Search

Background: Hospice provides a full range of services for patients near the end of life, often in the patient's own home. There are no published studies that describe patient safety incidents in home hospice care. Objective: The study objective was to explore the types and characteristics of patient safety incidents in home hospice care from the experiences of hospice interdisciplinary team members. Methods: The study design is qualitative and descriptive. From a convenience sample of 17 hospices in 13 states we identified 62 participants including hospice nurses, physicians, social workers, chaplains, and home health aides. We interviewed a separate sample of 19 experienced hospice leaders to assess the credibility of primary results. Semistructured telephone interviews were recorded and transcribed. Four researchers used an editing technique to identify common themes from the interviews. Results: Major themes suggested a definition of patient safety in home hospice that includes concern for unnecessary harm to family caregivers or unnecessary disruption of the natural dying process. The most commonly described categories of patient harm were injuries from falls and inadequate control of symptoms. The most commonly cited contributing factors were related to patients, family caregivers, or the home setting. Few participants recalled incidents or harm related to medical errors by hospice team members. Conclusions: This is the first study to describe patient safety incidents from the experiences of hospice interdisciplinary team members. Compared with patient safety studies from other health care settings, participants recalled few incidents related to errors in evaluation, treatment, or communication by the hospice team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We wanted to explore how patients' experiences with preventable problems in primary care have changed their behavioral interactions with the health care system.Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 24 primary care patients, asking them to describe their experiences with self-perceived preventable problems. We analyzed these interviews using the editing method and classified emotional and behavioral responses to experiencing preventable problems.Results: Anger was the most common emotional response, followed by mistrust and resignation. We classified participants' behavioral responses into 4 categories: avoidance (eg, stop going to the doctor), accommodation (eg, learn to deal with delays), anticipation (eg, attend to details, attend to own emotions, acquire knowledge, actively communicate), and advocacy (eg, get a second opinion).Conclusions: Understanding how patients react to their experiences with preventable problems can assist health care at both the physician-patient and system levels. We propose an association of mistrust with the behaviors of avoidance and advocacy, and suggest that further research explore the potential impact these patient behaviors have on the provision of health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND. Physicians who have been sued multiple times for malpractice are assumed to be less competent than those who have never been sued. However, there is a lack of data to support this assumption. Competence includes both knowledge and performance, and there are theoretical reasons to suspect that the most knowledgeable physicians may be sued the most. METHODS. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of family physicians who were included in the Florida section of the 1996 American Medical Association's Physician Masterfile and who practiced in Florida at any time between 1971 and 1994 (N = 3686). The main outcome was the number of malpractice claims per physician adjusted for time in practice. Using regression methods, we analyzed associations between malpractice claims and measures of physician knowledge. RESULTS. Risk factors for malpractice claims included graduation from a medical school in the United States or Canada (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1,8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6 - 2.1), specialty board certification (IRR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6 - 2.1), holding the American Medical Association Physician's Recognition Award (IRR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 - 1.7), and Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society membership (IRR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1 - 3.0), Among board-certified family physicians, sued physicians who made no payments to a plaintiff had higher certification examination scores than nonsued physicians (53.48 vs 51.38, P < .01). The scores of sued physicians who made payments were similar to those of nonsued physicians (51.05 vs 51.38, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS. Among Florida family physicians, the frequency of malpractice claims increased with evidence of greater medical knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, contributing to 95,000 deaths annually. When offered in primary care, screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBIRT), and medication-assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) can effectively address UAU. However, these interventions are not yet routine in primary care clinics. Therefore, our study evaluates tailored implementation support to increase SBIRT and MAUD in primary care., Methods: ANTECEDENT is a pragmatic implementation study designed to support 150 primary care clinics in Oregon adopting and optimizing SBIRT and MAUD workflows to address UAU. The study is a partnership between the Oregon Health Authority Transformation Center-state leaders in Medicaid health system transformation-SBIRT Oregon and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. We recruited clinics providing primary care in Oregon and prioritized reaching clinics that were small to medium in size (<10 providers). All participating clinics receive foundational support (i.e., a baseline assessment, exit assessment, and access to the online SBIRT Oregon materials) and may opt to receive tailored implementation support delivered by a practice facilitator over 12 months. Tailored implementation support is designed to address identified needs and may include health information technology support, peer-to-peer learning, workflow mapping, or expert consultation via academic detailing. The study aims are to 1) engage, recruit, and conduct needs assessments with 150 primary care clinics and their regional Medicaid health plans called Coordinated Care Organizations within the state of Oregon, 2) implement and evaluate the impact of foundational and supplemental implementation support on clinic change in SBIRT and MAUD, and 3) describe how practice facilitators tailor implementation support based on context and personal expertise. Our convergent parallel mixed-methods analysis uses RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance). It is informed by a hybrid of the i-PARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) and the Dynamic Sustainability Framework., Discussion: This study will explore how primary care clinics implement SBIRT and MAUD in routine practice and how practice facilitators vary implementation support across diverse clinic settings. Findings will inform how to effectively align implementation support to context, advance our understanding of practice facilitator skill development over time, and ultimately improve detection and treatment of UAU across diverse primary care clinics., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Context: Reporting of medical errors is a widely recognized mechanism for initiating patient safety improvement, yet we know little about the feasibility of error reporting in physician offices, where the majority of medical care in the United States is rendered., Objective: To identify barriers and motivators for error reporting by family physicians and their office staff based on the experiences of those participating in a testing process error reporting study., Design: Qualitative focus group study, analyzed using the editing method., Setting: Eight volunteer practices of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network., Participants: 139 physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and staff who took part in 18 focus groups., Instrument: Interview questions asked about making reports, what prevents more reports from being made, and decisions about when to make reports., Results: Four factors were seen as central to making error reports: the burden of effort to report, clarity regarding the information requested in an error report, the perceived benefit to the reporter, and properties of the error (eg, severity, responsibility). The most commonly mentioned barriers were related to the high burden of effort to report and lack of clarity regarding the requested information. The most commonly mentioned motivator was perceived benefit., Conclusion: Successful error reporting systems for physicians' offices will need to have low reporting burden, have great clarity regarding the information requested, provide direct benefit through feedback useful to reporters, and take into account error severity and personal responsibility.

Objective: To describe and classify process errors and preventable adverse events that occur from medical care in outpatient primary care settings., Study Design: Systematic review and synthesis of the medical literature., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from 1965 through March 2001 with the MESH term medical errors, modified by adding family practice, primary health care, physicians/family, or ambulatory care and limited the search to English-language publications. Published bibliographies and Web sites from patient safety and primary care organizations were also reviewed for unpublished reports, presentations, and leads to other sites, journals, or investigators with relevant work. Additional papers were identified from the references of the papers reviewed and from seminal papers in the field., Outcomes Measured: Process errors and preventable adverse events., Results: Four original research studies directly studied and described medical errors and adverse events in primary care, and 3 other studies peripherally addressed primary care medical errors. A variety of quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the studies. Extraction of results from the studies led to a classification of 3 main categories of preventable adverse events: diagnosis, treatment, and preventive services. Process errors were classified into 4 categories: clinician, communication, administration, and blunt end., Conclusions: Original research on medical errors in the primary care setting consists of a limited number of small studies that offer a rich description of medical errors and preventable adverse events primarily from the physician's viewpoint. We describe a classification derived from these studies that is based on the actual practice of primary care and provides a starting point for future epidemiologic and interventional research. Missing are studies that have patient, consumer, or other health care provider input.