Search

Background: The topic of patient safety and attitudes toward patient safety among health professionals is a main priority of healthcare systems globally. This study aims to investigate the psychometric properties of APSQ-III among Iranian nursing students., Methods: There were 307 undergraduate nursing students who participated in the cross-sectional methodological study, from December 2022 to January 2023. Content validity, Construct validity and reliability of the APSQ-III was evaluated., Results: In the exploratory factor analysis, three factors were identified from 11 items, accounting for 58% of the total variance. The confirmatory factor analysis indices confirmed the model fit (χ 2 (38) = 91.851, p < 0.001, χ 2 /df = 2.417, CFI = 0.966, PNFI = 0.652, IFI = 0.966, TLI = 0.951 and RMSEA = 0.068). The results of the reliability evaluation indicated that the factors demonstrated a satisfactory level of internal consistency, as evidenced by Cronbach's alpha (α) and McDonald's omega (ω) values. Additionally, the Composite Reliability (CR) and Maximal Reliability H were both above 0.8, further supporting the reliability of the factors., Conclusion: The results of this study support the valid and reliable APSQ-III with 11 items and three factors. This questionnaire can be used to assess patient safety attitude among nursing students., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was approved by the ethics committee of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences (IR.MAZUMS.REC.1401.278). Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that their responses would be published anonymously as group data. Participants do not view the online questionnaire items until they agree to participate and click on the “next button”. In fact, they completed the online informed consent form by clicking. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Patient safety is a critical concern in dentistry. Adverse events (AEs) can harm patients, increase costs, and decrease satisfaction. Understanding AE types and frequencies is crucial for effective risk management and quality improvement. This study analyzes incident reports to identify preliminary incident patterns as a starting point for developing risk management strategies. However, under-reporting limits the ability to identify true incident patterns, highlighting the need for improved reporting systems and encouragement of incident reporting. Further research is underway to develop such a system and promote reporting to ensure sufficient data quality for effective risk management., Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1,618 incident reports from December 2018 to August 2023 was conducted. A validated classification system, developed from a 5-year retrospective analysis and approved by 14 experts, categorized patient safety incidents, aligning with Thailand's Hospital Accreditation standards. Descriptive statistics summarized AE frequency and distribution., Results: Of the reports, 752 were patient safety, 503 personnel safety, and 363 organizational safety incidents. Top patient safety incidents included medical record errors (176), accidental damage (66), post-operative complications (65), medical emergencies (64), and communication errors (53). Personnel safety incidents involved inappropriate working conditions (135) and work-related injuries with contact transmission risk (117). Organizational safety incidents mainly concerned policy and operational processes (131)., Conclusions: This study reveals the preliminary patterns of adverse events (AEs) in dental settings and underscores the limitations due to under-reporting, which affect the ability to fully understand true incident patterns. To effectively manage risks, there is a critical need for improving the existing incident reporting system and encouraging a culture of comprehensive reporting among dental professionals. Future efforts should focus on enhancing reporting systems to ensure high-quality data, enabling better identification of incident trends and supporting targeted risk management strategies to improve patient safety in dentistry., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Nurses represent the largest group of healthcare professionals and are responsible for improving patient safety, including reporting adverse events. However, adverse events are underreported due to the many barriers that compromise patient safety in the hospital setting., Aim: The study aimed to investigate the barriers to reporting adverse events as perceived by nurses working in intensive care units (ICUs)., Methods: The exploratory sequential mixed-method study design was used. Data were collected between January 2022 and March 2023 in intensive care units of one selected university hospital in the Slovak Republic. The quantitative phase was carried out using a specific instrument to explore barriers to reporting adverse events and included 111 nurses from the ICU. The qualitative phase was conducted using semi-structured face-to-face interviews and consisted of 10 nurses from the ICU., Results: In terms of quantitative aspect, fear of liability, lawsuits, or sanctions was the most significant barrier to reporting adverse events among ICU nurses. As a result of qualitative thematic analysis, four significant barriers to reporting adverse events were identified: negative attitude toward reporting adverse events; lack of knowledge and experience in reporting adverse events; time scarcity; fear., Conclusion: Based on the results of the study, it is evident that only effective and regular reporting of adverse events leads to the minimization of adverse events. To improve patient safety in hospitals, education and management practices must be implemented to overcome barriers to reporting adverse events. The most important approach to overcoming barriers to reporting adverse events is to implement a culture of no blame and a positive culture of patient safety., (Copyright © 2024 Sociedad Española de Enfermería Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias (SEEIUC). Published by Elsevier España S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Just culture refers to a culture that encourages members of an organization to exchange important safety information and compensates them when they perform such information exchanges. The establishment of a just culture in hospital organizations might be an important means of enhancing patient safety incident reporting. This study aimed to investigate the impact of just culture on the attitudes and behaviors toward patient safety incident reporting in perioperative nurses., Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional survey was performed using structured questionnaires. The participants were 208 perioperative nurses in tertiary general hospitals in South Korea. Data were collected by self-reported on-line questionnaires, from August to September 2020. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, independent t-test, chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, one-way ANOVA, Scheffé test, Pearson's correlation analysis, Spearman rank correlation analysis, hierarchical multiple regression, and hierarchical logistic regression using the SPSS WIN 23.0 program., Results: Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed that just culture explained an additional 34.5%p of the attitudes on patient safety incident reporting. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis showed that just culture was a significant predictor of behaviors regarding patient safety incident reporting (odds ratio = 2.25, p = .017). The final regression model accounted for 16.0% of the behaviors regarding patient safety incident reporting., Conclusion: This study empirically shows that just culture impacted the attitudes and behaviors regarding patient safety incident reporting in perioperative nurses. This study provides an evidence about the importance of the just culture in every day nursing practice setting. Personnel and organizational efforts for improving or implementing just culture are required to ensure greater patient safety by enhancing the patient safety incident reporting of perioperative nurses in hospitals., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: This study aimed to assess nurses' perceptions of patient safety culture (PSC) and its relationship with adverse events in Hail City, Saudi Arabia., Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted between 1 August 2023 and the end of November 2023 at 4 governmental hospitals and 28 primary healthcare centres., Setting: Hail City, Saudi Arabia., Participants: Data were collected from 336 nurses using 3 instruments: demographic and work-related questions, PSC and adverse events., Results: Nurses had positive responses in the dimensions of 'teamwork within units' (76.86%) and 'frequency of events reported' (77.87%) but negative responses in the dimensions of 'handoffs and transitions' (18.75%), 'staffing' (20.90%), 'non-punitive response to errors' (31.83%), 'teamwork across units' (34.15%), 'supervisor/manager expectations' (43.22%) and 'overall perception of patient safety' (43.23%). Significant associations were found between nationality, experience, current position and total safety culture, with p values of 0.015, 0.046 and 0.027, respectively. Nurses with high-ranking perceptions of PSC in 'handoffs and transitions,' 'staffing' and 'teamwork across hospital units' reported a lower incidence of adverse events than those with low-ranking perceptions, particularly in reporting pressure ulcers (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94, OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94 and OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99, respectively) (p<0.05). Nurses with high-ranking perceptions of PSC in UK 'handoffs and transitions' reported a lower incidence of patient falls. Similarly, those with high-ranking perceptions in both 'handoffs and transitions' and 'overall perception of patient safety reported a lower incidence of adverse events compared with those with low-ranking perceptions, especially in reporting adverse drug events (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.91 and OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92, respectively) (p<0.05)., Conclusion: From a nursing perspective, hospital PSCs have both strengths and weaknesses. Examples include low trust in leadership, staffing, error-reporting and handoffs. Therefore, to improve staffing, communication, handoffs, teamwork, and leadership, interventions should focus on weak areas of low confidence and high rates of adverse events., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the extent, range, and nature of the literature that concerns healthcare providers' perceptions following the use of incident reporting systems (IRSs) in the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (U.K.). Literature was compared describing providers' perceptions of reporting patient safety incidents using IRSs from healthcare systems built on public, private, for-profit, or nonprofit insurers