Outcomes of Postprocedural Closeout Checklist Implementation to Prevent Adverse Events during Interventional Radiology Procedures: An Initiative to Improve Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To assess whether adherence to a postprocedural closeout (PPC) checklist decreases adverse events during image-guided procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the analysis of prior adverse events related to image-guided procedures, the Radiology Quality Committee developed a PPC checklist. The rates of serious reportable events related to image-guided procedures performed in the radiology department were recorded annually from 2015 to 2021. The rate of adverse events was normalized to the procedure volume in the corresponding periods. The number of patients requiring repeat procedures was recorded. The severity of impact was classified according to the Society of Interventional Radiology Adverse Event Classification System. The annual rates before (2015 and 2016) and after (2017-2021) the implementation of PPC were compared. RESULTS: Seventy-seven safety reports were identified in image-guided procedures over the study period, of which 43 cases were not related to the PPC, leaving 34 cases for the analysis. Radiology adverse events decreased from 0.069% (14/20,218, 7/y) before PPC implementation to 0.034% (20/58,793, 4/y) after implementation (P = .05, 43% decrease). Radiology repeat procedures decreased from 0.040% (8/20,218, 4/y) before PPC implementation to 0.007% (4/58,793, 0.8/y) after implementation (P = .0033, 80% decrease). Moreover, severity of adverse events decreased (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a PPC checklist improved patient outcomes by decreasing the number of adverse events that occur from inadequate safety processes at the end of image-guided procedures by 43%, need for repeat procedures by 80%, and severity of impact of errors.

Emotional Harm in the Radiology Department: Analysis of an Underrecognized Preventable Error.

Background Emotional harm incidents in health care may result in lost trust and adverse outcomes. However, investigations of emotional harm in radiology departments remain lacking. Purpose To better understand contributors and clinical scenarios in which emotional harm can occur in radiology, to document incidences, and to develop preventative countermeasures. Materials and Methods A large tertiary hospital adverse event reporting system was retrospectively searched for submissions under the category of dignity and respect in radiology between December 2014 and December 2020. Submissions were assigned to one of 14 categories per a previously developed classification system. Root-cause analysis of events was performed with a focus on countermeasures for future prevention. The person experiencing emotional harm (patient or staff) was noted. Results Of all radiology-related submissions, 37 of 3032 (1.2%) identified 43 dignity and respect incidents: failure to be patient centered (n = 23; 54%), disrespectful communication (n = 16; 37%), privacy violation (n = 2; 5%), minimization of patient concerns (n = 1; 2%), and loss of property (n = 1; 2%). Failure to be patient centered (n = 23) was subcategorized into disregard for patient preference (12 of 23; 52%), delay in care (eight of 23; 35%), and ineffective communication (three of 23; 13%). Of the 43 incidents, 32 involved patients (74%) and 11 involved staff (26%). Emotional harm in staff was because of disrespectful communication from other staff (eight of 11; 73%). Seventy-three countermeasures were identified: staff communication training (n = 32; 44%), individual feedback (n = 18; 25%), system innovation (n = 16; 22%), improvement of existing communication processes (n = 3; 4%), process reminders (n = 3; 4%), and unclear (n = 1; 1%). Individual feedback and staff communication training that focused on active listening, asking for the patient's preferences, and closed-loop communication addressed 34 of the 43 incidents (79%). Conclusion Most emotional harm incidents were from disrespectful communication and failure to be patient centered. Providing training focused on active listening, asking for patient's preferences, and closed-loop communication would potentially prevent most of these incidents. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Bruno in this issue.

Impact of Preprocedure Time-Out Checklist for Computed Tomography-Guided Procedures on Workflow and Patient Safety.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of preprocedural time-out on workflow and patient safety in computed tomography (CT)-guided procedures. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study, preprocedure time-out was assessed by an independent observer in CT-guided procedures performed from January 16, 2018, to May 15, 2018. Anonymous survey of 302 radiology team members involved in image-guided procedures about preprocedure time-out was performed using REDCap. RESULTS: Preprocedure time-out for 100 CT-guided procedures (biopsies, drainages, ablations) was observed. Procedures were recruited per observer availability and thus were nonconsecutive and nonrandom. Preprocedure time-out was performed in 100 procedures (100%). Median duration was 60 seconds (interquartile range, 60-71 seconds). Scripted checklist was followed in 52 cases (52/100, 52%). Omissions from the preprocedure time-out were identified in 40 cases (40/100, 40%) and were much more frequent when scripted checklist was not used (30/48 [63%] vs 10/52 [19%], P < 0.005). One case (1/100, 1%) was postponed due to abnormal coagulation parameters discovered during the time-out. Three cases (3/100, 3%) were delayed by 3 minutes to address other safety issues. In additional 14 cases (14/100, 14%), safety issues were raised during the time-out, which were resolved in less than 30 seconds.A total of 137 (45%) of 302 survey responses from 54 radiologists (39%), 55 technologists (40%), and 28 nurses (20%) were received. Forty-eight respondents (48/137, 35%) encountered a procedure that was cancelled or delayed as a result of information identified during time-out. Ninety-six percent (131/137) of respondents stated that time-out improves teamwork, 98% (134/137) stated that it enhances communication between the team members, and 93% (127/137) stated that it identifies and resolves problems and ambiguities. CONCLUSIONS: Scripted preprocedure time-out for CT-guided procedures takes approximately 1 minute to execute and detects safety issues in 18% of cases.

