Dataset Information

How dental team members describe adverse events.

ABSTRACT: Although some patients experience adverse events (AEs) resulting in harm caused by treatments in dentistry, few published reports have detailed how dental providers describe these events. Understanding how dental treatment professionals view AEs is essential to building a safer environment in dental practice.The authors interviewed dental professionals and domain experts through focus groups and in-depth interviews and asked them to identify the types of AEs that may occur in dental settings.The initial interview and focus group findings yielded 1,514 items that included both causes and AEs. In total, 632 causes were coded into 1 of the 8 categories of the Eindhoven classification, and 882 AEs were coded into 12 categories of a newly developed dental AE classification. Interrater reliability was moderate among coders. The list was reanalyzed, and duplicate items were removed leaving a total of 747 unique AEs and 540 causes. The most frequently identified AE types were "aspiration and ingestion" at 14% (n = 142), "wrong-site, wrong-procedure, wrong-patient errors" at 13%, "hard-tissue damage" at 13%, and "soft-tissue damage" at 12%.Dental providers identified a large and diverse list of AEs. These events ranged from "death due to cardiac arrest" to "jaw fatigue from lengthy procedures."Identifying threats to patient safety is a key element of improving dental patient safety. An inventory of dental AEs underpins efforts to track, prevent, and mitigate these events.

SUBMITTER: Maramaldi P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5045777 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How dental team members describe adverse events.

Maramaldi Peter P Walji Muhammad F MF White Joel J Etolue Jini J Kahn Maria M Vaderhobli Ram R Kwatra Japneet J Delattre Veronique F VF Hebballi Nutan B NB Stewart Denice D Kent Karla K Yansane Alfa A Ramoni Rachel B RB Kalenderian Elsbeth E

Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 20160603 10

<h4>Background</h4>Although some patients experience adverse events (AEs) resulting in harm caused by treatments in dentistry, few published reports have detailed how dental providers describe these events. Understanding how dental treatment professionals view AEs is essential to building a safer environment in dental practice.<h4>Methods</h4>The authors interviewed dental professionals and domain experts through focus groups and in-depth interviews and asked them to identify the types of AEs th ...[more]

PMID: 27269376

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWeight stigma is prevalent within healthcare settings and is an aspect of the lived experience of people living with obesity. There is international evidence of weight stigma in the dental setting, where currently there is also evidence indicating limited training amongst dental professionals regarding obesity or obesity-related stigma. There has been Australian research and none have included dental support staff.AimsThis cross-sectional survey aimed to assess stigmatizing attitudes and beliefs of dental professionals (registered general dentists, oral health therapists) and support staff (dental assistants, dental receptionists) working in private and public regional practices in New South Wales and specialists in Special Needs Dentistry across Australia toward people living with obesity.MethodsAn anonymous electronic validated survey was administered through REDCap™ to assess stigmatizing attitudes and beliefs held amongst respondents in relation to people living with obesity.ResultsFifty-three participants completed the survey (n = 33 clinicians, n = 20 support staff). The majority 47/53 (88.7%) held positive attitudes toward people living with obesity. Of the clinicians, 15/33 (45.5%) reported 1 hour or less and 14/33 (42.4%) reported two to 5 hours of obesity-related education. 14/20 (70%) of the support staff reported no prior education or training about obesity. Of responses reflecting weight stigma, only three clinicians reported negative reactions toward the appearance, or discomfort during examination, of a patient with obesity, or a perception of laziness, compared with normal weight individuals. A higher proportion 4/20 (20%) of support staff reported responses indicating negative attitudes for people with obesity compared with normal weight individuals.ConclusionSurvey responses reflected evidence of weight stigma in both dental professionals and support staff. Professional development targeting weight stigma reduction in the dental setting is needed for both clinicians and support staff.

