in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the frequency of and identify risk factors for patient-reported medical errors in Switzerland. The joint effect of risk factors on error-reporting probability was modelled for hypothetical patients. METHODS: A representative population sample of Swiss citizens (n = 1306) was surveyed as part of the Commonwealth Fund's 2010 lnternational Survey of the General Public's Views of their Health Care System's Performance in Eleven Countries. Data on personal background, utilisation of health care, coordination of care problems and reported errors were assessed. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for patients' reports of medical mistakes and medication errors. RESULTS: 11.4% of participants reported at least one error in their care in the previous two years (8% medical errors, 5.3% medication errors). Poor coordination of care experiences was frequent. 7.8% experienced that test results or medical records were not available, 17.2% received conflicting information from care providers and 11.5% reported that tests were ordered although they had been done before. Age (OR = 0.98, p = 0.014), poor health (OR = 2.95, p = 0.007), utilisation of emergency care (OR = 2.45, p = 0.003), inpatient-stay (OR = 2.31, p = 0.010) and poor care coordination (OR = 5.43, p <0.001) are important predictors for reporting error. For high utilisers of care that unify multiple risk factors the probability that errors are reported rises up to p = 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety remains a major challenge for the Swiss health care system. Despite the health related and economic burden associated with it, the widespread experience of medical error in some subpopulations also has the potential to erode trust in the health care system as a whole.

Barriers and facilitators to chemotherapy patients' engagement in medical error prevention.

BACKGROUND: Medical errors are a serious threat to chemotherapy patients. Patients can make contributions to safety but little is known about the acceptability of error-preventing behaviors and its predictors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study among chemotherapy patients treated at the oncology/hematology unit of a regional hospital was conducted. Patients were presented vignettes of errors and unsafe acts and responded to measures of attitudes, behavioral control, norms, barriers, and anticipated reaction. RESULTS: A total of 479 patients completed the survey (52% response rate). Patients reported a high level of anticipated activity but intentions to engage for safety varied considerably between the hypothetical scenarios (range: 57%-96%, χ(2) P < 0.001). Health, knowledge and staff time pressure were perceived as most important barriers. Instrumental [odds ratio (OR) = 1.3, P = 0.046] and experiential attitudes (OR = 1.4, P < 0.001), expectations attributed to clinical staff (OR = 1.2, P = 0.024) and behavioral control (OR = 1.8, P < 0.001) were predictors for patients' behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are affirmative toward engaging for safety but perceive considerable barriers. Intentions to engage in error prevention vary by clinical context and are strongly influenced by attitudes, normative and control beliefs. To successfully involve patients in medical error, prevention clinicians need to address their patients' beliefs and reduce barriers through education.

Medication errors in chemotherapy: incidence, types and involvement of patients in prevention. A review of the literature.

Medication errors in chemotherapy occur frequently and have a high potential to cause considerable harm. The objective of this article is to review the literature of medication errors in chemotherapy, their incidences and characteristics, and to report on the growing evidence on involvement of patients in error prevention. Among all medication errors and adverse drug events, administration errors are common. Current developments in oncology, namely, increased outpatient treatment at ambulatory infusion units and the diffusion of oral chemotherapy to the outpatient setting, are likely to increase hazards since the process of preparing and administering the drug is often delegated to patients or their caregivers. While professional activities to error incidence reduction are effective and important, it has been increasingly acknowledged that patients often observe errors in the administration of drugs and can thus be a valuable resource in error prevention. However, patients need appropriate information, motivation and encouragement to act as 'vigilant partners'. Examples of simple strategies to involve patients in their safety are presented. Evidence indicates that high self-efficacy and perceived effectiveness of the specific preventive actions increase likelihood of participation in error prevention. Clinicians play a crucial role in supporting and enabling the chemotherapy patient in approaching errors.

[On the comprehensibility of German hospital quality reports: systematic evaluation and need for action]. / Zur Verständlichkeit der Qualitätsberichte deutscher Krankenhäuser: Systematische Auswertung und Handlungsbedarf.

