Search

To determine the frequency and etiology of diagnostic errors during the first 7 days of admission for inborn neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 600 consecutive inborn admissions. A physician used the "Safer Dx NICU Instrument" to review the electronic health record for the first 7 days of admission, and categorized cases as "yes," "unclear," or "no" for diagnostic error. A secondary reviewer evaluated all "yes" charts plus a random sample of charts in the other categories. Subsequently, all secondary reviewers reviewed records with discordance between primary and secondary review to arrive at consensus.We identified 37 diagnostic errors (6.2% of study patients) with "substantial agreement" between reviewers (κ = 0.66). The most common diagnostic process breakdown was missed maternal history (51%).The frequency of diagnostic error in inborn NICU patients during the first 7 days of admission is 6.2%.

BackgroundPatients and families are important contributors to the diagnostic team, but their perspectives are not reflected in current diagnostic measures. Patients/families can identify some breakdowns in the diagnostic process beyond the clinician’s view. We aimed to develop a framework with patients/families to help organisations identify and categorise patient-reported diagnostic process-related breakdowns (PRDBs) to inform organisational learning.MethodA multi-stakeholder advisory group including patients, families, clinicians, and experts in diagnostic error, patient engagement and safety, and user-centred design, co-developed a framework for PRDBs in ambulatory care. We tested the framework using standard qualitative analysis methods with two physicians and one patient coder, analysing 2165 patient-reported ambulatory errors in two large surveys representing 25 425 US respondents. We tested intercoder reliability of breakdown categorisation using the Gwet’s AC1 and Cohen’s kappa statistic. We considered agreement coefficients 0.61–0.8=good agreement and 0.81–1.00=excellent agreement.ResultsThe framework describes 7 patient-reported breakdown categories (with 40 subcategories), 19 patient-identified contributing factors and 11 potential patient-reported impacts. Patients identified breakdowns in each step of the diagnostic process, including missing or inaccurate main concerns and symptoms; missing/outdated test results; and communication breakdowns such as not feeling heard or misalignment between patient and provider about symptoms, events, or their significance. The frequency of PRDBs was 6.4% in one dataset and 6.9% in the other. Intercoder reliability showed good-to-excellent reliability in each dataset: AC1 0.89 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.90) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); kappa 0.64 (95% CI 0.62, to 0.66) to 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.88).ConclusionsThe PRDB framework, developed in partnership with patients/families, can help organisations identify and reliably categorise PRDBs, including some that are invisible to clinicians; guide interventions to engage patients and families as diagnostic partners; and inform whole organisational learning.

Objective Test web-based implementation for the science of enhancing resilience (WISER) intervention efficacy in reducing healthcare worker (HCW) burnout. Design RCT using two cohorts of HCWs of four NICUs each, to improve HCW well-being (primary outcome: burnout). Cohort 1 received WISER while Cohort 2 acted as a waitlist control. Results Cohorts were similar, mostly female (83%) and nurses (62%). In Cohorts 1 and 2 respectively, 182 and 299 initiated WISER, 100 and 176 completed 1-month follow-up, and 78 and 146 completed 6-month follow-up. Relative to control, WISER decreased burnout (−5.27 (95% CI: −10.44, −0.10), p = 0.046). Combined adjusted cohort results at 1-month showed that the percentage of HCWs reporting concerning outcomes was significantly decreased for burnout (−6.3% (95%CI: −11.6%, −1.0%); p = 0.008), and secondary outcomes depression (−5.2% (95%CI: −10.8, −0.4); p = 0.022) and work-life integration (−11.8% (95%CI: −17.9, −6.1); p Conclusion WISER appears to durably improve HCW well-being. Clinical Trials Number NCT02603133; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02603133