in the U.S., with providers' perceptions using an IRS within a universal government supported healthcare system in the U.K., Methods: This scoping review searched literature from 4 electronic databases, producing 4863 articles between January 2010 to March 2023., Results: Eleven U.S. and 8 U.K. articles met the inclusion criteria. Providers described system and individual barriers when using IRSs. The U.S. providers described more concerns regarding individual barriers (fear of punitive response or retaliation, feel incapable or shamed, unsure of what constitutes a patient safety incident, and concerned about litigation) than providers in the U.K. Both countries had similar responses regarding system barriers, except for U.K. providers who were more concerned than the U.S. about damage to professional culture. Providers in both countries believed incident reporting was ineffective and time consuming with hospital leaders seldom acknowledging or integrating improvement measures based on reported incidents., Conclusions: Sustainable improvements in patient care must be driven by hospital leadership who create just cultures where reporting of safety concerns is encouraged and respected within nonpunitive milieus., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient safety is defined as the prevention of harm to patients and aims to prevent errors. This analysis explores factors associated with the reported occurrence of patient safety incidents (PSIs) in general practices in Ireland at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: The PRICOV-19 was a cross-sectional study to record the (re)organisation of care provided in general practice and changes implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic in 38 countries. Primary outcomes include three potential scenarios of PSIs: delayed care due to practice factors, delayed care due to patient factors, and delayed care due to triage. Exploratory variables included demographic and organisational characteristics, triage, collaboration, and strategies to safeguard staff members' well-being., Results: Of the 172 participating Irish general practices, 71% (n = 122) recorded at least one potential PSI. The most frequent incident was delayed care due to patient factors (65%), followed by practice (33%) and triage (30%). Multivariate analysis showed that delayed care due to patient factors was associated with changes in the process of repeat prescriptions (OR 6.7 [CI 95% 2.5 to 19.6]). Delayed care due to practice factors was associated with suburbs/small towns (OR 4.2 [1.1 to 19.8]) and structural changes to the reception (OR 3.5 [1.2 to 11.4]). While delayed care due to patient factors was associated with having a practice population of 6000-7999 patients (OR 4.7 [1.1 to 27.6]) and delayed care due to practice factors was associated with having a practice population of 2000-3999 patients (OR 4.2 [1.2 to 17.1]). No linear associations were observed with higher or lower patient numbers for any factor. Delayed care due to triage was not associated with any exploratory variables., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in dramatic changes in the delivery of care through general practices in Ireland. Few factors were associated with the reported occurrence of PSIs, and these did not show consistent patterns. Sustained improvements were made in relation to repeat prescriptions. The lack of consistent patterns, potentially confirms that the autonomous decisions made in general practice in response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic could have benefitted patient safety (See Graphical abstract)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The Global Patient Safety Action Plan, an initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO), draws attention to patient safety as being an issue of utmost importance in healthcare. In response, the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) has established a Global Patient Safety Task Force to advance a patient safety culture across all facets of the chiropractic profession. This commentary aims to introduce principles and call upon the chiropractic profession to actively engage with the Global Patient Safety Action Plan beginning immediately and over the coming decade., Main Text: This commentary addresses why the chiropractic profession should pay attention to the WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan, and what actions the chiropractic profession should take to advance these objectives. Each strategic objective identified by WHO serves as a focal point for reflection and action. Objective 1 emphasizes the need to view each clinical interaction as a chance to improve patient safety through learning. Objective 2 urges the implementation of frameworks that dismantle systemic obstacles, minimizing human errors and strengthening patient safety procedures. Objective 3 supports the optimization of clinical process safety. Objective 4 recognizes the need for patient and family engagement. Objective 5 describes the need for integrated patient safety competencies in training programs. Objective 6 explains the need for foundational data infrastructure, ecosystem, and culture. Objective 7 emphasizes that patient safety is optimized when healthcare professionals cultivate synergy and partnerships., Conclusions: The WFC Global Patient Safety Task Force provides a structured framework for aligning essential considerations for patient safety in chiropractic care with WHO strategic objectives. Embracing the prescribed action steps offers a roadmap for the chiropractic profession to nurture an inclusive and dedicated culture, placing patient safety at its core. This commentary advocates for a concerted effort within the chiropractic community to commit to and implement these principles for the collective advancement of patient safety., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The topic of patient safety has been a subject of much discussion since the end of the last millennium. Ensuring patient safety is a central challenge in health care. An important tool to raise awareness for and learn from adverse events and thus promote patient safety are error-reporting and learning systems (Critical Incident Reporting System = CIRS)., Methods: More than 17 years after its establishment, the CIRS "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" (JFZ) for German primary care has undergone a revision in terms of content and technology. The revised web-based system can be used for reporting as well as for classifying and analyzing incident reports. During this process, a descriptive analysis of the current report inventory was carried out, with a focus on serious medication errors. This included all 781 valid incident reports received between September 2004 and December 2021., Results: In 576 of the 781 reports (73.8%), the GP practice was directly involved in the critical incident. Among error types, process errors predominated (79.8% of the classifications, 99.1% of the reports) compared with knowledge and skills errors (20.2% of the classifications, 39.7% of the reports). Communication errors (63.0%) were the most common contributing factor to critical incidents, followed by flaws in tasks and measures (39.7%). Serious and permanent patient harm was rarely reported (8.3% of the reports), whereas temporary patient harm was more common (40.3% of the reports). Incident reports about medication errors with at least serious patient harm included, in particular, substances that affected blood clotting, corticosteroids, and opiates., Discussion: Our results complement the rates that are reported internationally for error types, patient harm, and contributing factors. Serious but preventable adverse events, so-called never events, are frequently associated with the medication process in both JFZ reports and the literature., Conclusion: Critical incident reporting systems cannot provide accurate information about the frequency of errors in health care, but they can offer important insights into, for example, serious medication errors. Therefore, they offer both employees and healthcare institutions an opportunity for individual and institutional learning., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Children are vulnerable to medical errors. Adverse events are leveraged as educational tools in Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) Conference. Traditionally, M&M has brought angst when discussing adverse events. Our goal was to transition M&M to an educational environment highlighting system failures. A survey was created to capture data on satisfaction, education, and system process improvement. Feedback from the surveys led to several changes, including fostering a multidisciplinary forum, prioritizing educational topics, and emphasizing process improvement. In 5 years, satisfaction with M&M Conference has increased by 29%, with an increase by 50% when asked if process improvement issues were addressed adequately, and 100% of faculty incorporate what they learn from M&M into their practice. By developing a hands-on approach to M&M, we have improved satisfaction and focused on education and system process improvement. This design could be used throughout the medical community to improve discussion of adverse events which should improve patient safety., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Healthcare systems should ensure the provision of quality services to patients without harming them. However, the provision of services is occasionally accompanied by harm or complications, most of which are preventable. Most studies have focused on secondary healthcare rather than primary healthcare (PHC). Thus, this study aimed to identify various dimensions and components of patient safety in PHC worldwide., Methods: This systematic review study was conducted in November 2022 based on PRISMA reporting guidelines. Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE and searched for English documents using the keywords "patient safety" and "PHC" from 2000 to 2022. Finally, two reviewers extracted the data independently and analyzed using thematic content analysis., Results: Overall, 23 out of the initially 4937 identified articles were selected for the final analysis based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most of these studies used a qualitative-quantitative approach (61.9%, seven studies for both), and 64% had been conducted in European countries. Eventually, five dimensions and 22 components were identified for patient safety in PHC, including management measures, quality management, resources and technology, documents, and patient-related factors., Conclusion: The patient safety dimensions and components identified in this research can help develop a clear definition of patient safety and its assessment standards and criteria in PHC. Considering that most previous studies on patient safety in PHC were conducted in European and developed countries, it is suggested that researchers conduct more studies in developing countries to fill this research gap., (© 2024 Kalantari H., et al.)

