Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Experience‐based co‐design (EBCD) brings patients and staff together to co‐design services. It is normally conducted in one organization which initiates and implements the process. We used the traditional EBCD method with a number of adaptations as part of a larger research study in the British National Health Service. Methods The primary aim was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting research‐initiated EBCD, to enhance intervention development prior to testing. As well as embedding the method in a research study, there were 3 further key adaptations: (a) working across primary and secondary care sectors, (b) working on multiple sites and (c) incorporating theory‐informed analysis. Results We recruited four sites (covering both primary and secondary care) and, on each site, conducted the initial traditional EBCD meetings, with separate staff and patient groups—followed by a single joint patient‐staff event, where four priority areas for co‐design were agreed. This event was driven by theory‐informed analysis, as well as the traditional trigger film of patient experiences. Each site worked on one priority area, and the four co‐design groups met over 2‐3 months to design prototype tools. A second joint event was held (not usually undertaken in single‐site EBCD) where they shared and compared outputs. The research team combined elements of these outputs to create an intervention, now being tested in a cluster randomized controlled trial. Conclusions EBCD can be successfully adapted for use across an entire patient pathway with multiple organizations and as part of a research process to identify an intervention for subsequent testing in a randomized trial. Our pragmatic approach used the patient experience to identify areas for improvement and co‐designed an intervention which directly reflected patient priorities.

Serious incident management and organisational learning are international patient safety priorities. Little is known about the quality of suicide investigations and, in turn, the potential for organisational learning. Suicide risk assessment is acknowledged as a complex phenomenon, particularly in the context of adult community mental health services. Root cause analysis (RCA) is the dominant investigative approach, although the evidence base underpinning RCA is contested, with little attention paid to the patient in context and their cumulative risk over time. Recent literature proposes a safety-II approach in response to the limitations of RCA. The importance of applying these approaches within a mental healthcare system that advocates a zero suicide framework, grounded in a restorative just culture, is highlighted. Although integrative reviews and syntheses have clear methodological limitations, this approach facilitates the management of a disparate body of work to advance a critical understanding of patient safety in adult community mental healthcare.

IntroductionThere are risks to the safety of medicines management when patient care is transferred between healthcare organisations, for example, when a patient is discharged from hospital. Using the theoretical concept of resilience in healthcare, this study aimed to better understand the proactive role that patients can play in creating safer, resilient medicines management at a common transition of care.MethodsQualitative interviews with 60 cardiology patients 6 weeks after their discharge from 2 UK hospitals explored patients’ experiences with their discharge medicines. Data were initially subjected to an inductive thematic analysis and a subsequent theory-guided deductive analysis.ResultsDuring interviews 23 patients described medicines management resilience strategies in two main themes: identifying system vulnerabilities; and establishing self-management strategies. Patients could anticipate problems in the system that supplied them with medicines and took specific actions to prevent them. They also identified when errors had occurred both before and after medicines had been supplied and took corrective action to avoid harm. Some reported how they had not foreseen problems or experienced patient safety incidents. Patients recounted how they ensured information about medicines changes was correctly communicated and acted upon, and described their strategies to enhance their own reliability in adherence and resource management.ConclusionPatients experience the impact of vulnerabilities in the medicines management system across the secondary–primary care transition but many are able to enhance system resilience through developing strategies to reduce the risk of medicines errors occurring. Consequently, there are opportunities—with caveats—to elicit, develop and formalise patients’ capabilities which would contribute to safer patient care and more effective medicines management.