Objectives Communicating with parents about adverse birth outcomes is challenging. We sought to describe attitudes and experiences of parents and providers regarding communication about adverse newborn birth events. Methods From 2011–2012, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with parents who believed they had experienced an adverse birth-related neonatal outcome and focus groups with healthcare providers who have communicated with parents about adverse newborn birth events from three geographically diverse US academic medical centers. We conducted qualitative thematic analysis to identify key themes. Results Parents and providers described unique communication challenges around adverse neonatal outcomes in six categories: 1) High expectations for a positive delivery experience and the view that birth is a life event, not a medical encounter; 2) Powerful emotions associated with birth, amplified when an adverse event occurs; 3) Rapid changes when expectations for a normal birth take a sudden negative turn; 4) Family involvement adding complexity to communication; 5) Multiple patients and providers complicating communication dynamics with inter-professional teams seeking to coordinate information and care; and, 6) Concerns about litigation surrounding the birth experience. Strategies to educate parents and enhance communication were identified by both parents and providers. Conclusion Both parents and providers experience – and may suffer as a result of – communication challenges following adverse birth events affecting the newborn. Training and resources for this care environment are needed to meet parental, extended family, and provider expectations for communication when these events occur.

Introduction: Preventable harm continues to occur with critically ill neonates despite efforts by hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) to improve processes and reduce harm. Attaining significant and sustainable improvements will require training including leadership support, mentoring, and patient family engagement to improve care processes. This paper describes the implementation of a robust process improvement (RPI) program in the NICU to reduce harm. Methods: Leaders, staff, and parents were trained in RPI concepts and tools. Multidisciplinary teams including parent members applied the training and received regular mentorship for their improvement initiatives. Results: Participants (N = 67) completed pretraining and post-training surveys. Training scores (0–10 scale) improved from an average of 4.45–7.60 (p < .001) for confidence in leading process improvement work, 2.36 to 7.49 (p < .001) for RPI knowledge, and 2.19 to 7.30 (p < .001) for confidence in using RPI tools; relative improvement of 71%, 217%, and 233% respectively. Participants applied their RPI training on improvement initiatives that resulted in improvements of central line blood stream infections, very low birth weight infant nutrition, and unplanned extubations. Conclusions: Implementing an RPI program in the NICU to reduce harm resulted in significant and sustainable improvements on their improvement initiatives.

Policy Points Patients and families can identify clinically relevant errors, including "blindspots"-safety hazards that are difficult for clinicians or organizations to see. Health information transparency, including patient access to electronic visit notes, now federally mandated in the US and the subject of policy debate worldwide, creates a new opportunity to engage patients in diagnostic safety. However, not all patients access notes. Patient identification of blindspots in their notes underscores the need to systematically and equitably engage willing patients in safety, promote patient "good catches," and establish routine systems for patient feedback to help avoid preventable diagnostic errors and delays.Policy shifts toward health information transparency provide a new opportunity for patients to contribute to diagnostic safety. We investigated whether sharing clinical notes with patients can support identification of "diagnostic safety blindspots"-potentially consequential breakdowns in the diagnostic process that may be difficult for clinical staff to observe.We used mixed methods to analyze patient-reported ambulatory documentation errors among 22,889 patients at three US health care centers who read ≥ 1 visit note(s). We identified blindspots by tailoring a previously established taxonomy. We used multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with blindspot identification.774 patients reported a total of 962 blindspots in 4 categories: (1) diagnostic misalignments (n = 421, 43.8%), including inaccurate symptoms or histories and failures or delay in diagnosis; (2) errors of omission (38.1%) including missed main concerns or next steps, and failure to listen to patients; (3) problems occurring outside visits (14.3%) such as tests, referrals, or appointment access; and (4) multiple low-level problems (3.7%) cascading into diagnostic breakdowns. Many patients acted on the blindspots they identified, resulting in "good catches" that may prevent potential negative consequences. Older, female, sicker, unemployed or disabled patients, or those who work in health care were more likely to identify a blindspot. Individuals reporting less formal education; those self-identifying as Black, Asian, other, or multiple races; and participants who deferred decision-making to providers were less likely to report a blindspot.Patients who read notes have unique insight about potential errors in their medical records that could impact diagnostic reasoning but may not be known to clinicians-underscoring a critical role for patients in diagnostic safety and organizational learning. From a policy standpoint, organizations should encourage patient review of visit notes, build systems to track patient-reported blindspots, and promote equity in note access and blindspot reporting.