Background: Content coverage of patient safety ontology and classification systems should be evaluated to provide a guide for users to select appropriate ones for specific applications. In this review, we identified and compare content coverage of patient safety classifications and ontologies., Methods: We searched different databases and ontology/classification repositories to identify these classifications and ontologies. We included patient safety-related taxonomies, ontologies, classifications, and terminologies. We identified and extracted different concepts covered by these systems and mapped these concepts to international classification for patient safety (ICPS) and finally compared the content of these systems., Results: Finally, 89 papers (77 classifications or ontologies) were analyzed. Thirteen classifications have been developed to cover all medical domains. Among specific domain systems, most systems cover medication (16), surgery (8), medical devices (3), general practice (3), and primary care (3). The most common patient safety-related concepts covered in these systems include incident types (41), contributing factors/hazards (31), patient outcomes (29), degree of harm (25), and action (18). However, stage/phase (6), incident characteristics (5), detection (5), people involved (5), organizational outcomes (4), error type (4), and care setting (3) are some of the less covered concepts in these classifications/ontologies., Conclusion: Among general systems, ICPS, World Health Organization's Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART), and Ontology of Adverse Events (OAE) cover most patient safety concepts and can be used as a gold standard for all medical domains. As a result, reporting systems could make use of these broad classifications, but the majority of their covered concepts are related to patient outcomes, with the exception of ICPS, which covers other patient safety concepts. However, the ICPS does not cover specialized domain concepts. For specific medical domains, MedDRA, NCC MERP, OPAE, ADRO, PPST, OCCME, TRTE, TSAHI, and PSIC-PC provide the broadest coverage of concepts. Many of the patient safety classifications and ontologies are not formally registered or available as formal classification/ontology in ontology repositories such as BioPortal. This study may be used as a guide for choosing appropriate classifications for various applications or expanding less developed patient safety classifications/ontologies. Furthermore, the same concepts are not represented by the same terms; therefore, the current study could be used to guide a harmonization process for existing or future patient safety classifications/ontologies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical record (CR) is a tool for recording details about the patient and the most commonly used source of information for detecting adverse events (AEs). Its completeness is an indicator of the quality of care provided and may provide clues for improving professional practice. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of AEs. The secondary aims were to determine the completeness of CRs and to examine the relationship between the two variables. We retrospectively reviewed randomly selected CRs of patients discharged from the Academic Hospital of Udine (Italy) in the departments of general surgery, internal medicine, and obstetrics between July and September 2020. Evaluation was performed using the Global Trigger Tool and a checklist to evaluate the completeness of CRs. The relationship between the occurrence of AEs and the completeness of CRs was analyzed using nonparametric tests. A binomial logistic regression analysis was also performed. We reviewed 291 CRs and identified 368 triggers and 56 AEs. Among them, 16.2% of hospitalizations were affected by at least one AE, with a higher percentage in general surgery. The most common AEs were surgical injuries (42.6%; 24) and care related (26.8%; 15). A significant positive correlation was found between the length of hospital stay and the number of AEs. The average completeness of CRs was 72.9% and was lower in general surgery. The decrease in CR completeness correlated with the increase in the total number of AEs (R = -0.14; P = .017), although this was not confirmed by regression analysis by individual departments. Our results seem to suggest that completeness of CRs may benefit patient safety, so ongoing education and involvement of health professionals are needed to maintain professional adherence to CRs., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The healthcare sector in South Africa has seen a rise in medical errors and negligence adversely affecting healthcare delivery. This study aimed to determine the nature and magnitude of Patient Safety Incidents at a tertiary hospital between April 2018 to March 2021 (the COVID-19 era). A retrospective review of Patient Safety Incidents forms and clinical records of inpatients above 12 years with a reported incident were included. The overall incidence of patient safety incidents was 4.40 PSIs per 10 000 patient-days. The majority of PSIs were harmful incidents (An incident that results in harm to a patient that is related to medical management, in contrast to disease complications or underlying disease) at 72.50% [145/200], followed by no harm incidents at 18.00% [36/200] and 9.50% [19/200] near-miss incidents. The five highest incident types were clinical process/procedure [83/200; 41.50%], behaviour [49/200; 24.50%], falls [28/200; 14%], complications [20/200; 10%], and pressure sores [11/200; 5.50%]. Incidents occurred more frequently within the week (83.50%) and during day shift (67.50%). Overall, the study showed low PSI reporting rates which is an inherent challenge with voluntary reporting. Notably, there has been an increasing trend in reporting. The results reflect a reporting culture more inclined to bring awareness to incidents that have negative outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Singh, Mahomed. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: A methodology for comprehensively and reasonably measuring the burden of disease due to adverse events has yet to be clearly established. In this study, a new and systematic method for measuring the burden of disease due to adverse events was tested by utilizing the results of a medical record review, which is commonly used as a gold standard., Methods: Using the characteristics of preventable adverse events identified in the 2019 Patient Safety Incidents Inquiry (PSII), conducted to monitor the level of patient safety in Korea accurately, the resulting disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and economic costs were estimated. DALYs were calculated as the sum of the years lived with a disability for patients who suffered permanent disability, or more, due to preventable adverse events, and the years of life lost due to premature mortality was calculated for patients who died due to preventable adverse events. The economic cost was calculated using the main diagnostic codes of patients who suffered preventable adverse events, identified as prolonged hospitalization in PSII, and the average medical cost by disease category and age group., Results: Estimates of DALYs due to preventable adverse events were 1,114.4 DALYs per 100,000 population for the minimum standard and 1,658.5 DALYs per 100,000 population for the maximum standard. Compared to the 2015 Korea Burden of Disease results, the ranking of DALYs due to preventable adverse events was sixth for the minimum standard and third for the maximum standard. The annual medical cost of adverse events in 2016 was estimated to be approximately Korean Republic Won (KRW) 870 billion (700 million US dollars). Medical expenses due to preventable adverse events were calculated to be approximately KRW 150 billion (120 million US dollars) as a minimum standard and approximately KRW 300 billion (240 million US dollars) as a maximum standard., Conclusion: If this more standard method of systematically calculating the disease burden due to adverse events is used, it will be possible to compare the size of the patient safety problem with that of other diseases. The results of this study indicate that we still need to pay more attention to the issue of patient safety., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2023 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Background: The 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., Methods: We 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., Results: We 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., Conclusions: We 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., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Ensuring organisations learn from patient safety incidents is a key aim for healthcare organisations. The role that human factors and systems thinking can have to enable organisations learn from incidents is well acknowledged. A systems approach can help organisations focus less on individual fallibility and more on setting up resilient and safe systems. Investigation of incidents has previously been rooted in reductionist methodologies, for example, seeking to find the 'root cause' to individual incidents. While healthcare has embraced, in some contexts, the option for system-based methodologies-for example, SEIPS and Accimaps-these methodologies and frameworks still operate from a single incident perspective. It has long been acknowledged that healthcare organisations should focus on near misses and low harms with the same emphasis as incidents resulting in high harm. However, logistically, investigating all incidents in the same way is difficult. This paper puts forward an argument for themed reviews of patient safety incidents and provides an illustrative template for theming incidents using a human factors classification tool. This allows groups of incidents relating to the same portfolio, for example, medication errors, falls, pressure ulcer, diagnostic error, to be analysed at the same time and result in recommendations based on a larger sample size of incidents and based on a systems approach. This paper will present extracts of the themed review template trialled and argues that thematic reviews, in this context, allowed for a better understanding of the system of safety around the mismanagement of the deteriorating patient., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Adverse events (AEs) affect 10% of in-hospital patients, causing increased costs, injuries, disability and mortality. Patient safety culture (PSC) is an indicator of quality in healthcare services and is thus perceived as a proxy for the quality of care. Previous studies show variation in the association between PSC scores and AE rates. The main objective of this scoping review is to summarise the evidence on the association between PSC scores and AE rates in healthcare services. In addition, map the characteristics and the applied research methodology in the included studies, and study the strengths and limitations of the evidence., Methods: We applied a scoping review methodology to answer the broad research questions of this study, following the PRISMA-ScR checklist. A systematic search in seven databases was conducted in January 2022. The records were screened independently against eligibility criteria using Rayyan software, and the extracted data were collated in a charting form. Descriptive representations and tables display the systematic mapping of the literature., Results: We included 34 out of 1,743 screened articles. The mapping demonstrated a statistical association in 76% of the studies, where increased PSC scores were associated with reduced AE rates. Most of the studies had a multicentre design and were conducted in-hospital in high-income countries. The methodological approaches to measuring the association varied, including missing reports on the tools` validation and participants, different medical specialties, and work unit level of measurements. In addition, the review identified a lack of eligible studies for meta-analysis and synthesis and demonstrated a need for an in-depth understanding of the association, including context complexity., Conclusions: We found that the vast majority of studies report reduced AE rates when PSC scores increase. This review demonstrates a lack of studies from primary care and low- and- middle-income countries. There is a discrepancy in utilised concepts and methodology, hence there is a need for a broader understanding of the concepts and the contextual factors, and more uniform methodology. Longitudinal prospective studies with higher quality can enhance efforts to improve patient safety., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Wrong surgery (wrong-site, wrong-procedure, or wrong-patient surgery) is among the most feared patient safety problems in hospitals. We aimed to evaluate associations between numeric assessment of risk assigned to wrong surgery with that of other healthcare quality and patient safety challenges. This nationwide study collected information from healthcare quality experts in charge of a clinical quality and/or patient safety department in general hospitals of ≥ 150 beds in Spain. Out of the 100 included hospitals, the highest strength of associations were observed with risk priority number (RPN) for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, RPN for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients, RPN for incorrect patient identification, RPN for lack of informed consent for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, RPN for catheter-related bacteremia, and RPN for adverse events and injuries due to medical devices related to use and/or design. These results are of potential interest for designing combined and coordinated strategies to improve patient safety in hospitals., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.)