Background Patients have the potential to provide a rich source of information on both organisational aspects of safety and patient safety incidents. This project aims to develop two patient safety interventions to promote organisational learning about safety - a patient measure of organisational safety (PMOS), and a patient incident reporting tool (PIRT) - to help the NHS prevent patient safety incidents by learning more about when and why they occur. Methods To develop the PMOS 1) literature will be reviewed to identify similar measures and key contributory factors to error; 2) four patient focus groups will ascertain practicality and feasibility; 3) 25 patient interviews will elicit approximately 60 items across 10 domains; 4) 10 patient and clinician interviews will test acceptability and understanding. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic content analysis. To develop the PIRT 1) individual and then combined patient and clinician focus groups will provide guidance for the development of three potential reporting tools; 2) nine wards across three hospital directorates will pilot each of the tools for three months. The best performing tool will be identified from the frequency, volume and quality of reports. The validity of both measures will be tested. 300 patients will be asked to complete the PMOS and PIRT during their stay in hospital. A sub-sample (N = 50) will complete the PMOS again one week later. Health professionals in participating wards will also be asked to complete the AHRQ safety culture questionnaire. Case notes for all patients will be reviewed. The psychometric properties of the PMOS will be assessed and a final valid and reliable version developed. Concurrent validity for the PIRT will be assessed by comparing reported incidents with those identified from case note review and the existing staff reporting scheme. In a subsequent study these tools will be used to provide information to wards/units about their priorities for patient safety. A patient panel will provide steering to the research. Discussion The PMOS and PIRT aim to provide a reliable means of eliciting patient views about patient safety. Both interventions are likely to have relevance and practical utility for all NHS hospital trusts.

BackgroundPrevious research has established health professionals as secondary victims of medical error, with the identification of a range of emotional and psychological repercussions that may occur as a result of involvement in error.2 3 Due to the vast range of emotional and psychological outcomes, research to date has been inconsistent in the variables measured and tools used. Therefore, differing conclusions have been drawn as to the nature of the impact of error on professionals and the subsequent repercussions for their team, patients and healthcare institution. A systematic review was conducted.MethodsData sources were identified using database searches, with additional reference and hand searching. Eligibility criteria were applied to all studies identified, resulting in a total of 24 included studies. Quality assessment was conducted with the included studies using a tool that was developed as part of this research, but due to the limited number and diverse nature of studies, no exclusions were made on this basis.ResultsReview findings suggest that there is consistent evidence for the widespread impact of medical error on health professionals. Psychological repercussions may include negative states such as shame, self-doubt, anxiety and guilt. Despite much attention devoted to the assessment of negative outcomes, the potential for positive outcomes resulting from error also became apparent, with increased assertiveness, confidence and improved colleague relationships reported.ConclusionIt is evident that involvement in a medical error can elicit a significant psychological response from the health professional involved. However, a lack of literature around coping and support, coupled with inconsistencies and weaknesses in methodology, may need be addressed in future work.

OBJECTIVES:To empirically compare 2 different commonly used failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) scoring procedures with respect to their resultant failure mode scores and prioritizationa mathematical procedure, where scores are assigned independently by FMEA team members and averaged, and a consensus procedure, where scores are agreed on by the FMEA team via discussion. METHODS:A multidisciplinary team undertook a Healthcare FMEA of chemotherapy administration. This included mapping the chemotherapy process, identifying and scoring failure modes (potential errors) for each process step, and generating remedial strategies to counteract them. Failure modes were scored using both an independent mathematical procedure and a team consensus procedure. RESULTS:Almost three-fifths of the 30 failure modes generated were scored differently by the 2 procedures, and for just more than one-third of cases, the score discrepancy was substantial. Using the Healthcare FMEA prioritization cutoff score, almost twice as many failure modes were prioritized by the consensus procedure than by the mathematical procedure. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to empirically demonstrate that different FMEA scoring procedures can score and prioritize failure modes differently. It found considerable variability in individual team members' opinions on scores, which highlights the subjective and qualitative nature of failure mode scoring. A consensus scoring procedure may be most appropriate for FMEA as it allows variability in individuals' scores and rationales to become apparent and to be discussed and resolved by the team. It may also yield team learning and communication benefits unlikely to result from a mathematical procedure.

