Katana VentraIP

Patient safety

Patient safety is a discipline that emphasizes safety in health care through the prevention, reduction, reporting and analysis of error and other types of unnecessary harm that often lead to adverse patient events. The frequency and magnitude of avoidable adverse events, often known as patient safety incidents, experienced by patients was not well known until the 1990s, when multiple countries reported significant numbers of patients harmed and killed by medical errors.[1] Recognizing that healthcare errors impact 1 in every 10 patients around the world, the World Health Organization (WHO) calls patient safety an endemic concern.[2] Indeed, patient safety has emerged as a distinct healthcare discipline supported by an immature yet developing scientific framework. There is a significant transdisciplinary body of theoretical and research literature that informs the science of patient safety[3] with mobile health apps being a growing area of research.[4]

Ten years after a groundbreaking Australian study revealed 18,000 annual deaths from medical errors, Professor Bill Runciman, one of the study's authors and president of the Australian Patient Safety Foundation since its inception in 1989, reported himself a victim of a medical dosing error.[19]

[18]

The Department of Health Expert Group in June 2000 estimated that over 850,000 incidents harm hospital patients in the United Kingdom each year. On average forty incidents a year contribute to patient deaths in each NHS institution.[20]

National Health Service

In 2004, the Canadian Adverse Events Study found that adverse events occurred in more than 7% of hospital admissions, and estimated that 9,000 to 24,000 Canadians die annually after an avoidable medical error.

[21]

These and other reports from New Zealand, Denmark[23] and developing countries[24] have led the World Health Organization to estimate that one in ten persons receiving health care will suffer preventable harm.[25]

[22]

Psychological Safety[edit]

Building a culture for patient safety requires psychologically safe teams. Psychological safety is an interpersonal construct which is experienced at the team or group level. It is an environment where people feel comfortable sharing concerns and mistakes without fear of embarrassment or retribution. This safe environment enables not just speaking up, which is clearly relevant to patient safety, but also to share new ideas and give candid feed back. Through this process, a broader variety of information is shared in the organisation, allowing for creativity, innovation and learning, but also providing a better basis on which to make decisions, in turn leading to better outcomes.[26]


Psychological safety has been found to play an important role for both patient safety culture and for enabling quality improvement in the health care setting.[27]

Variations in healthcare provider training & experience,[48] fatigue,[49][50][51] depression and burnout.[52]

[47]

Diverse patients, unfamiliar settings, time pressures.

Failure to acknowledge the prevalence and seriousness of medical errors.[54]

[53]

Increasing working hours of healthcare personnel

mislabeling specimen or forgetting to label specimen

[55]

states of anxiety and stress

[56]

Identification upon request of health care personnel, using scanners (similar to readers for passive RFID tags or scanners for barcode labels) to identify patient semi-automatically upon presentation of patient with tag to staff

Automatic identification upon entry of patient. An automatic identification check is carried out on each person with tags (primarily patients) entering the area to determine the presented patient in contrast to other patient earlier entered into reach of the used reader.

Automatic identification and range estimation upon approach to most proximate patient, excluding reads from more distant tags of other patients in the same area

[92]

Quality and safety initiatives in community pharmacy practice[edit]

Community pharmacy practice is making important advances in the quality and safety movement despite the limited number of federal and state regulations that exist and in the absence of national accreditation organizations such as the Joint Commission - a driving force for performance improvement in health care systems. Community pharmacies are using automated drug dispensing devices (robots), computerized drug utilization review tools, and most recently, the ability to receive electronic prescriptions from prescribers to decrease the risk for error and increase the likelihood of delivering high quality of care.


Quality Assurance (QA) in community practice is a relatively new concept. As of 2006, only 16 states have some form of legislation that regulates QA in community pharmacy practice. While most state QA legislation focuses on error reduction, North Carolina has recently approved legislation[110] that requires the pharmacy QA program to include error reduction strategies and assessments of the quality of their pharmaceutical care outcomes and pharmacy services.[111]


New technologies facilitate the traceability tools of patients and medications. This is particularly relevant for drugs that are considered high risk and cost.[112]

Development: As children mature both cognitively and physically, their needs as consumers of health care goods and services change. Therefore, planning a unified approach to pediatric safety and quality is affected by the fluid nature of childhood development.

Dependency: Hospitalized children, especially those who are very young and/or nonverbal, are dependent on caregivers, parents, or other surrogates to convey key information associated with patient encounters. Even when children can accurately express their needs, they are unlikely to receive the same acknowledgment accorded to adult patients. In addition, because children are dependent on their caregivers, their care must be approved by parents or surrogates during all encounters.

Different epidemiology: Most hospitalized children require acute episodic care, not care for chronic conditions as with many adult patients. Planning safety and quality initiatives within a framework of "wellness, interrupted by acute conditions or exacerbations" presents distinct challenges and requires a new way of thinking.

Demographics: Children are more likely than other groups to live in poverty and experience racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Children are more dependent on public insurance, such as State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid.