BackgroundHow openly healthcare providers communicate after a medical error may influence long-term impacts. We sought to understand whether greater open communication is associated with fewer persisting emotional impacts, healthcare avoidance and loss of trust.MethodsCross-sectional 2018 recontact survey assessing experience with medical error in a 2017 random digit dial survey of Massachusetts residents. Two hundred and fifty-three respondents self-reported medical error. Respondents were similar to non-respondents in sociodemographics confirming minimal response bias. Time since error was categorised as ResultsOf respondents self-reporting a medical error 3–6 years ago, 51% reported at least one current emotional impact; 57% reported avoiding doctor/facilities involved in error; 67% reported loss of trust. Open communication varied: 34% reported no communication and 24% reported ≥5 elements. Controlling for error severity, respondents reporting the most open communication had significantly lower odds of persisting sadness (OR=0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.60, p=0.006), depression (OR=0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.77, p=0.022) or feeling abandoned/betrayed (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48, p=0.004) compared with respondents reporting no communication. Open communication significantly predicted less doctor/facility avoidance, but was not associated with medical care avoidance or healthcare trust.ConclusionsNegative emotional impacts from medical error can persist for years. Open communication is associated with reduced emotional impacts and decreased avoidance of doctors/facilities involved in the error. Communication and resolution programmes could facilitate transparent conversations and reduce some of the negative impacts of medical error.

Background Patients and families report experiencing a multitude of harms from medical errors resulting in physical, emotional, and financial hardships. Little is known about the duration and nature of these harms and the type of support needed to promote patient and family healing after such events. We sought to describe the long-term impacts (LTIs) reported by patients and family members who experienced harmful medical events 5 or more years ago. Methods We performed a content analysis on 32 interviews originally conducted with 72 patients or family members about their views of the factors contributing to their self-reported harmful event. Interviews selected occurred 5 or more years after the harmful event and were grouped by time since event, 5 to 9 years (22 interviews) or 10 or more years (10 interviews) for analysis. We analyzed these interviews targeting spontaneous references of ongoing impacts experienced by the participants. Results Participants collectively described the following four LTIs: psychological, social/behavioral, physical, and financial. Most cited psychological impacts with half-reporting ongoing anger and vivid memories. More than half reported ongoing physical impacts and one-third experienced ongoing financial impacts. Long-term social and behavioral impacts such as alterations in lifestyle, self-identity, and healthcare seeking behaviors were the most highly reported. Conclusions These patients and families experienced many profound LTIs after their harmful medical event. For some, these impacts evolved into secondary harms ongoing 10 years and more after the event. Our results draw attention to the persistent impacts patients and families may experience long after harmful events and the need for future research to understand and support affected patients and families.

BackgroundTo create a theory-informed survey that quality improvement (QI) teams can use to understand stakeholder perceptions of an intervention.MethodWe created the survey then performed a cross-sectional survey of QI stakeholders of three QI projects. The projects sought to: (1) reduce unplanned extubations in a neonatal intensive care unit; (2) maintain normothermia during colorectal surgery and (3) reduce specimen processing errors for ambulatory gastroenterology procedures. We report frequencies of responses to survey items, results of exploratory factor analysis, and how QI team leaders used the results.ResultsOverall we received surveys from 319 out of 386 eligible stakeholders (83% response rate, range for the three QI projects 57%–86%). The QI teams found that the survey results confirmed existing concerns (eg, the intervention would not make work easier) and revealed unforeseen concerns such as lack of consensus about the overall purpose of the intervention and its importance. The results of our factor analysis indicate that one 7-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha 0.9) can efficiently measure important aspects of stakeholder perceptions, and that two additional Likert-type items could add valuable information for leaders. Two QI team leaders made changes to their project based on survey responses that indicated the intervention made stakeholders’ jobs harder, and that there was no consensus about the purpose of the intervention.ConclusionsThe Stakeholder Quality Improvement Perspectives Survey was feasible for QI teams to use, and identified stakeholder perspectives about QI interventions that leaders used to alter their QI interventions to potentially increase the likelihood of stakeholder acceptance of the intervention.