Introduction: The administration of nutrition or medication into the lungs or pleura via a misplaced nasogastric feeding tube is considered a never event. Despite guidance from the National Patient Safety Agency and NHS Improvement this never event is regularly reported. Confirmation of correct placement and correct use of nasogastric tubes requires appropriate actions and decisions by a multidisciplinary team., Methods: A scoping review identified 43 records that discussed and supported nasogastric tube misplacement as a Never Event. Searches were completed using Web of Science, CINAHL, Google Scholar, British Nursing Index (BNI), as well as selected journals. A further manual search revealed 22 publicly available NHS Trust policies related to nasogastric feeding tube procedures. Items generated between 2011 and 2020 were considered eligible. A thematic analysis was completed to assess adherence to guidance and the practices in place across the NHS., Results: Three key themes were identified as part of the review: referral and authorisation of radiography, examination description, and visualisation of the nasogastric tube tip. Large variations in practice were identified. While there is recognition of national guidance, records showed inconsistency and lacked the required detail to ensure patient safety., Conclusion: Despite classification as a never event, it is apparent that there is still room for improvement and further guidance in ensuring patient safety with respect to nasogastric tube insertion., Implications for Practice: Practice requires further standardisation whilst also ensuring optimisation and safety. Guidance should address in depth imaging authorisation, language and exact standards of acceptability for imaging the full length of the nasogastric tube., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Job-related psychosocial factors have a substantial effect on the occurrence of adverse events among healthcare professionals., Objective: An analytical and descriptive survey was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the occurrence of patient safety incidents and psychological factors., Methods: The study sample consisted of 177 nurses who were asked about patient safety events over six months. Repetitive patient safety incidents were selected by examining medical records and interviewing specialists. Also, psychological factors were assessed using job content questionnaire (JCQ)., Results: Repetitive patient safety incidents were involved medication administration error, pressure ulcer and skin-muscular injuries, patient falls, inability to CPR patients, blood transfusion reactions, and death due to human error. The findings showed that 92 participants (52%) had at least one case of patient safety incident. Among patient safety incidents, medication administration error and death due to human error had the highest and lowest repletion, respectively. Nurses training, job insecurity and peer support were significant predictors of different aspects of patient safety (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: Proper collaboration between new and experienced nurses can have a significant impact to reduce patient safety incidents. In addition, nursing training can be a good way to understand risk points in medical errors.