Working Hours of nurses and patient safety[edit]

A recent increase in work hours and overtime shifts of nurses has been used to compensate for the decrease in numbers of registered nurses (RNs). Logbooks completed by nearly 400 RNs have revealed that about "40 percent of the 5,317 work shifts they logged exceeded twelve hours."[125] Errors by hospital staff nurses are more likely when work shifts extend beyond 12 hours, or they work over 40 hours in one week. Studies have shown that overtime shifts have harmful effects on the quality of care provided to patients, but some researchers "who evaluated the safety of 12-hour shifts did not find increases in medication errors."[126] The errors which these researchers found were "lapses of attention to detail, errors of omission, compromised problem solving, reduced motivation"[127] due to fatigue as well as "errors in grammatical reasoning and chart reviewing."[128] Overworked nurses are a serious safety concern for their patients' wellbeing. Working back to back shifts, or night shifts, is a common cause of fatigue in hospital staff nurses. "Less sleep, or fatigue, may lead to increased likelihood of making an error, or even the decreased likelihood of catching someone else's error."[129] Limiting working hours and shift rotations could "reduce the adverse effects of fatigue"[130] and increase the quality of patient care.

Health literacy[edit]

Health literacy is a common and serious safety concern. A study of 2,600 patients at two hospitals determined that between 26% and 60% of patients could not understand medication directions, a standard informed consent, or basic health care materials.[131] This mismatch between a clinician's level of communication and a patient's ability to understand can lead to medication errors and adverse outcomes.


The Institute of Medicine (2004) report found low health literacy levels negatively affects healthcare outcomes.[132] In particular, these patients have a higher risk of hospitalization and longer hospital stays, are less likely to comply with treatment, are more likely to make errors with medication,[133] and are more ill when they seek medical care.[134][135]

Payments for better care coordination between home, hospital and offices for patients with chronic illnesses. In April 2005, CMS launched its first value-based purchasing pilot or "demonstration" project- the three-year Medicare Physician Group Practice (PGP) Demonstration. The project involves ten large, multi-specialty physician practices caring for more than 200,000 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Participating practices will phase in quality standards for preventive care and the management of common chronic illnesses such as diabetes. Practices meeting these standards will be eligible for rewards from savings due to resulting improvements in patient management. The First Evaluation Report to Congress in 2006 showed that the model rewarded high quality, efficient provision of health care, but the lack of up-front payment for the investment in new systems of case management "have made for an uncertain future with respect for any payments under the demonstration."[152]

[151]

A set of 10 hospital quality measures which, if reported to CMS, will increase the payments that hospitals receive for each discharge. By the third year of the demonstration, those hospitals that do not meet a threshold on quality will be subject to reductions in payment. Preliminary data from the second year of the study indicates that pay for performance was associated with a roughly 2.5% to 4.0% improvement in compliance with quality measures, compared with the control hospitals. Dr. Arnold Epstein of the Harvard School of Public Health commented in an accompanying editorial that pay-for-performance "is fundamentally a social experiment likely to have only modest incremental value."[154] Unintended consequences of some publicly reported hospital quality measures have adversely affected patient care. The requirement to give the first antibiotic dose in the emergency department within 4 hours, if the patient has pneumonia, has caused an increase in pneumonia misdiagnosis.[155]

[153]

Rewards to physicians for improving health outcomes by the use of in the care of chronically ill Medicare patients.

health information technology

Disincentives: The Tax Relief & Health Care Act of 2006 required the Inspector General to study ways that Medicare payments to hospitals could be recouped for "never events",[156] as defined by the National Quality Forum, including hospital infections.[157] In August 2007, CMS announced that it will stop payments to hospitals for several negative consequences of care that result in injury, illness or death. This rule, effective October 2008, would reduce hospital payments for eight serious types of preventable incidents: objects left in a patient during surgery, blood transfusion reaction, air embolism, falls, mediastinitis, urinary tract infections from catheters, pressure ulcer, and sepsis from catheters.[158] Reporting of "never events" and creation of performance benchmarks for hospitals are also mandated. Other private health payers are considering similar actions; in 2005, HealthPartners, a Minnesota health insurer, chose not to cover 27 types of "never events".[159] The Leapfrog Group has announced that they will work with hospitals, health plans and consumer groups to advocate reducing payment for "never events", and will recognize hospitals that agree to certain steps when a serious avoidable adverse event occurs in the facility, including notifying the patient and patient safety organizations, and waiving costs.[160] Physician groups involved in the management of complications, such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America, have voiced objections to these proposals, observing that "some patients develop infections despite application of all evidence-based practices known to avoid infection", and that a punitive response may discourage further study and slow the dramatic improvements that have already been made.[161]

HHS

CIMIT Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology - Nonprofit organizations together advocating for Patient safety

Institute for safety in Office Based Surgery

Center for the Advancement of Healthcare Quality & Safety (CAHQS)

for the prevention of healthcare-induced harm

Safe communication video

Patient Safety in the EU

Health-EU Portal

Academic Center for Evidence-Based Practice (ACE)

Improvement Science Research Network (ISRN)

Beyond The Checklist: What Else Healthcare Can Learn From Aviation Teamwork and Safety

Institute of Medicine & Law