BackgroundLanguage barrier, reduced self-advocacy, lower health literacy or biased care may hinder the diagnostic process. Data on how patients/families with limited English-language health literacy (LEHL) or disadvantaged socioeconomic position (dSEP) experience diagnostic errors are sparse.MethodWe compared patient-reported diagnostic errors, contributing factors and impacts between respondents with LEHL or dSEP and their counterparts in the 2017 Institute for Healthcare Improvement US population-based survey, using contingency analysis and multivariable logistic regression models for the analyses.Results596 respondents reported a diagnostic error; among these, 381 reported LEHL or dSEP. After adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity and physical health, individuals with LEHL/dSEP were more likely than their counterparts to report unique contributing factors: "(No) qualified translator or healthcare provider that spoke (the patient’s) language" (OR and 95% CI 4.4 (1.3 to 14.9)); "not understanding the follow-up plan" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.1)); "too many providers… but no clear leader" (1.8 (1.2 to 2.7)); "not able to keep follow-up appointments" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.2)); "not being able to pay for necessary medical care" (2.5 (1.4 to 4.4)) and "out-of-date or incorrect medical records" (2.6 (1.4 to 4.8)). Participants with LEHL/dSEP were more likely to report long-term emotional, financial and relational impacts, compared with their counterparts. Subgroup analysis (LEHL-only and dSEP-only participants) showed similar results.ConclusionsIndividuals with LEHL or dSEP identified unique and actionable contributing factors to diagnostic errors. Interpreter access should be viewed as a diagnostic safety imperative, social determinants affecting care access/affordability should be routinely addressed as part of the diagnostic process and patients/families should be encouraged to access and update their medical records. The frequent and disproportionate long-term impacts from self-reported diagnostic error among LEHL/dSEP patients/families raises urgency for greater prevention and supportive efforts.

Background Safety climate is an important marker of patient safety attitudes within health care units, but the significance of intra-unit variation of safety climate perceptions (safety climate strength) is poorly understood. This study sought to examine the standard safety climate measure (percent positive response (PPR)) and safety climate strength in relation to length of stay (LOS) of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants within California neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Methods Observational study of safety climate from 2073 health care providers in 44 NICUs. Consistent perceptions among a NICU’s respondents, i.e., safety climate strength, was determined via intra-unit standard deviation of safety climate scores. The relation between safety climate PPR, safety climate strength, and LOS among VLBW ( Results NICUs had safety climate PPRs of 66 ± 12%, intra-unit standard deviations 11 (strongest) to 23 (weakest), and median LOS 60 days. NICUs with stronger climates had LOS 4 days shorter than those with weaker climates. In interaction modeling, NICUs with weak climates and low PPR had the longest LOS, NICUs with strong climates and low PPR had the shortest LOS, and NICUs with high PPR (both strong and weak) had intermediate LOS. Stronger climates were associated with lower odds of infections, but not with other secondary outcomes. Conclusions Safety climate strength is independently associated with LOS and moderates the association between PPR and LOS among VLBW infants. Strength and PPR together provided better prediction than PPR alone, capturing variance in outcomes missed by PPR. Evaluations of NICU safety climate consider both positivity (PPR) and consistency of responses (strength) across individuals.

Bryostatins with modified C17-C27 fragments have not been widely studied. The synthesis of 20,20-difluorinated analogues was therefore investigated. Such substitution would inhibit dehydration involving the C19-hydroxyl group and stabilise the ring-closed hemiacetal tautomers. Following preliminary studies, allyldifluorination was used to prepare difluorinated alkenols. Oxidation followed by stereoselective Wittig reactions of the resulting α,α-difluorinated ketones gave (E)-α,β-unsaturated esters that were taken through to complete syntheses of 2-hydroxytetrahydropyrans corresponding to C17-C27 fragments of 20,20-difluorinated bryostatin. These compounds showed modest binding to protein kinase Cα isozyme. Attempts were also undertaken to synthesise macrocyclic 20,20-difluorinated analogues. During preliminary studies, allyldifluorination was carried out using a 2-alkyl-3-bromo-1,1-difluoropropene.

