Background Patient safety measurement remains a global challenge. Patients are an important but neglected source of learning; however, little is known about what patients can add to our understanding of safety. We sought to understand the incidence and nature of patient-reported safety concerns in hospital. Methods Feedback about the experience of safety within hospital was gathered from 2471 inpatients as part of a multicentre, waitlist cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention, undertaken within 33 wards across three English NHS Trusts, between May 2013 and September 2014. Patient volunteers, supported by researchers, developed a classification framework of patient-reported safety concerns from a random sample of 231 reports. All reports were then classified using the patient-developed categories. Following this, all patient-reported safety concerns underwent a two-stage clinical review process for identification of patient safety incidents. Results Of the 2471 inpatients recruited, 579 provided 1155 patient-reported incident reports. 14 categories were developed for classification of reports, with communication the most frequently occurring (22%), followed by staffing issues (13%) and problems with the care environment (12%). 406 of the total 1155 patient incident reports (35%) were classified by clinicians as a patient safety incident according to the standard definition. 1 in 10 patients (264 patients) identified a patient safety incident, with medication errors the most frequently reported incident. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients can provide insight about safety that complements existing patient safety measurement, with a frequency of reported patient safety incidents that is similar to those obtained via case note review. However, patients provide a unique perspective about hospital safety which differs from and adds to current definitions of patient safety incidents. Trial registration number ISRCTN07689702; pre-results.

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/27/9/673.full.pdf

What can patients tell us about the quality and safety of hospital care? Findings from a UK multicentre survey study

Medical device-related pressure injuries: An exploratory descriptive study in an acute tertiary hospital in Australia

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. Context The 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. Methods We 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. Findings The 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. Conclusions The 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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1468-0009.12338

Patient-Centered Insights: Using Health Care Complaints to Reveal Hot Spots and Blind Spots in Quality and Safety.

Computerized prescriber order entry–related patient safety reports: analysis of 2522 medication errors

Introduction Practitioners frequently encounter safety problems that they themselves can resolve on the spot. We ask: when faced with such a problem, do practitioners fix it in the moment and forget about it, or do they fix it in the moment and report it? We consider factors underlying these two approaches.

Methods We used a qualitative case study design employing in-depth interviews with 40 healthcare practitioners in a tertiary care hospital in Ontario, Canada. We conducted a thematic analysis, and compared the findings with the literature.

Results ‘Fixing and forgetting’ was the main choice that most practitioners made in situations where they faced problems that they themselves could resolve. These situations included (A) handling near misses, which were seen as unworthy of reporting since they did not result in actual harm to the patient, (B) prioritising solving individual patients’ safety problems, which were viewed as unique or one-time events and (C) encountering re-occurring safety problems, which were framed as inevitable, routine events. In only a few instances was ‘fixing and reporting’ mentioned as a way that the providers dealt with problems that they could resolve.

Conclusions We found that generally healthcare providers do not prioritise reporting if a safety problem is fixed. We argue that fixing and forgetting patient safety problems encountered may not serve patient safety as well as fixing and reporting. The latter approach aligns with recent calls for patient safety to be more preventive. We consider implications for practice.

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/24/5/303.full.pdf

Fix and forget or fix and report: a qualitative study of tensions at the front line of incident reporting

Incident Reporting Systems (IRS) are and will continue to be an important influence on improving patient safety. They can provide valuable insights into how and why patients can be harmed at the organizational level. However, they are not the panacea that many believe them to be. They have several limitations that should be considered. Most of these limitations stem from inherent biases of voluntary reporting systems. These limitations include: i) IRS can’t be used to measure safety (error rates); ii) IRS can’t be used to compare organizations; iii) IRS can’t be used to measure changes over time; iv) IRS generate too many reports; v) IRS often don’t generate in-depth analyses or result in strong interventions to reduce risk; vi) IRS are associated with costs. IRS do offer significant value; their value is found in the following: i) IRS can be used to identify local system hazards; ii) IRS can be used to aggregate experiences for uncommon conditions; iii) IRS can be used to share lessons within and across organizations; iv) IRS can be used to increase patient safety culture. Moving forward, several strategies are suggested to maximize their value: i) make reporting easier; ii) make reporting meaningful to the reporter; iii) make the measure of success system changes, rather than events reported; iv) prioritize which events to report and investigate, report and investigate them well; v) convene with diverse stakeholders to enhance the value of IRS.

http://www.jphres.org/article/download/jphr.2013.e27/109

Thierry Girard

Papers

What to do with healthcare Incident Reporting Systems