Dataset Information

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Patient Safety Event Reporting by Residents.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Residents play a key role in patient care at academic medical centers and have unique insights into safety improvement opportunities. At our institution, <1% of safety events were reported by resident trainees. The primary objective of this quality improvement (QI) initiative was to increase the monthly incidence of event reporting by pediatric residents by 20% from baseline within 12 months.

Methods

A QI team used the model for improvement to identify barriers to submitting safety event reports. The team used multiple intervention cycles to increase knowledge and promote engagement in event reporting. Interventions included educational tip sheets, a hospital-wide Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) conference, peer recognition and acknowledgment by senior leadership for report submission, and an interactive reporting activity. The outcome measure was monthly number of reports filed by residents. The process measure was the number of unique residents submitting a report each month. Time to complete a report was a balancing measure.

Results

The number of reports placed by residents increased significantly, with a centerline shift from 15 to 29 reports per month (statistical process control chart-Fig. 3). The number of unique residents submitting reports increased from 10 to 22 per month. The time to complete a report was unchanged.

Conclusions

Engaging residents in patient safety initiatives through education, experiential learning, and recognition can increase safety event reporting by residents. Future planned interventions include enhancing safety event reporting technology, developing patient safety faculty and resident champions, and increasing transparency regarding outcomes of safety event reports.

SUBMITTER: Herchline D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8782116 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the Clinical Learning Environment Review's recommendations of their use, patient safety event reporting systems are underutilized by residents.ObjectiveWe aimed to identify perceived barriers to event reporting amongst internal medicine residents and implement a targeted quality improvement initiative to address the identified barriers and increase overall resident event report rates.MethodsA total of 94 Internal Medicine (IM) residents participated in the educational intervention in 2018. We measured residents' perception of barriers to event reporting and employed the results of the questionnaire to create a skill-based educational workshop. We conducted the plan-do-study-act model to test a structured educational intervention and its effectiveness on pre-post IM residents' event report rates and compared it to report rates of Non-Internal Medicine (Non-IM) residents. Additionally, we assessed pre-post intervention knowledge, skills, and attitudes in event reporting.Results94/94 (100%) of IM residents had a significantly higher median percent of patient safety event reporting when compared to pre-intervention (23.6% compared to 5.88%, p-value = 0.0030) and when compared to Non-IM residents (23.6% compared to 5.31%, p-value = 0.0002). Residents performed better on the post-test compared to the pre-test (90% compared to 30%, p-value = 0.0001) for knowledge. 100% of the critical action items were completed and 90% of participants reported their perception of the event reporting process improved.ConclusionsBy elucidating common reasons why residents are not reporting patient safety events, a specific intervention can be created to target the identified impediments and improve resident event reporting.AbbreviationsIM: Internal Medicine IM; Non-IM: Non-Internal Medicine; IOM: Institute of Medicine I; ACGME CLER: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Clinical Learning Environment Review; GME: Graduate Medical Education; IRB: Institutional Review Board; PDSA: Plan, Do, Study, Act.

Project description:BackgroundGiven persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination.ObjectiveThe Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics.DesignMulti-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative.ParticipantsTwelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs.InterventionsWe used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months.Main measuresWe quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects.Key resultsN = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone.ConclusionAlthough coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.