OBJECTIVE: This paper focuses on the current resolutions for quality reports of German hospitals as released in 2007 as well as on comprehensibility of these reports for patients. It is meant to analyse the textual information given by these quality reports. Its main objective was to attain a reliable assessment of their comprehensibility for patients on the basis of objective measuring methods. A further goal was to qualify eventual differences between large and small or private and public hospital operators. On the basis of the attained results conclusions on the appropriateness of the current legal situation and the existing criteria for quality reports were to be drawn. METHOD: The textual system part of 200 German hospital reports was analysed as published in the Internet (latest download 28th May, 2007). The selection took place by means of a controlled sample. The sample structure essentially corresponds to the German hospital system structure in terms of bed numbers and its ratio of public and private operators. The analysis measured all formal text patterns as well as technical terms by means of a computer-aided device. The readability index for each text was calculated according to all known readability formulas for the German language. RESULTS: German hospital quality reports are readable only for those patients who dispose of above-average communicative skills. The analysed reports contain more than 10% technical terms while 17% of the chosen words and 60% of all sentences are too long. 10% of all sentences are too complex and 25% comprise more than three technical terms. To understand these texts at least an entrance qualification for higher education is required in accordance to readability indices. The texts' degree of complexity is comparable to that of philosophical papers. Most textual information given by German hospital quality reports is proven to be unreadable and incomprehensible for most patients. There are no fundamental differences concerning hospital size and operator. CONCLUSIONS: The reports' readability and comprehensibility for patients have only scarcely been considered in the current legal resolutions, and there is no undergoing process of improvement. The analysis has shown that there is in fact an urgent need for action. Future reports should therefore ensure that their textual content is formulated in a readable and comprehensible recipient-friendly manner. To enhance customer-oriented transparency within the German public health service patients should be able to fully understand what hospitals want to communicate. Therefore the further process of research will focus on the development of specific criteria for the production of textual reports. This has to be done in co-operation with patients and resident general practitioners.

[How are quality-adjusted life years defined in German studies?]. / Wie werden in deutschen Studien qualitätsadjustierte Lebensjahre definiert?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cost-utility analysis, a way of evaluating health-economic data, is of increasing importance in Germany. It was the aim of this study to provide a systematic survey of all published cost-utility studies on the German health system. In addition to collecting general study characteristics, particular attention was paid to three questions: (1) On what populations are the utility values based that are necessary for calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); (2) by what method were the data generated; and (3) how was the construction of the health-related results documented? METHODS: In the course of systematically reviewing all German health-economic evaluations, cost-utility studies published between 1990 and 2004 were identified. For this purpose both generic and specific health-economic databanks were searched using clearly defined criteria. The fulfillment of explicit criteria for inclusion and exclusion were tested and relevant items of information extracted from the full text. RESULTS: Among 730 studies for which the full text was analysed 18 cost-utility studies were identified. Most of them were in medical journals in English and their objective was to evaluate curative medical interventions. The methods used for generating utility values differed greatly between them and in general were inadequately documented. CONCLUSION: Most cost-utility studies combine utility values that were generated from different perspectives and countries of origin. In addition they used different methods of assessment. As a rule the methods for determining utility values were not transparent and inadequately documented. The calculations of QALYs based on these studies are not comparable. Most of the studies cannot be assumed to reflect the utility of medical care in respect to German patients or the German population.

[An empirical analysis of patients' preference of setting for outpatient arthroscopic surgery]. / Ambulantes Operieren: Praxis oder Krankenhaus? Eine empirische Analyse von Bevölkerungspräferenzen für die Wahl des Behandlungssettings.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate patient preferences of setting for outpatient surgery--office-based, hospital-based, or inpatient care environment--and the factors relevant to their decision. METHODS: Preferences were elicited from a sample of the general population (n=1,134) with a discrete choice model, an efficient technique for estimating utility. Participants chose their preferred mode among different outpatient scenarios for hypothetical arthroscopic surgery. RESULTS: The subjects were open to alternative options of care delivery and based their decisions on particular attributes, "specialization," "staff continuity," and "waiting time" having the largest effect on choices. A slight preference for hospital-based outpatient surgery was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that patients' choice of providers is open and based on specific attributes of treatment delivery and institution and not the setting per se.