Dataset Information

Getting the whole story: Integrating patient complaints and staff reports of unsafe care.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

It is increasingly recognized that patient safety requires heterogeneous insights from a range of stakeholders, yet incident reporting systems in health care still primarily rely on staff perspectives. This paper examines the potential of combining insights from patient complaints and staff incident reports for a more comprehensive understanding of the causes and severity of harm.

Methods

Using five years of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data at a large multi-site hospital in London (in the United Kingdom), this study conducted retrospective patient-level data linkage to identify overlapping reports. Using a combination of quantitative coding and in-depth qualitative analysis, we then compared level of harm reported, identified descriptions of adjacent events missed by the other party and examined combined narratives of mutually identified events.

Results

Incidents where complaints and incident reports overlapped (n = 446, reported in 7.6%' of all complaints and 0.6% of all incident reports) represented a small but critical area of investigation, with significantly higher rates of Serious Incidents and severe harm. Linked complaints described greater harm from safety incidents in 60% of cases, reported many surrounding safety events missed by staff (n = 582), and provided contesting stories of why problems occurred in 46% cases, and complementary accounts in 26% cases.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the value of using patient complaints to supplement, test, and challenge staff reports, including to provide greater insight on the many potential factors that may give rise to unsafe care. Accordingly, we propose that a more holistic analysis of critical safety incidents can be achieved through combining heterogeneous data from different viewpoints, such as through the integration of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data.

SUBMITTER: Van Dael J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8772011 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Clinical handovers of patient care among healthcare professionals is vulnerable to the loss of important clinical information. A verbal report is typically provided by paramedics and documented by emergency department (ED) triage nurses. Paramedics subsequently complete a patient care report which is submitted electronically. This emergency medical system (EMS) patient care report often contains details of paramedic assessment and management that is not all captured in the nursing triage note. EMS patient care reports are often unavailable for review by emergency physicians and nurses. Two processes occur in the distribution of EMS patient care reports. The first is an external process to the ED that is influenced by the prehospital emergency medical system and results in the report being faxed to the ED. The second process is internal to the ED that requires clerical staff to distribute the fax report to accompany patient charts. A baseline audit measured the percentage of EMS patient care reports that were available to emergency physicians at the time of initial patient assessments and showed a wide variation in the availability of EMS reports. Also measured were the time intervals from patient transfer from EMS to ED stretcher until the EMS report was received by fax (external process measure) and the time from receiving the EMS fax report until distribution to patient chart (internal process measure). These baseline measures showed a wide variation in the time it takes to receive the EMS reports by fax and to distribute reports. Improvement strategies consisted of: 1. Educating ED clerical staff about the importance of EMS reports 2. Implementing a new process to minimize ED clerical staff handling of EMS reports for nonactive ED patients 3. Elimination of the automatic retrieval of old hospital charts and their distribution for ED patients 4. Introduction of an electronic dashboard for patients arriving by ambulance to facilitate more efficient distribution of EMS reports. Implementation of change strategies did not result in a significant improvement in the percentage of EMS reports available to emergency physicians at the time of initial patient assessment. However, tracking both external and internal processes that influence EMS report availability showed the internal process time from fax report receipt to distribution significantly improved. This improvement reflected the change strategies that were all directed at improving the internal process. EMS patient care reports are more efficiently processed and distributed in the ED due to change strategies implemented that targeted the ED's internal process of EMS report distribution. The external process responsible for transmitting EMS reports to the ED is the limiting factor that prevents consistent timely access of EMS reports by emergency physicians and will require dedicated improvement strategies.

Project description:ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsIncident 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.

Project description:BackgroundPatients have the potential to provide feedback on the safety of their care. Recently, tools have been developed that ask patients to provide feedback on those factors that are known to contribute to safety, therefore providing information that can be used proactively to manage safety in hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the safety information provided by patients is different from that provided by staff and whether it is related to safety outcomes.MethodData were collected from 33 hospital wards across 3 acute hospital Trusts in the UK. Staff on these wards were asked to complete the four outcome measures of the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture, while patients were asked to complete the Patient Measure of Safety and the friends and family test. We also collated publicly reported safety outcome data for 'harm-free care' on each ward. This patient safety thermometer measure is used in the UK NHS to record the percentage of patients on a single day of each month on every ward who have received harm-free care (ie, no pressure ulcers, falls, urinary tract infections and hospital acquired new venous thromboembolisms). These data were used to address questions about the relationship between measures and the extent to which patient and staff perceptions of safety predict safety outcomes.ResultsThe friends and family test, a single item measure of patient experience was associated with patients' perceptions of safety, but was not associated with safety outcomes. Staff responses to the patient safety culture survey were not significantly correlated with patient responses to the patient measure of safety, but both independently predicted safety outcomes. The regression models showed that staff perceptions (adjusted r(2)=0.39) and patient perceptions (adjusted r(2)=0.30) of safety independently predicted safety outcomes. When entered together both measures accounted for 49% of the variance in safety outcomes (adjusted r(2)=0.49), suggesting that there is overlap but some unique variance is also explained by these two measures. Based on responses to the Patient Measure of Safety it was also possible to identify differences between the acute Hospital Trusts.DiscussionThe findings suggest that although the views of patients and staff predict some overlapping variance in patient safety outcomes, both also offer a unique perspective on patient safety, contributing independently to the prediction of safety outcomes. These findings suggest that feedback from patients about the safety of the care that they receive can be used, in addition to data from staff to drive safety improvements in healthcare.Trial registration numberISRCTN07689702.