BackgroundPatient safety measurement remains a global challenge. Patients are an important but neglected source of learning; however, little is known about what patients can add to our understanding of safety. We sought to understand the incidence and nature of patient-reported safety concerns in hospital.MethodsFeedback about the experience of safety within hospital was gathered from 2471 inpatients as part of a multicentre, waitlist cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention, undertaken within 33 wards across three English NHS Trusts, between May 2013 and September 2014. Patient volunteers, supported by researchers, developed a classification framework of patient-reported safety concerns from a random sample of 231 reports. All reports were then classified using the patient-developed categories. Following this, all patient-reported safety concerns underwent a two-stage clinical review process for identification of patient safety incidents.ResultsOf the 2471 inpatients recruited, 579 provided 1155 patient-reported incident reports. 14 categories were developed for classification of reports, with communication the most frequently occurring (22%), followed by staffing issues (13%) and problems with the care environment (12%). 406 of the total 1155 patient incident reports (35%) were classified by clinicians as a patient safety incident according to the standard definition. 1 in 10 patients (264 patients) identified a patient safety incident, with medication errors the most frequently reported incident.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that patients can provide insight about safety that complements existing patient safety measurement, with a frequency of reported patient safety incidents that is similar to those obtained via case note review. However, patients provide a unique perspective about hospital safety which differs from and adds to current definitions of patient safety incidents.Trial registration numberISRCTN07689702; pre-results.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment intervention.DesignA multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingClusters were 33 hospital wards within five hospitals in the UK.ParticipantsAll patients able to give informed consent were eligible to take part. Wards were allocated to the intervention or control condition.InterventionThe ward-level intervention comprised two tools: (1) a questionnaire that asked patients about factors contributing to safety (patient measure of safety (PMOS)) and (2) a proforma for patients to report both safety concerns and positive experiences (patient incident reporting tool). Feedback was considered in multidisciplinary action planning meetings.MeasurementsPrimary outcomes were routinely collected ward-level harm-free care (HFC) scores and patient-level feedback on safety (PMOS).ResultsIntervention uptake and retention of wards was 100% and patient participation was high (86%). We found no significant effect of the intervention on any outcomes at 6 or 12 months. However, for new harms (ie, those for which the wards were directly accountable) intervention wards did show greater, though non-significant, improvement compared with control wards. Analyses also indicated that improvements were largest for wards that showed the greatest compliance with the intervention.LimitationsAdherence to the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. Patient safety outcomes may represent too blunt a measure.ConclusionsPatients are willing to provide feedback about the safety of their care. However, we were unable to demonstrate any overall effect of this intervention on either measure of patient safety and therefore cannot recommend this intervention for wider uptake. Findings indicate promise for increasing HFC where wards implement ≥75% of the intervention components.Trial registration numberISRCTN07689702; pre-results.

Background Patients have the potential to provide feedback on the safety of their care. Recently, tools have been developed that ask patients to provide feedback on those factors that are known to contribute to safety, therefore providing information that can be used proactively to manage safety in hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the safety information provided by patients is different from that provided by staff and whether it is related to safety outcomes. Method Data were collected from 33 hospital wards across 3 acute hospital Trusts in the UK. Staff on these wards were asked to complete the four outcome measures of the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture, while patients were asked to complete the Patient Measure of Safety and the friends and family test. We also collated publicly reported safety outcome data for ‘harm-free care’ on each ward. This patient safety thermometer measure is used in the UK NHS to record the percentage of patients on a single day of each month on every ward who have received harm-free care (ie, no pressure ulcers, falls, urinary tract infections and hospital acquired new venous thromboembolisms). These data were used to address questions about the relationship between measures and the extent to which patient and staff perceptions of safety predict safety outcomes. Results The friends and family test, a single item measure of patient experience was associated with patients’ perceptions of safety, but was not associated with safety outcomes. Staff responses to the patient safety culture survey were not significantly correlated with patient responses to the patient measure of safety, but both independently predicted safety outcomes. The regression models showed that staff perceptions (adjusted r2=0.39) and patient perceptions (adjusted r2=0.30) of safety independently predicted safety outcomes. When entered together both measures accounted for 49% of the variance in safety outcomes (adjusted r2=0.49), suggesting that there is overlap but some unique variance is also explained by these two measures. Based on responses to the Patient Measure of Safety it was also possible to identify differences between the acute Hospital Trusts. Discussion The findings suggest that although the views of patients and staff predict some overlapping variance in patient safety outcomes, both also offer a unique perspective on patient safety, contributing independently to the prediction of safety outcomes. These findings suggest that feedback from patients about the safety of the care that they receive can be used, in addition to data from staff to drive safety improvements in healthcare. Trial registration number ISRCTN07689702.