Background: Medical errors, especially those resulting in patient harm, have a negative psychological impact on patients and healthcare workers (HCWs). Healing may be promoted if both parties are able to work together and explore the effect and outcome of the event from each of their perspectives. There is little existing research in this area, even though this has the potential to improve patient safety and wellness for both HCWs and patients., Methods: Using a patient-oriented research approach with constructive grounded theory methodology, we examined the potential for patients and HCWs to heal together after harm from a medical error. Individual interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. We conducted concurrent data collection and analysis according to grounded theory principles. With our findings, we created a framework and visual breakdown of the communication process between patients and HCWs., Results: Our findings suggest that, after a medical error causing harm, both patients and HCWs have feelings of empathy and respect towards each other that often goes unrecognised. Barriers to communication for patients were related to their perception that HCWs did not care about them, showed no remorse or did not admit to the error. For HCWs, communication barriers were related to feelings of blame or shame, and fear of professional and legal consequences. Patients reported needing open and transparent communications to help them heal, and HCWs required leadership and peer support, including training and space to talk about the event(s)., Discussion: Our resulting framework suggests that if there was an opportunity for an open and purposeful conversation early or before increased emotional suffering, there might be an opportunity to bridge the barriers, and help patients and HCWs heal together. This, in turn, contributes to improved health quality and patient safety., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Patient safety in eye health care is an underdeveloped field of research. A patient safety incident occurs when an unintended incident happens that could have (or did) lead to harm. To enable learning from patient safety incidents in optometry, a characterisation of commonly experienced safety incidents is needed to identify options to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to characterise eye health-related patient safety incidents from the perspective of eye care practitioners., Methods: At a national conference in Wales, 56 eye care practitioners participated in a stakeholder workshop on eye care-related patient safety incidents. Participants were asked to suggest patient safety incidents that have occurred, or based on their experience, could occur in optometric practice. Using the nominal group technique, participants voted on the incident they perceived could cause the most harm and the incident observed most frequently in practice. Framework analysis supported identification of themes about the nature and outcomes of incidents in eye care., Results: Diagnostic incidents were perceived to be the most severe (highest number of 'severity votes', n = 38), whilst administration-related incidents were most frequent (highest number of 'frequency votes' n = 39). Four themes were identified which are as follows: inappropriate clinical decision-making; delayed or missed referral of patients to general medical practitioners or ophthalmologists; compromised communication with other practitioners or patients and delays in receiving eye care. The results suggest that incidents relating to inappropriate clinical decision-making could result in the most severe harm to patients but may not occur frequently., Conclusions: Diagnostic- and administrative-related incidents pose clear challenges for improvement in quality and safety of care. The breadth of themes reflecting the nature and outcomes from unsafe eye care highlights the complexity underpinning incidents and the burden to patients. This work has informed the content of an all-Wales incident report form for primary eye care practitioners., (© 2022 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.)

This study aimed to explore the various types and frequency of patient safety incidents (PSIs) during a cancer screening health examination for the general public of Ulsan Metropolitan City, South Korea. Furthermore, the associated elements and responses to PSIs during a cancer screening were examined. The survey, conducted in the five districts of Ulsan, was completed by residents aged 19 years and older who agreed to participate. Descriptive analysis, Chi-square or Fisher exact test, and multivariable logistic regression were performed to analyze the data. A total of 620 participants completed the survey, with 11 (1.8%) individuals who experienced PSIs themselves and 11 (1.8%) by their family members. The highest type of PSIs was those related to procedures. The multivariable logistic regression analysis showed no significant variables associated with experiencing PSIs during cancer screening. However, there was a significant association between the judgment of medical error occurrence and level of patient harm both in experience by family members and total experience of PSIs (P < .05). There was also a significant difference between with and without an experience of PSIs disclosure (P < .001). This study comprehensively analyzed the types and extent of PSIs experienced by Korean individuals and their family members in Ulsan. These findings suggest that patient safety issues during cancer screening should not be overlooked. Furthermore, an investigation system to regularly monitor PSIs in cancer screening should be developed and established., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, the Institute of Medicine's consequential 2000 report, focused attention on medical errors, championing preventive strategies to improve patient safety in hospitals. In the c.

Introduction: Patient safety classifications/ontologies enable patient safety information systems to receive and analyze patient safety data to improve patient safety. Patient safety classifications/ontologies have been developed and evaluated using a variety of methods. The purpose of this review was to discuss and analyze the methodologies for developing and evaluating patient safety classifications/ontologies., Methods: Studies that developed or evaluated patient safety classifications, terminologies, taxonomies, or ontologies were searched through Google Scholar, Google search engines, National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) BioPortal, Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry and World Health Organization (WHO) websites and Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Science Direct. We updated our search on 30 February 2021 and included all studies published until the end of 2020. Studies that developed or evaluated classifications only for patient safety and provided information on how they were developed or evaluated were included. Systems with covered patient safety terms (such as ICD-10) but are not specifically developed for patient safety were excluded. The quality and the risk of bias of studies were not assessed because all methodologies and criteria were intended to be covered. In addition, we analyzed the data through descriptive narrative synthesis and compared and classified the development and evaluation methods and evaluation criteria according to available development and evaluation approaches for biomedical ontologies., Results: We identified 84 articles that met all of the inclusion criteria, resulting in 70 classifications/ontologies, nine of which were for the general medical domain. The most papers were published in 2010 and 2011, with 8 and 7 papers, respectively. The United States (50) and Australia (23) have the most studies. The most commonly used methods for developing classifications/ontologies included the use of existing systems (for expanding or mapping) (44) and qualitative analysis of event reports (39). The most common evaluation methods were coding or classifying some safety report samples (25), quantitative analysis of incidents based on the developed classification (24), and consensus among physicians (16). The most commonly applied evaluation criteria were reliability (27), content and face validity (9), comprehensiveness (6), usability (5), linguistic clarity (5), and impact (4), respectively., Conclusions: Because of the weaknesses and strengths of the development/evaluation methods, it is advised that more than one method for development or evaluation, as well as evaluation criteria, should be used. To organize the processes of developing classification/ontologies, well-established approaches such as Methontology are recommended. The most prevalent evaluation methods applied in this domain are well fitted to the biomedical ontology evaluation methods, but it is also advised to apply some evaluation approaches such as logic, rules, and Natural language processing (NLP) based in combination with other evaluation approaches. This research can assist domain researchers in developing or evaluating domain ontologies using more complete methodologies. There is also a lack of reporting consistency in the literature and same methods or criteria were reported with different terminologies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We aimed to examine the Korea National Patient Safety Incidents Inquiry conducted in the Republic of Korea; specifically, we assessed the validity of screening criteria, interreviewer reliability, quality of medical records, and the time required for reviewing medical records., Methods: A 3-stage retrospective medical record review was performed. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of the screening criteria for the adverse events were calculated, and interreviewer reliability was verified using the overall agreement rate and κ value. In addition, the results of medical record quality assessment and time required for review were analyzed., Results: There were a total of 4159 patients (55.5%) with at least 1 of the 41 screening criteria. In stage 1, the overall percent of agreement was 81.9% when all negatives from the 2 reviewers were included, and the κ value was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.66). In stage 2, 84.6% of cases were a perfect match, and 87.4% were a partial match. The κ values were 0.159 (95% CI, 0.12-0.20) and 0.389 (95% CI, 0.35-0.43), respectively. The mean quality assessment scores were 3.18 of 4 points in stage 1 and 3.05 of 4 points in stage 2. In stage 1, it took an average of 13.02 minutes to asses each patient file; in stage 2, it took an average of 5.06 minutes., Conclusions: To increase the feasibility of medical record review for detecting adverse events, it is important not only to improve the reliability between reviewers but also to monitor the quality of medical records and the time required for review., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: JMMP is funded by a research fellowship from The Institute of Healthcare Improvement (University of Cambridge, PD-2019-02-016).