Project description:ObjectivesInadequate self-efficacy of resuscitation team members may impair team performance, but high self-efficacy does not guarantee competence. We evaluated the relationship between individual self-efficacy and resuscitation team competence.DesignSecondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.SettingHigh-fidelity in situ in-hospital cardiac arrest simulations at seven hospitals in Utah.SubjectsMultidisciplinary cardiac arrest resuscitation team members.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsResuscitation team members completed surveys evaluating resuscitation self-efficacy (confidence in resuscitation role, difficulty thinking clearly, and concerns about committing errors) after each simulation. The primary outcome was event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Secondary outcomes included other measures of resuscitation quality, advanced cardiac life support protocol adherence, and nontechnical team performance. Analyses employed the Datta-Satten rank-sum method to account for response clustering within simulation events. Of 923 participants in 76 analyzable simulations, 612 (66%) submitted complete surveys and 33 (43%) resuscitation teams achieved hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75% versus less than or equal to 75% was not associated with the percentage of resuscitation team members reporting confidence in their team role (n = 213 [74%] vs. n = 251 [77%], respectively, p = 0.18), lack of difficulty thinking clearly (n = 186 [65%] vs. n = 214 [66%], p = 0.92), or lack of worry about making errors (n = 155 [54%] vs. n = 180 [55%], p = 0.41). Team members' confidence was also not associated with secondary outcomes, except that teams with confident members had better values for composite (3.55 [interquartile range, IQR 3.00-3.82] vs. 3.18 [IQR 2.57-3.64], p = 0.024) and global (8 [7-9] vs. 8 [6-8], p = 0.029) scales measuring nontechnical team performance.ConclusionsTeam members' self-efficacy was not associated with most team-level competence metrics during simulated cardiac arrest resuscitation. These data suggest that self-efficacy should have a limited role for evaluation of resuscitation training programs and for initial certification and monitoring of individual resuscitation team members' competence.

Project description:BackgroundLimited data are available on adverse events among children admitted to hospital. The Canadian Paediatric Adverse Events Study was done to describe the epidemiology of adverse events among children in hospital in Canada.MethodsWe performed a 2-stage medical record review at 8 academic pediatric centres and 14 community hospitals in Canada. We reviewed charts from patients admitted from April 2008 through March 2009, evenly distributed across 4 age groups (0 to 28 d; 29 to 365 d; > 1 to 5 yr and > 5 to 18 yr). In stage 1, nurses and health records personnel who had received training in the use of the Canadian Paediatric Trigger Tool reviewed medical records to detect triggers for possible adverse events. In stage 2, physicians reviewed the charts identified as having triggers and described the adverse events.ResultsA total of 3669 children were admitted to hospital during the study period. The weighted rate of adverse events was 9.2%. Adverse events were more frequent in academic pediatric centres than in community hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-5.39). The incidence of preventable adverse events was not significantly different between types of hospital, but nonpreventable adverse events were more common in academic pediatric centres (adjusted OR 4.39, 95% CI 2.08-9.27). Surgical events predominated overall and occurred more frequently in academic pediatric centres than in community hospitals (37.2% v. 21.5%, relative risk [RR] 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.1), whereas events associated with diagnostic errors were significantly less frequent (11.1% v. 23.1%, RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9).InterpretationMore children have adverse events in academic pediatric centres than in community hospitals; however, adverse events in the former are less likely to be preventable. There are many opportunities to reduce harm affecting children in hospital in Canada, particularly related to surgery, intensive care and diagnostic error.

Project description:BackgroundWork-related burnout is common in primary care and is associated with worse patient safety, patient satisfaction, and employee mental health. Workload, staffing stability, and team completeness may be drivers of burnout. However, few studies have assessed these associations at the team level, and fewer still include members of the team beyond physicians.ObjectiveTo study the associations of burnout among primary care providers (PCPs), nurse care managers, clinical associates (MAs, LPNs), and administrative clerks with the staffing and workload on their teams.DesignWe conducted an individual-level cross-sectional analysis of survey and administrative data in 2014.ParticipantsPrimary care personnel at VA clinics responding to a national survey.Main measuresBurnout was measured with a validated single-item survey measure dichotomized to indicate the presence of burnout. The independent variables were survey measures of team staffing (having a fully staffed team, serving on multiple teams, and turnover on the team), and workload both from survey items (working extended hours), and administrative data (patient panel overcapacity and average panel comorbidity).Key resultsThere were 4610 respondents (estimated response rate of 20.9%). The overall prevalence of burnout was 41%. In adjusted analyses, the strongest associations with burnout were having a fully staffed team (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 95% CI 0.47-0.65), having turnover on the team (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.43-1.94), and having patient panel overcapacity (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40). The observed burnout prevalence was 30.1% lower (28.5% vs. 58.6%) for respondents working on fully staffed teams with no turnover and caring for a panel within capacity, relative to respondents in the inverse condition.ConclusionsComplete team staffing, turnover among team members, and panel overcapacity had strong, cumulative associations with burnout. Further research is needed to understand whether improvements in these factors would lower burnout.

Dataset Information

How dental team members describe adverse events.

Publications

How dental team members describe adverse events.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets