Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients are increasingly asking for their health data. Yet, little is known about what motivates patients to engage with the electronic health record (EHR). Furthermore, quality-focused mechanisms for patients to comment about their records are lacking. We aimed to learn more about patient experiences with reading and providing feedback on their visit notes. We developed a patient feedback tool linked to OpenNotes as part of a pilot quality improvement initiative focused on patient engagement. Patients who had appointments with members of 2 primary care teams piloting the program between August 2014-2015 were eligible to participate. We asked patients what they liked about reading notes and about using a feedback tool and analyzed all patient reports submitted during the pilot period. Two researchers coded the qualitative responses (κ=.74). Patients and care partners submitted 260 reports. Among these, 98.5% (256/260) of reports indicated that the reporting tool was valuable, and 68.8% (179/260) highlighted what patients liked about reading notes and the OpenNotes patient reporting tool process. We identified 4 themes describing what patients value about note content: confirm and remember next steps, quicker access and results, positive emotions, and sharing information with care partners; and 4 themes about both patients' use of notes and the feedback tool: accuracy and correcting mistakes, partnership and engagement, bidirectional communication and enhanced education, and importance of feedback. Patients and care partners who read notes and submitted feedback reported greater engagement and the desire to help clinicians improve note accuracy. Aspects of what patients like about using both notes as well as a feedback tool highlight personal, relational, and safety benefits. Future efforts to engage patients through the EHR may be guided by what patients value, offering opportunities to strengthen care partnerships between patients and clinicians.

BackgroundWidespread attention to structural racism has heightened interest in disparities in the quality of care delivered to racial/ethnic minorities and other vulnerable populations. These groups may also be at increased risk of patient safety events.ObjectiveTo examine differences in inpatient patient safety events for vulnerable populations defined by race/ethnicity, insurance status and limited English proficiency (LEP).DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingSingle tertiary care academic medical centre.ParticipantsInpatient admissions of those aged ≥18 years from 1 October 2014 to 31 December 2018.MeasurementsPrimary exposures of interest were self-identified race/ethnicity, Medicaid insurance/uninsured and LEP. The primary outcome of interest was the total number of patient safety events, defined as any event identified by a modified version of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement global trigger tool that automatically identifies patient safety events (‘automated’) from the electronic record or by the hospital-wide voluntary provider reporting system (‘voluntary’). Negative binomial models were used to adjust for demographic and clinical factors. We also stratified results by automated and voluntary.ResultsWe studied 141 877 hospitalisations, of which 13.6% had any patient safety event. In adjusted analyses, Asian race/ethnicity was associated with a lower event rate (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); LEP patients had a lower risk of any patient safety event and voluntary events (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94). Asian and Latino race/ethnicity were also associated with a lower rate of voluntary events but no difference in risk of automated events. Black race was associated with an increased risk of automated events (IRR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20).LimitationsThis is a single centre study.ConclusionsA commonly used method for monitoring patient safety problems, namely voluntary incident reporting, may underdetect safety events in vulnerable populations.

BackgroundOpenNotes, a national movement inviting patients to read their clinicians' notes online, may enhance safety through patient-reported documentation errors.ObjectiveTo test an OpenNotes patient reporting tool focused on safety concerns.MethodsWe invited 6225 patients through a patient portal to provide note feedback in a quality improvement pilot between August 2014 and 2015. A link at the end of the note led to a 9-question survey. Patient Relations personnel vetted responses, shared safety concerns with providers and documented whether changes were made.Results2736/6225(44%) of patients read notes; among these, 1 in 12 patients used the tool, submitting 260 reports. Nearly all (96%) respondents reported understanding the note. Patients and care partners documented potential safety concerns in 23% of reports; 2% did not understand the care plan and 21% reported possible mistakes, including medications, existing health problems, something important missing from the note or current symptoms. Among these, 64% were definite or possible safety concerns on clinician review, and 57% of cases confirmed with patients resulted in a change to the record or care. The feedback tool exceeded the reporting rate of our ambulatory online clinician adverse event reporting system several-fold. After a year, 99% of patients and care partners found the tool valuable, 97% wanted it to continue, 98% reported unchanged or improved relationships with their clinician, and none of the providers in the small pilot reported worsening workflow or relationships with patients.ConclusionsPatients and care partners reported potential safety concerns in about one-quarter of reports, often resulting in a change to the record or care. Early data from an OpenNotes patient reporting tool may help engage patients as safety partners without apparent negative consequences for clinician workflow or patient-clinician relationships.

While telehealth has been available for decades, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented demand arose for the remote delivery of safe and reliable assessments and treatment recommendations via computers, smart phones, and tablets. Institutions and individual providers needed to accelerate their adoption of virtual care. This ability to provide remote evaluations has helped to protect patients and providers at this time when physical distancing is a priority. This rapid shift to telemedicine has also meant that many providers, with limited experience or training in the virtual delivery of care, were required to adapt to new and unfamiliar technologies as part of their daily practice of medicine. Institutions and individuals have recognized that this sudden and unexpected expansion of virtual care had the potential to increase patient safety risks. Given that telemedicine will remain a mainstay after the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be important to focus on quality and safety issues that are likely to arise but as yet remain to be appreciated. This chapter explores patient safety guidance.

Objectives. Among the consequences of downsizing and cost containment in hospitals are major changes in the work life of nurses. As hospitals become smaller, patient acuity rises, and the job of nursing becomes more technical and difficult. This article examines the effects of changes in the hospital environment on nurses' job satisfaction and voluntary turnover between 1993 and 1994. Methods. Data were collected in a longitudinal survey of 736 hospital nurses in one hospital to examine correlates of change in aspects of job satisfaction and predictors of leaving among nurses who terminated in that period. Results. Unadjusted results showed decline in most aspects of satisfaction as measured by Hinshaw and Atwood's and Price and Mueller's scales. Multivariate analysis indicated that the most important determinants of low satisfaction were poor instrumental communication within the organization and too great a workload. Intent to leave was predicted by the perception of little promotional opportunity, high routinization, low decision latitude, and poor communication. Predictors of turnover were fewer years on the job, expressed intent to leave, and not enough time to do the job well. Conclusions. The authors conclude that although many aspects of job satisfaction are diminished, some factors predicting low satisfaction and turnover may be amenable to change by hospital administrators.

Adverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events. In a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%). Adverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).