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Objective: To determine the root causes of patient safety events in a high-volume intravitreal injection clinic and to assess the effect of interventions to reduce the rate of events., Design: Quality improvement study., Subjects: All cases of intravitreal injection in a designated injection clinic between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019., Methods: The injection clinic model involved an injecting physician, who usually differed from a prescribing physician. The procedural injection area was also physically separate from the retina outpatient clinic. A root cause analysis was used to determine the factors that contributed to possible patient safety events in an institutional quality improvement project. Specific interventions were implemented to address each specific root cause. The rates of patient safety events (never events and near misses), whether associated with patient harm or not, were compared before and after the intervention., Main Outcome Measures: Frequency (%) of patient-safety-related intravitreal injection events before (January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018) and after (January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019) intervention., Results: The root cause analysis included complex treatment plans that could be difficult to interpret, insufficient time to adequately review the designated treatment plans, and the risk of human error given the pace and volume of scheduled injections. Quality improvement strategies included revising the standardized treatment plan documentation template, scheduling block time for injecting physicians to review treatment plans within 24 hours of the injection clinic, and requiring agreement between dual, independent, site, and medication verifications of the treatment plan by the injecting physician and an allied health coordinator before site marking. The rate of events was 0.1% (28 in 27 400, or 9.3 events per year) before intervention and decreased to 0.01% (1 in 9375, or 1 event per year) after intervention (P = 0.01). Most events were classified as near misses, and there were no instances of patient harm., Conclusions: A high level of patient safety can be achieved in a complex, high-volume intravitreal injection practice by recognizing potential safety issues and root causes and implementing relevant quality improvements. Although most events were near misses and no patients were harmed, reducing near misses can reduce the likelihood of harm associated with never events., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Medical errors pose high risks to patients. Several organizational factors may impact the high rate of medical errors in complex and dynamic healthcare systems. However, limited research is available regarding probabilistic interdependencies between the organizational factors and patient safety errors. To explore this, we adopt a data-driven Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) model to represent a class of probabilistic models, using the hospital-level aggregate survey data from U.K. hospitals. Leveraging the use of probabilistic dependence models and visual features in the BBN model, the results shed new light on relationships existing among eight organizational factors and patient safety errors. With the high prediction capability, the data-driven approach results suggest that "health and well-being" and "bullying and harassment in the work environment" are the two leading factors influencing the number of reported errors and near misses affecting patient safety. This study provides significant insights to understand organizational factors' role and their relative importance in supporting decision-making and safety improvements., (© 2020 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.)

After a patient safety incident, the involved healthcare providers may experience sustained second-victim distress and reduced professional efficacy, with subsequent negative work-related outcomes and the cultivation of resilience. This study aims to investigate the factors affecting negative work-related outcomes and resilience with a hypothetical triad of support as the mediators: colleague, supervisor, and institutional support. This cross-sectional study recruited 733 healthcare providers from three tertiary care hospitals in Kelantan, Malaysia. Three steps of hierarchical linear regression were developed for both outcomes (negative work-related outcomes and resilience). Four multiple mediator models of the support triad were analyzed. Second-victim distress, professional efficacy, and the support triad contributed significantly in all the regression models. Colleague support partially mediated the relationship defining the effects of professional efficacy on negative work-related outcomes and resilience, whereas colleague and supervisor support partially mediated the effects of second-victim distress on negative work-related outcomes. Similar results were found regarding resilience, with all support triads producing similar results. As mediators, the support triads ameliorated the effect of second-victim distress on negative work-related outcomes and resilience, suggesting an important role of having good support, especially after encountering patient safety incidents.

Background: Patient safety classifications are used to collect, classify and analyze patient safety data., Objective: This review was conducted to identify and compare the subject and coverage of existing patient safety classifications for Health Information Technology (HIT) and medical devices in which HIT may cover., Methods: All studies in patient safety that developed or extended any type of classification in HIT and medical devices were included. We identified and classified the covered concepts in these systems., Results: We identified 7 articles that met all of the inclusion criteria, resulting in 6 classifications. The most common patient safety subjects included adverse events and medication errors. Incident types and contributing factors/hazards were the most frequently covered concepts., Conclusions: Patient safety classifications in HIT cover more concepts and classes than medical device classifications. It is therefore recommended to improve existing classification systems in terms of covered concepts and classes.

Over the last decade, second victim phenomenon (SVP) has been identified as a serious issue for healthcare workers (HCWs). Results from a 2018 survey of Canadian HCWs demonstrated that the majority of those who responded had experienced SVP and indicated that there was a lack of support in the workplace. The overall objectives of this paper are to a) heighten the awareness about SVP and its impact on HCWs and 2) to recommend an organizational/systems approach to support HCWs as second victims. This will be accomplished by first defining SVP and its relationship to patient safety. We will apply a health geography framework which incorporates the concepts of location, place, human interaction, movement and region to demonstrate the variability across care settings and the need for a systems approach to support HCWs. A human geography approaches to SVP would allow policymakers, leadership teams and managers within a health care setting to uniquely tailor their support systems to their individual contexts, which in turn will create a workplace culture of safety that builds on the organization's unique qualities.

Background Patient safety incidents (PSIs) have recently become a topic of discussion within dentistry. NHS England data has highlighted that wrong tooth extraction is the most common surgical Never Event (NE); however, this data reflects mainly a secondary care picture. Consideration needs to be given to reporting of PSIs occurring in primary care.Aims To establish the current attitudes of both primary and secondary care dentists within this field and to use this to promote a positive, supportive culture.Methods A national electronic survey was sent to dentists for data capture related to this topic, from April to September 2019 inclusively.Results There were 104 responses to the survey. Responses included that 39% of responders were general dental practitioners (GDPs), 90% were aware of NEs, 48% were not aware of how to report PSIs and 74% of dentists felt that fear of the General Dental Council/Care Quality Commission repercussions was a barrier to them reporting PSIs. Additionally, 86% of dentists felt that a trainee/GDP support network would be useful to share learning regarding PSIs.Conclusion The survey results highlighted that there is a lack of knowledge concerning PSI reporting, combined with a culture of fear of the repercussions of reporting. The survey data will aim to be used to implement a supportive network for dentists, develop a positive ethos surrounding PSIs and optimise patient care., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the British Dental Association.)

