Dataset Information

Cognitive work analysis to evaluate the problem of patient falls in an inpatient setting.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify factors in the nursing work domain that contribute to the problem of inpatient falls, aside from patient risk, using cognitive work analysis.

Design

A mix of qualitative and quantitative methods were used to identify work constraints imposed on nurses, which may underlie patient falls.

Measurements

Data collection was done on a neurology unit staffed by 27 registered nurses and utilized field observations, focus groups, time-motion studies and written surveys (AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Culture, NASA-TLX, and custom Nursing Knowledge of Fall Prevention Subscale).

Results

Four major constraints were identified that inhibit nurses' ability to prevent patient falls. All constraints relate to work processes and the physical work environment, opposed to safety culture or nursing knowledge, as currently emphasized. The constraints were: cognitive 'head data', temporal workload, inconsistencies in written and verbal transfer of patient data, and limitations in the physical environment. To deal with these constraints, the nurses tend to employ four workarounds: written and mental chunking schemas, bed alarms, informal querying of the previous care nurse, and informal video and audio surveillance. These workarounds reflect systemic design flaws and may only be minimally effective in decreasing risk to patients.

Conclusion

Cognitive engineering techniques helped identify seemingly hidden constraints in the work domain that impact the problem of patient falls. System redesign strategies aimed at improving work processes and environmental limitations hold promise for decreasing the incidence of falls in inpatient nursing units.

SUBMITTER: Lopez KD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2945713 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:A frequently occurring job during on-call and out-of-hours shifts is reviewing a patient following a fall with this often being the responsibility of the most junior and inexperienced doctors. Following a pilot audit we identified inconsistencies in medical assessment and documentation, with 50% of expected data points not recorded. Failure to complete a thorough assessment can lead to missed injuries, prolonged length of stay, and litigation. Using the plan, do, study, act (PDSA) cycle model this project sought to address this through providing teaching to junior doctors and the development of a pro-forma. Three style cycles of data collection were performed; a formal baseline dataset, after delivering a teaching session to new junior doctors and following the trial of the new fall pro-forma. We selected 15 to 17 patient notes to review at random during a one month period for each data collection cycle and compared the medical assessment to the standards outlined by the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) guidelines.[1] There were two key areas of improvement identified following the teaching session and introduction of the proforma. Documentation of a fall history was improved by nearly 30% being recorded in 100% of cases after the interventions. Documentation of a thorough musculoskeletal examination was improved from being recorded in just 54% of cases to 77% of cases; it was recorded in 100% of the cases where the proforma was used. The project demonstrated the need to improve documentation and assessment of a patient who has fallen. Initial data collection has shown that assessment and documentation were improved providing teaching to junior doctors and by use of the document. The pro-forma has since been incorporated into hospital policy and now forms the compulsory documentation expected of the doctors and nurses managing patients following a fall. Ensuring easy access to the proforma and re-auditing after editing the document will be the next steps.

Project description:ImportanceThere is insufficient research on the costs of patient falls in health care systems, a leading source of nonreimbursable adverse events.ObjectiveTo report the costs of inpatient falls and the cost savings associated with implementation of an evidence-based fall prevention program.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, a matched case-control study used the findings from an interrupted time series analysis that assessed changes in fall rates following implementation of an evidence-based fall prevention program to understand the cost of inpatient falls. An economic analysis was then performed to assess the cost benefits associated with program implementation across 2 US health care systems from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2019, in New York, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts. All adults hospitalized in participating units were included in the analysis. Data analysis was performed from October 2021 to November 2022.InterventionsEvidence-based fall prevention program implemented in 33 medical and surgical units in 8 hospitals.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was cost of inpatient falls. Secondary outcome was the costs and cost savings associated with the evidence-based fall prevention program.ResultsA total of 10 176 patients who had a fall event (injurious or noninjurious) with 29 161 matched controls (no fall event) were included in the case-control study and the economic analysis (51.9% were 65-74 years of age, 67.1% were White, and 53.6% were male). Before the intervention, there were 2503 falls and 900 injuries; after the intervention, there were 2078 falls and 758 injuries. Based on a 19% reduction in falls and 20% reduction in injurious falls from the beginning to the end of the postintervention period, the economic analysis demonstrated that noninjurious and injurious falls were associated with cost increases of $35 365 and $36 776, respectively. The implementation of the evidence-based fall prevention program was associated with $14 600 in net avoided costs per 1000 patient-days.Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation found that fall-related adverse events represented a clinical and financial burden to health care systems and that the current Medicare policy limits reimbursement. In this study, costs of falls only differed marginally by injury level. Policies that incentivize organizations to implement evidence-based strategies that reduce the incidence of all falls may be effective in reducing both harm and costs.

