Dataset Information

Content Analysis of Patient Safety Incident Reports for Older Adult Patient Transfers, Handovers, and Discharges: Do They Serve Organizations, Staff, or Patients?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of the study was to analyze content of incident reports during patient transitions in the context of care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke.

Methods

A structured search strategy identified incident reports involving patient transitions (March 2014-August 2014, January 2015-June 2015) within 2 National Health Service Trusts (in upper and lower quartiles of incident reports/100 admissions) in care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke. Content analysis identified the following: incident classifications; active failures; latent conditions; patient/relative involvement; and evidence of individual or organizational learning. Reported harm was interpreted with reference to National Reporting and Learning System criteria.

Results

A total 278 incident reports were analyzed. Fourteen incident classifications were identified, with pressure ulcers the modal category (n = 101,36%), followed by falls (n = 32, 12%), medication (n = 31, 11%), and documentation (n = 29, 10%). Half (n = 139, 50%) of incident reports related to interunit/department/team transfers. Latent conditions were explicit in 33 (12%) reports; most frequently, these related to inadequate resources/staff and concomitant time pressures (n = 13). Patient/family involvement was explicit in 61 (22%) reports. Patient well-being was explicit in 24 (9%) reports. Individual and organizational learning was evident in 3% and 7% of reports, respectively. Reported harm was significantly lower than coder-interpreted harm (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Incident report quality was suboptimal for individual and organizational learning. Underreporting level of harm suggests reporter bias, which requires reducing as much as practicable. System-level interventions are warranted to encourage use of staff reflective skills, emphasizing joint ownership of incidents. Co-producing incident reports with other clinicians involved in the transition and patients/relatives could optimize organizational learning.

SUBMITTER: Scott J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8612895 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruption to healthcare delivery worldwide causing medical services to adapt their standard practices. Learning how these adaptations result in unintended patient harm is essential to mitigate against future incidents. Incident reporting and learning system data can be used to identify areas to improve patient safety. A classification system is required to make sense of such data to identify learning and priorities for further in-depth investigation. The Patient Safety (PISA) classification system was created for this purpose, but it is not known if classification systems are sufficient to capture novel safety concepts arising from crises like the pandemic. We aimed to review the application of the PISA classification system during the COVID-19 pandemic to appraise whether modifications were required to maintain its meaningful use for the pandemic context.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study integrating two phases in an exploratory, sequential design. This included a comparative secondary analysis of patient safety incident reports from two studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, where we coded patient-reported incidents from the UK and clinician-reported incidents from France. The findings were presented to a focus group of experts in classification systems and patient safety, and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resultant transcript.ResultsWe identified five key themes derived from the data analysis and expert group discussion. These included capitalising on the unique perspective of safety concerns from different groups, that existing frameworks do identify priority areas to investigate further, the objectives of a study shape the data interpretation, the pandemic spotlighted long-standing patient concerns, and the time period in which data are collected offers valuable context to aid explanation. The group consensus was that no COVID-19-specific codes were warranted, and the PISA classification system was fit for purpose.ConclusionsWe have scrutinised the meaningful use of the PISA classification system's application during a period of systemic healthcare constraint, the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these constraints, we found the framework can be successfully applied to incident reports to enable deductive analysis, identify areas for further enquiry and thus support organisational learning. No new or amended codes were warranted. Organisations and investigators can use our findings when reviewing their own classification systems.

Project description:Interactions between humans and carnivores have existed for centuries due to competition for food and space. American black bears are increasing in abundance and populations are expanding geographically in many portions of its range, including areas that are also increasing in human density, often resulting in associated increases in human-bear conflict (hereafter, bear incidents). We used public reports of bear incidents in Michigan, USA, from 2003-2011 to assess the relative contributions of ecological and anthropogenic variables in explaining the spatial distribution of bear incidents and estimated the potential risk of bear incidents. We used weighted Normalized Difference Vegetation Index mean as an index of primary productivity, region (i.e., Upper Peninsula or Lower Peninsula), primary and secondary road densities, and percentage land cover type within 6.5-km2 circular buffers around bear incidents and random points. We developed 22 a priori models and used generalized linear models and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) to rank models. The global model was the best compromise between model complexity and model fit (w = 0.99), with a ΔAIC 8.99 units from the second best performing model. We found that as deciduous forest cover increased, the probability of bear incident occurrence increased. Among the measured anthropogenic variables, cultivated crops and primary roads were the most important in our AIC-best model and were both positively related to the probability of bear incident occurrence. The spatial distribution of relative bear incident risk varied markedly throughout Michigan. Forest cover fragmented with agriculture and other anthropogenic activities presents an environment that likely facilitates bear incidents. Our map can help wildlife managers identify areas of bear incident occurrence, which in turn can be used to help develop strategies aimed at reducing incidents. Researchers and wildlife managers can use similar mapping techniques to assess locations of specific conflict types or to address human impacts on endangered species.