Background: Patient safety culture is an essential factor in determining the ability of hospitals to treat and reduce patient risks. Healthcare professionals, especially nurses, play an important role in patient safety because they are responsible for direct and ongoing patient care. Few studies in Iran examine the patient safety culture in Iranian teaching hospitals, particularly from the perspective of nursing staff. This research assessed patient safety culture in teaching hospitals in Iran from the nurses' point of view and compared the outcomes with similar regional and global studies. Furthermore, the study identified the factors influencing patient safety culture and its association with outcomes., Methods: A cross-sectional study was accomplished in thirty-two teaching hospitals in five provinces of Iran. A total of 2295 nurses were chosen through convenience sampling. Collection data were done using the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture (HOPSC) from October 2018 and September 2019. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, one-way ANOVA, and multiple linear regression analysis., Results: The results demonstrated the overall percentage of positive response rate for the HOPSC tool (36.4%). The average percentage of positive responses among all dimensions ranged from 27.1% in "Staffing" to 53.8% in "Teamwork across Hospital Units". Benchmarking analysis shows that Iranian hospitals are equal or better performance than the benchmark on several composites compared to regional and global findings. The results of multiple linear regression analysis showed that the age, gender, total years of experience in nursing, work area or unit, work hours, and size of the hospital were significant predictors of the perceptions patient safety culture of nurses (p <  0.05)., Conclusions: This is one of few studies that examine nurses' perceptions of patient safety culture in public hospitals in Iran. Although the results of the present study showed that the results of Iran were at or better than the many composites in Jordan, Turkey, KSA, and the Philippines. The findings confirmed that all 12 dimensions can be considered as areas requiring improvement, and these results demonstrated that there was a severe shortage in patient safety culture among the included hospitals., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Patient safety involves identifying, assessing, and managing patient-related risks and occurrences to improve patient care and reduce patient harm. In Nigeria, there is a lack of studies on patient safety culture, especially in the northern part of the country. This study aimed to determine the levels and factors that contribute to nurses' negative perceptions of patient safety culture in public health facilities., Methodology: A total of 460 nurses were surveyed across 21 secondary health facilities using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, and the response rate was 93.5%. Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression were used to analyze the data., Results: The results showed that 59.8% of the respondents were female, and 42.6% were within the age range of 30-39 years old. Most of them (48.3%) had spent 1-5 years working in the hospital. Three out of 12 composite measures had higher negative responses (staffing-30.5%, non-punitive response to error-42.8%, and frequency of events reported-43.1%). A multiple logistic regression analysis affirmed that all three variables, in addition to organizational learning, were significant associated with overall negative perceptions of patient safety culture, with 3.15, 1.84, 2.26, and 2.39 odds ratios, respectively., Conclusion: The results revealed that four critical areas of patient safety required improvement; therefore, intervention is recommended to minimize unnecessary patient harm and medical expenses.

Objective: This study aimed to develop a trigger tool for detection of neonatal adverse events (AEs) and to validate its effectiveness., Study Design: Random forest (RF) algorithm was used to build the predictive model by analyzing data from the medical records of 782 neonates in our previous study. Thirteen variables for each patient were used to predict neonatal AEs. Next, the critical variables were selected based on recursive elimination of variables to form the list of triggers. Then, a trigger tool with those triggers was established and tested by reviewing medical records. The positive predictive value of individual triggers and of the entire tool was evaluated., Results: Data from 782 neonates, including 297 patients with and 485 patients without AEs, were collected to build the original RF model. Then, the 6 most important variables, including diarrhea, antibiotic use, fever, death, skin damage, and suspected necrotizing enterocolitis, were selected to establish a neonate-focused trigger tool. The forest with the 6 variables predicted AEs with a sensitivity of 70.7%, a specificity of 92.0%, and an error rate of 16.1%. In a validation study of the trigger tool, 655 neonates with birth weights ≥1500 g were enrolled, and review of their medical records revealed 1709 triggers and 1172 unique AEs. The 3 most common AEs identified were skin damage, iatrogenic diarrhea, and environmental factor-related fever. The total positive predictive value of the trigger tool was 0.686., Conclusions: The neonate-focused trigger tool developed using the RF algorithm efficiently and reliably identifies AEs among hospitalized neonates with birth weights ≥1500 g., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

When patients are harmed by health care, concerns fan out in all directions. Patients and families confront a sea of uncertainty, contending with injuries that drain them physically, emotionally, and financially. Health care professionals experience a powerful mix of emotions, but are seldom afforded the time to process what happened or the resources to relieve suffering and prevent harm. Honesty, transparency, and empathy are indispensable to a comprehensive approach that prioritizes patient and family-centered response to unintended harm, clinical improvement, and redemptive peer review. Part 2 introduces the second of three pillars for advancing the clinical mission: communication and transparency., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest and disclosure R.C. Boothman, JD, is Owner and Principal of Boothman Consulting, which assists health systems in transitioning to communication and resolutions programs, conducting programmatic and personal peer review, and designing peer review approaches. Dr G.B. Hickson is an employee of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and is a member of Medtronic’s speakers bureau. He receives royalties from Cognitive Institute; and has received payment for the development of educational presentations from numerous health care institutions. Dr G.B. Hickson is also a member of the USC Health System Board and Vice Chair of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Board. No other authors have disclosures relevant to this publication., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A wrong blood in tube (WBIT) error signifies a blood sample that does not match the patient identified on the sample label. WBIT errors can result in ABO mistransfusions., Study Design and Methods: In this international, multicenter, descriptive study, healthcare facilities provided detailed information on WBIT errors occurring from 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2020. Factors contributing to WBIT errors were classified as protocol violations, knowledge gaps, and slips/lapses., Results: 331 WBIT errors were compiled from 36 centers in 11 countries. WBIT errors were most frequently detected through pretransfusion sample testing (191, 58%), with 38 (20%) detected by a second ("check") sample. WBIT errors were divided almost evenly between intended patient drawn/wrong label applied (166, 50%) and wrong patient drawn/intended label applied (158, 48%). Information on contributing factors was available for 260 WBIT errors; most involved a combination of protocol violations and slips/lapses (139, 53%). The most frequent contributing factor was another patient's sample labels or tubes being available during phlebotomy (61%). Protocol violations were more likely to result in wrong patient being drawn (p = .0007). In 43 WBIT errors, electronic positive patient identification (ePPID) was not used when available or was used incorrectly., Conclusions: Protocol violations and slips/lapses frequently contribute to WBIT errors. Sample collection processes should be designed to minimize error opportunities; staff should be educated on why protocol compliance is critical for patient safety. Using ePPID does not eliminate all WBIT errors. Institutions using ePPID may elect to require check sample verification as an added safety measure., (© 2021 AABB.)

Background: The intensive care unit (ICU) is a complex, dynamic, high stress and time-sensitive place. While a variety of rules and regulations provided to reduce medication errors in recent years, many studies have emphasized that medication errors still happen., Objective: The purpose of this investigation is to predict, reveal and assess medication errors among surgical intensive care unit (SICU) nurses., Methods: This study was performed in one of the public hospitals in Shiraz, namely Shahid Faghihi hospital. The human error assessment and reduction technique (HEART) method was adopted to measure and assess medication errors in the ICU., Results: Findings indicate that ICU nurses perform 27 main tasks and 125 sub-tasks. The results also showed that setting and using DC shock task has the highest human error probability value, and assessment of patients by a nutritionist has the lowest human error probability value., Conclusion: Medical errors are key challenges in the ICU. Therefore, alternative solutions to mitigate medication errors and enhance patient safety in the ICU are necessary. Although the technique can be used in healthcare; there is a need to localize the coefficients and definitions to achieve more accurate results and take appropriate controls. Employing experienced people and providing conditions that reduce the possibility of errors in nurses, increasing the number of staff, and developing specialized and simulated training were identified as the most important control strategies to reduce errors in nurses.