Project description:BackgroundThe Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) has greatly accelerated the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) with the promise of better clinical decisions and patients' outcomes. One of the core criteria for "Meaningful Use" of EHRs is to have a problem list that shows the most important health problems faced by a patient. The implementation of problem lists in EHRs has a potential to help practitioners to provide customized care to patients. However, it remains an open question on how to leverage problem lists in different practice settings to provide tailored care, of which the bottleneck lies in the associations between problem list and practice setting.MethodsIn this study, using sampled clinical documents associated with a cohort of patients who received their primary care at Mayo Clinic, we investigated the associations between problem list and practice setting through natural language processing (NLP) and topic modeling techniques. Specifically, after practice settings and problem lists were normalized, statistical χ2 test, term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) and enrichment analysis were used to choose representative concepts for each setting. Then Latent Dirichlet Allocations (LDA) were used to train topic models and predict potential practice settings using similarity metrics based on the problem concepts representative of practice settings. Evaluation was conducted through 5-fold cross validation and Recall@k, Precision@k and F1@k were calculated.ResultsOur method can generate prioritized and meaningful problem lists corresponding to specific practice settings. For practice setting prediction, recall increases from 0.719 (k = 2) to 0.931 (k = 10), precision increases from 0.882 (k = 2) to 0.931 (k = 10) and F1 increases from 0.790 (k = 2) to 0.931 (k = 10).ConclusionTo our best knowledge, our study is the first attempting to discover the association between the problem lists and hospital practice settings. In the future, we plan to investigate how to provide more tailored care by utilizing the association between problem list and practice setting revealed in this study.

Project description:Background In an acute hospital setting, diabetes can require intensive management with medication modification, monitoring and education. Yet little is known about the experiences and perspectives of nursing/midwifery staff and patients. The aim of this study was to investigate diabetes management and care for patients with diabetes in an acute care setting from the perspectives of nursing/midwifery staff and patients. Methods A convergent mixed-methods study design. Patients with diabetes (Type 1, Type 2 or gestational diabetes) recruited from a public health service in Melbourne, Australia completed a survey and nurses and midwives employed at the health service participated in focus groups. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the survey data. Thematic analysis was used for the free-text survey comments and focus group data. Results Surveys were completed by 151 patients. Although more than half of the patients were satisfied with the diabetes care they had received (n = 96, 67.6%), about a third felt the hospital nursing/midwifery staff had ignored their own knowledge of their diabetes care and management (n = 43, 30.8%). Few reported having discussed their diabetes management with the nursing/midwifery staff whilst in hospital (n = 47, 32.6%) or thought the nurses and midwives had a good understanding of different types of insulin (n = 43, 30.1%) and their administration (n = 47, 33.3%). Patients also reported food related barriers to their diabetes management including difficulties accessing appropriate snacks and drinks (n = 46, 30.5%), restricted food choices and timing of meals (n = 41, 27.2%). Fourteen nurses and midwives participated in two focus groups. Two main themes were identified across both groups: 1. challenges caring for patients with diabetes; and 2. lack of confidence and knowledge about diabetes management. Conclusions Patients and nursing/midwifery staff reported challenges managing patients’ diabetes in the hospital setting, ensuring patients’ optimal self-management, and provision of suitable food and timing of meals. It is essential to involve patients in their diabetes care and provide regular and up-to-date training and resources for nursing/midwifery staff to ensure safe and high-quality inpatient diabetes care and improve patient and staff satisfaction. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-022-01022-w.