Project description:ObjectiveThe study sought to evaluate the feasibility of using Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) semantic features for automated identification of reports about patient safety incidents by type and severity.Materials and methodsBinary support vector machine (SVM) classifier ensembles were trained and validated using balanced datasets of critical incident report texts (n_type = 2860, n_severity = 1160) collected from a state-wide reporting system. Generalizability was evaluated on different and independent hospital-level reporting system. Concepts were extracted from report narratives using the UMLS Metathesaurus, and their relevance and frequency were used as semantic features. Performance was evaluated by F-score, Hamming loss, and exact match score and was compared with SVM ensembles using bag-of-words (BOW) features on 3 testing datasets (type/severity: n_benchmark = 286/116, n_original = 444/4837, n_independent =6000/5950).ResultsSVMs using semantic features met or outperformed those based on BOW features to identify 10 different incident types (F-score [semantics/BOW]: benchmark = 82.6%/69.4%; original = 77.9%/68.8%; independent = 78.0%/67.4%) and extreme-risk events (F-score [semantics/BOW]: benchmark = 87.3%/87.3%; original = 25.5%/19.8%; independent = 49.6%/52.7%). For incident type, the exact match score for semantic classifiers was consistently higher than BOW across all test datasets (exact match [semantics/BOW]: benchmark = 48.9%/39.9%; original = 57.9%/44.4%; independent = 59.5%/34.9%).DiscussionBOW representations are not ideal for the automated identification of incident reports because they do not account for text semantics. UMLS semantic representations are likely to better capture information in report narratives, and thus may explain their superior performance.ConclusionsUMLS-based semantic classifiers were effective in identifying incidents by type and extreme-risk events, providing better generalizability than classifiers using BOW.

Project description:BackgroundOptimal care delivery requires timely, efficient, and accurate communication among numerous providers and their patients, especially during hospital discharge. Little is known about communication patterns during this process.ObjectiveOur aim was to assess the frequency and patterns of communication between patients and providers during patient discharges from a hospital-based medicine unit.Design and approachOn the day of the patient's discharge, the patient and all healthcare providers involved in the discharge were interviewed using structured questions related to information exchange during the discharge process. Each interview identified the frequency and method of communication between participants, including synchronous (e.g., face-to-face) and asynchronous (e.g., through electronic medical record) routes. Communication patterns were visually diagramed using social network analysis.ParticipantsForty-six patients were screened for inclusion in the network analysis. Of those, seven patients who were fully oriented and able to complete an interview and all providers who participated in their care during the discharge were selected for inclusion in the analysis. In all, 72 healthcare professionals contributing to the discharge process were interviewed, including physicians, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, care coordinators, social workers, and nutritionists.Key resultsPatients' mean age was 63, length-of-stay was 7.8 days, and most (86 %) were discharged to home. On average, 11 roles were involved with each discharge. The majority of communication was synchronous (562 events vs. 469 asynchronous events, p = 0.004). Most communication events occurred between the primary nurse and patient and the care coordinator and primary nurse (mean 3.9 and 2.3 events/discharge, respectively). Participants identified intern physicians as most important in the discharge process, followed by primary nurses and care coordinators.ConclusionsIn patients being discharged from the medicine service, communication was more frequently synchronous, and occurred between intern physicians, primary nurses, and patients. Potential improvements in coordinating patients' discharges are possible by reorganizing systems to optimize efficient communication.

Project description:BackgroundHandover of anaesthesia patient care during surgery is common; however, its association with patient outcome is unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of anaesthesia handover during surgery on patient outcome.MethodsAll prospective and retrospective clinical studies specifically investigating the association of intraoperative transfer of anaesthesia care between anaesthesia providers in the operating room with patient morbidity and mortality were included. Searches were conducted from inception to April 24, 2019 in Medline, Medline in Process, CINAHL, and Embase. Reference lists of included studies were searched. Studies were assessed for eligibility and data were extracted by independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Data were summarised narratively given substantial heterogeneity. An exploratory meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model for a subset of comparable studies.ResultsEight studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies focused on patients as the unit of analysis (npatients=605 678) and two focused on anaesthesia providers as the unit of analysis (nproviders=307). Seven studies identified a relationship between anaesthesia handovers and adverse patient outcomes, whereas one suggested that handover may be beneficial to error detection or rectification. Included studies were of fair or good quality. Meta-analysis of four studies found a 40% increased risk of patients experiencing an adverse event when an anaesthesia handover occurs during the procedure (pooled risk ratio=1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 1.65; P<0.001; I2=98%).ConclusionsIntraoperative anaesthesia handovers generally increase morbidity and mortality for surgical patients but could have the potential to improve safety in certain contexts. Future research should determine the specific handover characteristics that impact safety.