Exploring the feasibility of patient safety huddles in general practice.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Panayiotou H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7443801 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Exploring the feasibility of patient safety huddles in general practice.
Panayiotou Hannah H Higgs Charlotte C Foy Robbie R
Primary health care research & development 20200727
<h4>Background</h4>Patient safety is a key priority for healthcare systems. Patient safety huddles have been advocated as a way to improve safety. We explored the feasibility of huddles in general practice.<h4>Methods</h4>We invited all general practices in West Yorkshire to complete an online survey and interviewed practice staff.<h4>Results</h4>Thirty-four out of 306 practices (11.1%) responded to our survey. Of these, 22 practices (64.7%) reported having breaks for staff to meet and eight (23 ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundA supportive patient safety culture is considered to be an essential condition for improving patient safety. Assessing the current safety culture in general practice may be a first step to target improvements. To that end, we studied internal consistency and construct validity of a safety culture questionnaire for general practice (SCOPE) which was derived from a comparable questionnaire for hospitals (Dutch-HSOPS).MethodsThe survey was conducted among caregivers of Dutch general practice as part of an ongoing quality accreditation process using a 46 item questionnaire. We conducted factor analyses and studied validity by calculating correlations between the subscales and testing the hypothesis that respondents' patient safety grade of their practices correlated with their scores on the questionnaire.ResultsOf 72 practices 294 respondents completed the questionnaire. Eight factors were identified concerning handover and teamwork, support and fellowship, communication openness, feedback and learning from error, intention to report events, adequate procedures and staffing, overall perceptions of patient safety and expectations and actions of managers. Cronbach's alpha of the factors rated between 0.64 and 0.85. The subscales intercorrelated moderately, except for the factor about intention to report events. Respondents who graded patient safety highly scored significantly higher on the questionnaire than those who did not.ConclusionsThe SCOPE questionnaire seems an appropriate instrument to assess patient safety culture in general practice. The clinimetric properties of the SCOPE are promising, but future research should confirm the factor structure and construct of the SCOPE and delineate its responsiveness to changes in safety culture over time.
| S-EPMC3228702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The European Medicines Agency (EMA) requires vaccine manufacturers to conduct enhanced real-time surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccination. The EMA has specified a list of adverse events of interest to be monitored. The EMA sets out 3 different ways to conduct such surveillance: (1) active surveillance, (2) enhanced passive surveillance, or (3) electronic health record data mining (EHR-DM). English general practice (GP) is a suitable setting to implement enhanced passive surveillance and EHR-DM. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to test the feasibility of conducting enhanced passive surveillance in GP using the yellow card scheme (adverse events of interest reporting cards) to determine if it has any advantages over EHR-DM alone. METHODS:A total of 9 GPs in England participated, of which 3 tested the feasibility of enhanced passive surveillance and the other 6 EHR-DM alone. The 3 that tested EPS provided patients with yellow (adverse events) cards for patients to report any adverse events. Data were extracted from all 9 GPs' EHRs between weeks 35 and 49 (08/24/2015 to 12/06/2015), the main period of influenza vaccination. We conducted weekly analysis and end-of-study analyses. RESULTS:Our GPs were largely distributed across England with a registered population of 81,040. In the week 49 report, 15,863/81,040 people (19.57% of the registered practice population) were vaccinated. In the EPS practices, staff managed to hand out the cards to 61.25% (4150/6776) of the vaccinees, and of these cards, 1.98% (82/4150) were returned to the GP offices. Adverse events of interests were reported by 113 /7223 people (1.56%) in the enhanced passive surveillance practices, compared with 322/8640 people (3.73%) in the EHR-DM practices. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, we demonstrated that GPs EHR-DM was an appropriate method of enhanced surveillance. However, the use of yellow cards, in enhanced passive surveillance practices, did not enhance the collection of adverse events of interests as demonstrated in this study. Their return rate was poor, data entry from them was not straightforward, and there were issues with data reconciliation. We concluded that customized cards prespecifying the EMA's adverse events of interests, combined with EHR-DM, were needed to maximize data collection. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015469.
| S-EPMC6913774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMethods to identify and study safety risks of electronic health records (EHRs) are underdeveloped and largely depend on limited end-user reports. "Safety huddles" have been found useful in creating a sense of collective situational awareness that increases an organization's capacity to respond to safety concerns. We explored the use of safety huddles for identifying and learning about EHR-related safety concerns.DesignData were obtained from daily safety huddle briefing notes recorded at a single midsized tertiary-care hospital in the United States over 1 year. Huddles were attended by key administrative, clinical, and information technology staff. We conducted a content analysis of huddle notes to identify what EHR-related safety concerns were discussed. We expanded a previously developed EHR-related error taxonomy to categorize types of EHR-related safety concerns recorded in the notes.ResultsOn review of daily huddle notes spanning 249 days, we identified 245 EHR-related safety concerns. For our analysis, we defined EHR technology to include a specific EHR functionality, an entire clinical software application, or the hardware system. Most concerns (41.6%) involved " EHR technology working incorrectly, " followed by 25.7% involving " EHR technology not working at all. " Concerns related to "EHR technology missing or absent" accounted for 16.7%, whereas 15.9% were linked to " user errors ."ConclusionsSafety huddles promoted discussion of several technology-related issues at the organization level and can serve as a promising technique to identify and address EHR-related safety concerns. Based on our findings, we recommend that health care organizations consider huddles as a strategy to promote understanding and improvement of EHR safety.