Background: In recent decades, there has been considerable international attention aimed at improving the safety of hospital care, and more recently, this attention has broadened to include primary medical care. In contrast, the safety profile of primary care dentistry remains poorly characterized., Objectives: We aimed to describe the types of primary care dental patient safety incidents reported within a national incident reporting database and understand their contributory factors and consequences., Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods study, which involved analysis of a weighted randomized sample of the most severe incident reports from primary care dentistry submitted to England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System. Drawing on a conceptual literature-derived model of patient safety threats that we previously developed, we developed coding frameworks to describe and conduct thematic analysis of free text incident reports and determine the relationship between incident types, contributory factors, and outcomes., Results: Of 2000 reports sampled, 1456 were eligible for analysis. Sixty types of incidents were identified and organized across preoperative (40.3%, n = 587), intraoperative (56.1%, n = 817), and postoperative (3.6%, n = 52) stages. The main sources of unsafe care were delays in treatment (344/1456, 23.6%), procedural errors (excluding wrong-tooth extraction) (227/1456; 15.6%), medication-related adverse incidents (161/1456, 11.1%), equipment failure (90/1456, 6.2%) and x-ray related errors (87/1456, 6.0%). Of all incidents that resulted in a harmful outcome (n = 77, 5.3%), more than half were due to wrong tooth extractions (37/77, 48.1%) mainly resulting from distraction of the dentist. As a result of this type of incident, 34 of the 37 patients (91.9%) examined required further unnecessary procedures., Conclusions: Flaws in administrative processes need improvement because they are the main cause for patients experiencing delays in receiving treatment. Checklists and standardization of clinical procedures have the potential to reduce procedural errors and avoid overuse of services. Wrong-tooth extractions should be addressed through focused research initiatives and encouraging policy development to mandate learning from serious dental errors like never events., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the risk of an avoidable adverse event for high-need patients in England and Germany and the causal impact that has on outcomes., Data Sources: We use administrative, secondary data for all hospital inpatients in 2018. Patient records for the English National Health Service are provided by the Hospital Episode Statistics database and for the German health care system accessed through the Research Data Center of the Federal Statistical Office., Study Design: We calculated rates of three hospital-acquired adverse events and their causal impact on mortality and length of stay through propensity score matching and estimation of average treatment effects., Data Collection/extraction Methods: Patients were identified based on diagnoses codes and translated Patient Safety Indicators developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality., Principal Findings: For the average hospital stay, the risk of an adverse event was 5.37% in the English National Health Service and 3.26% in the German health care system. High-need patients are more likely to experience an adverse event, driven by hospital-acquired infections (2.06%-4.45%), adverse drug reactions (2.37%-2.49%), and pressure ulcers (2.25%-0.45%). Adverse event risk is particularly high for patients with advancing illnesses (10.50%-27.11%) and the frail elderly (17.75%-28.19%). Compared to the counterfactual, high-need patients with an adverse event are more likely to die during their hospital stay and experience a longer length of stay., Conclusions: High-need patients are particularly vulnerable with an adverse event risking further deterioration of health status and adding resource use. Our results indicate the need to assess the costs and benefits of a hospital stay, particularly when care could be provided in settings considered less hazardous., (© 2021 Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background and Objectives: Medical errors are a leading cause of death in the United States. Despite widespread adoption of patient safety reporting systems to address medical errors, making sense of the reports collected in these systems is challenging in practice. Event classification taxonomies used in many reporting systems can be complex and difficult to understand by frontline reporters, leading reporters to classify reports as "miscellaneous" as opposed to assigning a specific event-type category, which may facilitate analysis., Methods: To assist patient safety analysts in their analysis of "miscellaneous" reports, we developed an ensemble machine learning natural language processing model to reclassify these reports. We integrated the model into a clinical workflow dashboard, evaluated user feedback, and compared differences in user thresholds for model performance., Results and Conclusions: Integrating an ensemble model to classify "miscellaneous" event reports with an interactive visualization was helpful to patient safety analysts review "miscellaneous" reports. However, patient safety analysts have different thresholds for model reclassification depending on their role and experience with "miscellaneous" event reports., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to explore nurses' perceptions regarding disclosure of patient safety incidents., Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted, and results were compared with those of the general public using the same questionnaire in a previous study., Results: Among 689 nurses, 96.8% of nurses felt major errors should be disclosed to patients or their caregivers, but only 67.5% felt disclosure of medical errors should be mandatory. In addition, 58.5% of nurses were concerned that disclose will increase the incidence of medical lawsuits. More than two-thirds of nurses felt such discloses will reduce feelings of guilt associated with a patient safety incident. Only 51.1% of nurses, but 93.3% of the public, felt near misses should be disclosed to patients., Conclusions: Nurses generally had a positive attitude toward disclosure of patient safety incidents, but they preferred it less than the general public. To reduce this gap, legal and nonlegal measures will need to be implemented. Furthermore, it is necessary to continue monitoring the gap by regularly assessing perceptions of disclosure of patient safety incidents among health care professionals and the general public., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: To estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England; describe and classify the associated patient safety incidents and generate suggestions to mitigate risks of ameliorable factors contributing to the incidents., Design: Retrospective case note review. Patients with significant health problems were identified and clinical judgements were made on avoidability and severity of harm. Factors contributing to avoidable harm were identified and recorded., Setting: Primary care., Participants: Thirteen general practitioners (GPs) undertook a retrospective case note review of a sample of 14 407 primary care patients registered with 12 randomly selected general practices from three regions in England (total list size: 92 255 patients)., Main Outcome Measures: The incidence of significant harm considered at least 'probably avoidable' and the nature of the safety incidents., Results: The rate of significant harm considered at least probably avoidable was 35.6 (95% CI 23.3 to 48.0) per 100 000 patient-years (57.9, 95% CI 42.2 to 73.7, per 100 000 based on a sensitivity analysis). Overall, 74 cases of avoidable harm were detected, involving 72 patients. Three types of incident accounted for more than 90% of the problems: problems with diagnosis accounted for 45/74 (60.8%) primary incidents, followed by medication-related problems (n=19, 25.7%) and delayed referrals (n=8, 10.8%). In 59 (79.7%) cases, the significant harm could have been identified sooner (n=48) or prevented (n=11) if the GP had taken actions aligned with evidence-based guidelines., Conclusion: There is likely to be a substantial burden of avoidable significant harm attributable to primary care in England with diagnostic error accounting for most harms. Based on the contributory factors we found, improvements could be made through more effective implementation of existing information technology, enhanced team coordination and communication, and greater personal and informational continuity of care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim of the study was to analyze how patients' own reports of safety incidents to the Danish Patient Safety Database can contribute to patient safety., Background: Patient involvement enhances patient safety; however, there is a shortage of tools capable of systematically capturing and usage of patients' own reports. Since 2012, the Danish Patient Safety Database (DPSD) has comprised such a tool., Methods: A total of 209,263 incident reports were compared across the following four reporting groups: patients, relatives, doctors, and nurses. Using thematic comparison, 300 narratives from each group were compared with respect to differences and similarities in the wording of the safety incident., Results: Only a tiny proportion of safety incidents were reported by patients' themselves (1.4%). Most of these (86%) were accepted for processing in the DPSD. Almost 90% of the accepted incidents were classified successfully. Patients' own reports were longer, more often "less severe incidents," and more often reported by female patients. Thematic content analyses revealed incident descriptions from health professionals as terse, unemotional, and extensively using medical terminology and abbreviations. In contrast patients' reports were lengthy, emotional, and focused on relations to health personal, health consequences, and communication errors., Conclusions: Despite the very low ratio of patients reporting an observed incident to DPSD, the finding that most patients own reports are accepted and classified makes the DPSD a promising, comprehensive tool to capture patients' own reports. However, the rich, contextualized descriptions seem insufficiently captured by established nomenclature., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)