Project description:BackgroundIncorporating patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) is important in evaluating safety and tolerability in cancer clinical trials. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to assess the frequency, severity, and/or interference of patient-reported symptomatic AEs. The objective of this study was to identify, based on oncologist and patient interviews, a relevant subset of symptomatic AEs from the PRO-CTCAE that can be used to optimize patient reporting of symptomatic AEs in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) clinical trials.MethodsQualitative and quantitative data on HCC diagnosis, treatment, symptoms, and side effects were collected from patients. Using a numerical rating scale, medical oncologists specializing in HCC rated the importance of (1) 34 symptomatic AEs (grade ≥ 2) identified in past sponsor HCC clinical trials, (2) each PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AE item to the patient, and (3) each PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AE item with respect to patient safety or tolerability. Patients completed the PRO-CTCAE items and were debriefed on the importance of each PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AE to them.ResultsFive medical oncologists from the United States, Spain, Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong with 14 to 30 years of experience, and 17 patients with HCC and Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis status completed interviews. Medical oncologists rated the following symptomatic AEs from prior trials as being highly important to patients (mean rating of ≥7 on a scale from 0 to 10): hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, fatigue, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, and weight loss. PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AEs rated by medical oncologists as being highly important to patients included diarrhea, vomiting, shivering or shaking chills, hand-foot syndrome, rash, fatigue, difficulty swallowing, decreased appetite, and loss of control of bowel movements. Patients rated the following PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AEs as being highly important: loss of appetite/lack of interest in food, pain/tenderness at injection/insertion site, fatigue/lack of energy/tiredness, nausea, and hair loss.ConclusionsThis study identified a preliminary list of clinically relevant symptomatic AEs from interviews with both medical oncologists and patients that can be used to support assessments of treatment safety and tolerability in HCC clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impacted access to inpatient rehabilitation services. At the current state of research, it is unclear to what extent the adaptation of rehabilitation services to infection-protective standards affected patient-centered care in Germany.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the most relevant aspects of patient-centered care for patients in inpatient rehabilitation clinics under early phase pandemic conditions.MethodsA deductive-inductive framework analysis of online patient reports posted on a leading German hospital rating website, Klinikbewertungen (Clinic Reviews), was performed. This website is a third-party, patient-centered commercial platform that operates independently of governmental entities. Following a theoretical sampling approach, online reports of rehabilitation stays in two federal states of Germany (Brandenburg and Saarland) uploaded between March 2020 and September 2021 were included. Independent of medical specialty groups, all reports were included. Keywords addressing framework domains were analyzed descriptively.ResultsIn total, 649 online reports reflecting inpatient rehabilitation services of 31 clinics (Brandenburg, n=23; Saarland, n=8) were analyzed. Keywords addressing the care environment were most frequently reported (59.9%), followed by staff prerequisites (33.0%), patient-centered processes (4.5%), and expected outcomes (2.6%). Qualitative in-depth analysis revealed SARS-CoV-2-related reports to be associated with domains of patient-centered processes and staff prerequisites. Discontinuous communication of infection protection standards was perceived to threaten patient autonomy. This was amplified by a tangible gratification crisis of medical staff. Established and emotional supportive relationships to clinicians and peer groups offered the potential to mitigate the adverse effects of infection protection standards.ConclusionsPatients predominantly reported feedback associated with the care environment. SARS-CoV-2-related reports were strongly affected by increased staff workloads as well as patient-centered processes addressing discontinuous communication and organizationally demanding implementation of infection protection standards, which were perceived to threaten patient autonomy. Peer relationships formed during inpatient rehabilitation had the potential to mitigate these mechanisms.

Project description:Policy Points: Health care complaints contain valuable data on quality and safety; however, there is no reliable method of analysis to unlock their potential. We demonstrate a method to analyze health care complaints that provides reliable insights on hot spots (where harm and near misses occur) and blind spots (before admissions, after discharge, systemic and low-level problems, and errors of omission). Systematic analysis of health care complaints can improve quality and safety by providing patient-centered insights that localize issues and shed light on difficult-to-monitor problems.ContextThe use of health care complaints to improve quality and safety has been limited by a lack of reliable analysis tools and uncertainty about the insights that can be obtained. The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool, which we developed, was used to analyze a benchmark national data set, conceptualize a systematic analysis, and identify the added value of complaint data.MethodsWe analyzed 1,110 health care complaints from across England. "Hot spots" were identified by mapping reported harm and near misses onto stages of care and underlying problems. "Blind spots" concerning difficult-to-monitor aspects of care were analyzed by examining access and discharge problems, systemic problems, and errors of omission.FindingsThe tool showed moderate to excellent reliability. There were 1.87 problems per complaint (32% clinical, 32% relationships, and 34% management). Twenty-three percent of problems entailed major or catastrophic harm, with significant regional variation (17%-31%). Hot spots of serious harm were safety problems during examination, quality problems on the ward, and institutional problems during admission and discharge. Near misses occurred at all stages of care, with patients and family members often being involved in error detection and recovery. Complaints shed light on 3 blind spots: (1) problems arising when entering and exiting the health care system; (2) systemic failures pertaining to multiple distributed and often low-level problems; and (3) errors of omission, especially failure to acknowledge and listen to patients raising concerns.ConclusionsThe analysis of health care complaints reveals valuable and uniquely patient-centered insights on quality and safety. Hot spots of harm and near misses provide an alternative data source on adverse events and critical incidents. Analysis of entry-exit, systemic, and omission problems provides insight on blind spots that may otherwise be difficult to monitor. Benchmark data and analysis scripts are downloadable as supplementary files.