| S-EPMC5391729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is limited research, and guidance, on how to address safety in general practice proactively. OBJECTIVES:This review aimed to synthesize the literature describing the use of patient record review (PRR) to measure and improve patient safety in primary care. The PRR methodologies utilized and the resulting outcomes were examined. METHODS:Searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO in February 2017. Reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were also screened. English language, peer-reviewed studies that utilized PRR to identify patient safety incidents (PSIs) occurring in general practice were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from articles and applied the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. RESULTS:A total of 3265 studies were screened, with 15 included. Trigger tools were the most frequent method used for the PRRs (n = 6). The mean number of safety incidents per 100 records was 12.6. Within studies, a mean of 30.6% of incidents were associated with severe harm (range 8.6-50%), and a mean of 55.6% of incidents was considered preventable (range 32.7-93.5%). The most commonly identified types of PSIs related to medication and prescribing, diagnosis, communication and treatment. Three studies reported on improvement actions taken after the PRRs. CONCLUSION:This review suggests that PRR may be a promising means of proactively identifying patient safety incidents and informing improvements.
| S-EPMC6104614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPhysician engagement is crucial for furthering patient safety and quality improvement within healthcare organizations. Medical Safety Huddles, which are physician-specific huddles, is a novel way to engage physicians with patient safety and may reduce adverse events experienced by patients. We plan to conduct a multi-center quality improvement (QI) initiative to implement and evaluate Medical Safety Huddles. The primary objective is to determine the impact of the huddles on adverse events experienced by patients. Secondary objectives include assessing the impact of the huddles on patient safety culture and physician engagement, and a process evaluation to assess the fidelity of implementation.MethodsThis stepped wedge cluster randomized study will be conducted at four academic inpatient hospitals over 19 months. Each site will adapt Medical Safety Huddles to its own practice context to best engage physicians. We will review randomly selected patient charts for adverse events. Generalized linear mixed effects regression will be used to estimate the overall intervention effect on adverse events. Process measures such as physician attendance rates and number of safety issues raised per huddle will be tracked to monitor implementation adherence.ConclusionMedical Safety Huddles may help healthcare organizations and medical leaders to better engage physicians with patient safety. The project results will assess the fidelity of implementation and determine the impact of Medical Safety Huddles on patient safety.
| S-EPMC9483722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare complaints are an under utilised source of information for safety improvement, particularly in general practice settings. Within general practice in Ireland, complaints management is dependent on individual practice policies, with little standardisation nationally, impeding their use for safety improvement. There is a need to understand factors that contribute to unlocking the potential of complaints for safety improvement in general practice in Ireland and internationally.ObjectivesTo explore perceptions of healthcare complaints of general practitioners, practice nurses and managers, medico-legal professionals, and policymakers.MethodsParticipants were recruited using convenience sampling. Interviews were conducted from November 2019-May 2020, based on a semi-structured interview guide. Data were then transcribed and analysed using content analysis. An iterative process was applied to identify emerging themes from the interviews.ResultsA total of 29 participants (19 female, 10 male) were interviewed. Three themes emerged from the analysis, 'why patients submit complaints', 'management of complaints', and 'impact of complaints'. Subthemes included 'barriers and facilitators to complaining', 'practice processes' for complaints management, and 'impacts on staff' of complaints, among others.ConclusionThere is a lot to be learned about how individuals experience complaints, however, this study adds to existing knowledge. The findings from this study can be used to tackle challenges facing complaints management in general practice, including the barriers to complaining for patients and the negative impacts of complaints on the staff, and can also help to build on positive aspects of complaints such as the desire for systemic change among interested parties.
| S-EPMC8081321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Patient Safety Huddle (PSH) is a brief multidisciplinary daily meeting held to discuss threats to patient safety and actions to mitigate risk. Despite growing interest and application of huddles as a mechanism for improving safety, evidence of their impact remains limited. There is also variation in how huddles are conceived and implemented with insufficient focus on their fidelity (the extent to which delivered as planned) and potential ways in which they might influence outcomes. The Huddle Up for Safer Healthcare (HUSH) project attempted to scale up the implementation of patient safety huddles (PSHs) in five hospitals - 92 wards - across three UK NHS Trusts. This paper aims to assess their fidelity, time to embed, and impact on teamwork and safety culture.MethodsA multi-method Developmental Evaluation was conducted. The Stages of Implementation Checklist (SIC) was used to determine time taken to embed PSHs. Observations were used to check embedded status and fidelity of PSH. A Teamwork and Safety Climate survey (TSC) was administered at two time-points: pre- and post-embedding. Changes in TSC scores were calculated for Trusts, job role and clinical speciality.ResultsObservations confirmed PSHs were embedded in 64 wards. Mean fidelity score was 4.9/9. PSHs frequently demonstrated a 'fear free' space while Statistical Process Control charts and historical harms were routinely omitted. Analysis showed a positive change for the majority (26/27) of TSC questions and the overall safety grade of the ward.ConclusionsPSHs are feasible and effective for improving teamwork and safety culture, especially for nurses. PSH fidelity criteria may need adjusting to include factors deemed most useful by frontline staff. Future work should examine inter-disciplinary and role-based differences in TSC outcomes.