Background and objective: Understanding the mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on persons receiving COVID-19 testing will help guide mental health interventions. We aimed to determine the association between sociodemographic factors and mental health symptoms at 8 weeks (baseline) after a COVID-19 test, and compare prevalence of mental health symptoms at baseline to those at 16-week follow-up. Materials and Methods: Prospective cohort study of adults who received outpatient COVID-19 testing at primary care clinics. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between sociodemographic characteristics and COVID-19 test results with mental health symptoms. Mental health symptoms reported at baseline were compared to symptoms at 16 weeks follow-up using conditional logistic regression analyses. Results: At baseline, a total of 124 (47.51%) participants reported at least mild depressive symptoms, 110 (42.15%) participants endorsed at least mild anxiety symptoms, and 94 participants (35.21%) endorsed hazardous use of alcohol. Females compared to males were at increased risk of at least mild depressive symptoms at baseline (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 2.08; 95% CI: 1.14-3.79). The odds of at least mild depressive symptoms was significantly lower among those residing in zip codes within the highest quartile compared to lowest quartile of household income (AOR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17-0.81). Also, non-Hispanic Whites had significantly higher odds of reporting hazardous alcohol use compared to non-Whites at baseline (AOR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.05-3.57). The prevalence of mental health symptoms remained elevated after 16 weeks. Conclusion and Relevance: We found a high burden of symptoms of depression and anxiety as well as hazardous alcohol use in a diverse population who received testing for COVID-19 in the primary care setting. Primary care providers need to remain vigilant in screening for symptoms of mental health disorders in patients tested for COVID-19 well after initial testing.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has ravaged the United States, health care teams are on the frontlines of this global crisis, often navigating harrowing conditions at work, such as a lack of personal protective equipment and staffing shortages, and distractions at home, including worries about elderly relatives or making childcare arrangements. While the nature and severity of stressors impacting health care teams are in many ways unprecedented, decades of psychological research exploring teamwork in extreme contexts can provide insights to understand and improve outcomes for teams in a crisis. This review highlights the psychological principles that apply to teams in a crisis and illustrates how psychologists can use this knowledge to improve teamwork for medical teams in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic., The review also provides a glimpse toward the future, noting both how psychologists can help health care teams recover and rebound, as well as how additional research can improve psychologists' understanding of teamwork in times of crisis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

On 1 September 2020, we took on the roles of co-editors-in-chief for BMJ Quality and Safety , and want to take this opportunity to introduce ourselves and our vision for the journal. We represent two different continents, two different professions and two different sets of research expertise. What we have in common is a passion for conducting and publishing high-quality research and quality improvement work to benefit the quality and safety of patient care, as well as encouraging others to do likewise. We assume leadership of the journal during a major worldwide crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected almost every aspect of society. Response to the pandemic is requiring engagement from every part of our health care systems—government policy, public health, ambulatory care, inpatient and long-term care, every type of healthcare worker, and of course patients and …

Front-line medical teams are experiencing unprecedented stressors as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of these pressures, teamwork has become both more important and more challenging. Fortunately, numerous examples of naturally occurring cooperation are appearing at healthcare institutions around the globe, including instances of people trying to work together during the crisis who may not have done so under ‘normal’ conditions. A crisis can stimulate some people’s willingness to cooperate, for example, to ignore prior disagreements to tackle a shared predicament. But even when the intent to cooperate is present, the incessant stress present during a crisis makes it significantly harder for teams to sustain coordinated performance over time.1 2 Focused attention on teamwork is required.3 Prior research conducted on teams under stress can be used to help anticipate risk points that can adversely impact teamwork and reveal what can be done to help teams coordinate effectively, maintain resilience and ensure patient safety during the pandemic. This article offers several evidence-based recommendations to help clinical teams that work directly with patients during COVID-19 and in future crises. Tips are included for clinical care team leaders and team members, as well as for members of management who support or oversee clinical teams (senior leaders, middle managers, crisis management teams). Over the last 30 years we have studied and advised teams across a broad range of settings. Some of these teams work in what you might think of ‘normal’ or routine settings, such as manufacturing or sales. But many perform in high-stress conditions where the consequences of failure and personal pressures are high, including teams of astronauts, deep sea divers, jet fighter pilots, smoke jumpers, miners, emergency medical technicians, soldiers and trauma teams. During this time, research on team effectiveness has expanded and close to 50 meta-analyses …