Overcoming Human Barriers to Safety Event Reporting in Radiology.

In high-reliability industries that are dedicated to ensuring safety, safety event reporting is the cornerstone of improvement. However, human factors can interfere with consistent reporting. Common human factors that are barriers to safety event reporting include liability concerns; time constraints; physician autonomy; self-regulation; collegiality; the lack of listening, language training, and/or feedback regarding reported events; unclear responsibilities within safety teams; and a high reporting threshold. Other barriers include fears of challenging authority, being disrespected, retribution, and the creation of a difficult work environment. These factors are reviewed in the health care setting, and the countermeasures that need to be introduced at the frontline employee, leadership employee (physicians and managers), and departmental and organizational levels to create a culture of safety in which all employees feel comfortable raising safety concerns are discussed. ©RSNA, 2019.

Improving Imaging Care for Diverse, Marginalized, and Vulnerable Patient Populations.

Although much attention has been paid to the reduction of disparities in health care within the United States, these issues continue to exist. Such efforts include increased focus on patient centeredness and cultural responsivity. These concepts are based on the recognition that diverse, marginalized, and vulnerable patients may possess different physical, psychologic, or social characteristics that contribute to their diversity and susceptibility. Such patients may face numerous obstacles and barriers when seeking medical care, including financial constraints, difficulties with communication, a limited understanding of how to navigate the health care system, and not feeling welcomed, respected, or safe. It is essential that the radiologist and members of the radiology care team understand and embrace patients' unique characteristics to provide effective and appropriate care to all patients. This article illustrates the spectrum of knowledge that benefits radiologists and members of the radiology care team when interacting with and providing care for the growing pool of diverse, marginalized, and vulnerable patients. ©RSNA, 2018.

Acing the Joint Commission Regulatory Visit: Running an Effective and Compliant Safety Program.

Ensuring the safety of patients and staff is a core effort of all health care organizations. Many regulatory agencies, from The Joint Commission to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, provide policies and guidelines, with relevant metrics to be achieved. Data on safety can be obtained through a variety of mechanisms, including gemba walks, team discussion during safety huddles, audits, and individual employee entries in safety reporting systems. Data can be organized on a scorecard that provides an at-a-glance view of progress and early warning signs of practice drift. In this article, relevant policies are outlined, and instruction on how to achieve compliance with national patient safety goals and regulations that ensure staff safety and Joint Commission ever-readiness are described. Additional critical components of a safety program, such as department commitment, a just culture, and human factors engineering, are discussed. ©RSNA, 2018.

Barriers to Safety Event Reporting in an Academic Radiology Department: Authority Gradients and Other Human Factors.

Purpose To investigate barriers to reporting safety concerns in an academic radiology department and to evaluate the role of human factors, including authority gradients, as potential barriers to safety concern reporting. Materials and Methods In this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, an online questionnaire link was emailed four times to all radiology department staff members (n = 648) at a tertiary care institution. Survey questions included frequency of speaking up about safety concerns, perceived barriers to speaking up, and the annual number of safety concerns that respondents were unsuccessful in reporting. Respondents' sex, role in the department, and length of employment were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test. Results The survey was completed by 363 of the 648 employees (56%). Of those 363 employees, 182 (50%) reported always speaking up about safety concerns, 134 (37%) reported speaking up most of the time, 36 (10%) reported speaking up sometimes, seven (2%) reported rarely speaking up, and four (1%) reported never speaking up. Thus, 50% of employees spoke up about safety concerns less than 100% of the time. The most frequently reported barriers to speaking up included high reporting threshold (69%), reluctance to challenge someone in authority (67%), fear of disrespect (53%), and lack of listening (52%). Conclusion Of employees in a large academic radiology department, 50% do not attain 100% reporting of safety events. The most common human barriers to speaking up are high reporting threshold, reluctance to challenge authority, fear of disrespect, and lack of listening, which suggests that existing authority gradients interfere with full reporting of safety concerns.