| S-EPMC8487146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConducting post-fall huddles is considered an integral component of a fall-risk-reduction program. However, there is no evidence linking post-fall huddles to patient outcomes or perceptions of teamwork and safety culture. The purpose of this study is to determine associations between conducting post-fall huddles and repeat fall rates and between post-fall huddle participation and perceptions of teamwork and safety culture.MethodsDuring a two-year demonstration project, we developed a system for 16 small rural hospitals to report, benchmark, and learn from fall events, and we trained them to conduct post-fall huddles. To calculate a hospital's repeat fall rate, we divided the total number of falls reported by the hospital by the number of unique medical record numbers associated with each fall. We used Spearman correlations with exact P values to determine the association between the proportion of falls followed by a huddle and the repeat fall rate. At study end, we used the TeamSTEPPS® Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire (T-TPQ) to assess perceptions of teamwork support for fall-risk reduction and the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) to assess perceptions of safety culture. We added an item to the T-TPQ for respondents to indicate the number of post-fall huddles in which they had participated. We used a binary logistic regression with a logit link to examine the effect of participation in post-fall huddles on respondent-level percent positive T-TPQ and HSOPS scores. We accounted for clustering of respondents within hospitals with random effects using the GLIMMIX procedure in SAS/STAT.ResultRepeat fall rates were negatively associated with the proportion of falls followed by a huddle. As compared to hospital staff who did not participate in huddles, those who participated in huddles had more positive perceptions of four domains of safety culture and how team structure, team leadership, and situation monitoring supported fall-risk reduction.ConclusionsPost-fall huddles may reduce the risk of repeat falls. Staff who participate in post-fall huddles are likely to have positive perceptions of teamwork support for fall-risk reduction and safety culture because huddles are a team-based approach to reporting, adapting, and learning.
| S-EPMC6734353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVariation in patients' evaluation due to general practitioner (GP) and practice factors may provide information useful in a quality improvement context. However, the extent to which differences in patients' evaluation of the GPs are associated with differences in GP and practice characteristics must also be ascertained in order to facilitate comparison of adjusted patient evaluations between GPs. The aim of this study was to determine such associations in a setting where GPs serve a list of patients and act as gatekeepers.MethodsWe carried out a patient evaluation survey among voluntarily participating GPs using the EUROPEP questionnaire, which produced 28,260 patient evaluations (response rate 77.3%) of 365 GPs. In our analyses we compared the prevalence of positive evaluations in groups of GPs.ResultsOur principal finding was a negative association between the GP's age and the evaluation of all aspects, except accessibility. We also found an association between the way the practice was organised and the patients' evaluation of accessibility, with GPs in single-handed practices getting far the most positive evaluations. Long weekly working hours were associated with more positive evaluations of all dimensions except accessibility, whereas more than 0.5 full-time employees per GP, a higher number of listed patients per GP and working in a training practice were associated with negative evaluation of accessibility.ConclusionGP characteristics are mainly associated with patients' experience of interpersonal aspects of care, while practice characteristics are associated with evaluation of accessibility. These differences need to be accounted for when comparing patient evaluations of different practices.
| S-EPMC1855053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesGeneral practitioners (GPs), nurses and medical secretaries (practice staff) are responsible for the continuous provision of safe care in rural general practice. Little is known about their role in situations where patients were or could have been harmed in a rural setting. Therefore, we sought to investigate rural general practice staff experiences of patient safety incidents and low quality of care.MethodsDescriptive qualitative interviews using the critical incident technique. Systematic text condensation analysis involving GPs and practice staff in eight rural municipalities in Norway.ResultsSixteen participants (eight GPs, one nurse and seven medical secretaries) with mean work experience of 11.8 years were interviewed for a total of 11.5 hours. We identified three main factors that make rural GP clinics vulnerable to patient safety incidents and low quality of care: use of locums, work overload and rough weather and distance to hospital. There was a wide range of patient safety incidents. The healthcare personnel explained how they used local knowledge about people and context and greater awareness of risk of error in order to prevent these incidents from happening.ConclusionRural GP clinics that suffer from frequent use of GP locums and work overload are vulnerable to patient safety incidents. Practice staff use various forms of continuity of care to prevent safety incidents from happening; this highlights the strengths but also some major safety concerns in these GP clinics. Staff at these clinics proved to be a resource for patient safety research.PodcastAn accompanying podcast on patient safety is available as Supplementary Data, in which Martin Bruusgaardf Harbitz and Per Stensland provide insights into the context of this study.
| S-EPMC8826993 | biostudies-literature