Explore the vast range of titles available.

After Action Review is a form of facilitated team learning and review of events. The methodology originated in the United States Army and forms part of the Incident Management Framework in the Irish Health Services. After Action Review has been hypothesized to improve safety culture and the effect of patient safety events on staff (second victim experience) in health care settings. Yet little direct evidence exists to support this and its implementation has not been studied. To investigate the effect of After Action Review on safety culture and second victim experience and to examine After Action Review implementation in a hospital setting. A mixed methods study will be conducted at an Irish hospital. To assess the effect on safety culture and second victim experience, hospital staff will complete surveys before and twelve months after the introduction of After Action Review to the hospital (Hospital Survey on Safety Culture 2.0 and Second Victim Experience and Support Tool). Approximately one in twelve staff will be trained as After Action Review Facilitators using a simulation based training programme. Six months after the After Action Review training, focus groups will be conducted with a stratified random sample of the trained facilitators. These will explore enablers and barriers to implementation using the Theoretical Domains Framework. At twelve months, information will be collected from the trained facilitators and the hospital to establish the quality and resource implications of implementing After Action Review. The results of the study will directly inform local hospital decision-making and national and international approaches to incorporating After Action Review in hospitals and other healthcare settings.

BackgroundIn an era of safety systems, hospital interventions to build a culture of safety deliver organisational learning methodologies for staff. Their benefits to hospital staff are unknown. We examined the literature for evidence of staff outcomes. Research questions were: (1) how is safety culture defined in studies with interventions that aim to enhance it?; (2) what effects do interventions to improve safety culture have on hospital staff?; (3) what intervention features explain these effects? and (4) what staff outcomes and experiences are identified?Methods and analysisWe conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of published literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Health Business Elite and Scopus. We adopted a convergent approach to synthesis and integration. Identified intervention and staff outcomes were categorised thematically and combined with available data on measures and effects.ResultsWe identified 42 articles for inclusion. Safety culture outcomes were most prominent under the themes of leadership and teamwork. Specific benefits for staff included increased stress recognition and job satisfaction, reduced emotional exhaustion, burnout and turnover, and improvements to working conditions. Effects were documented for interventions with longer time scales, strong institutional support and comprehensive theory-informed designs situated within specific units.DiscussionThis review contributes to international evidence on how interventions to improve safety culture may benefit hospital staff and how they can be designed and implemented. A focus on staff outcomes includes staff perceptions and behaviours as part of a safety culture and staff experiences resulting from a safety culture. The results generated by a small number of articles varied in quality and effect, and the review focused only on hospital staff. There is merit in using the concept of safety culture as a lens to understand staff experience in a complex healthcare system.

To assess the effect of a point of care (POC) device for testing lipids and HbA1c in addition to testing by community laboratory facilities (usual practice) on the completion of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessments in general practice. We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial in 20 New Zealand general practices stratified by size and rurality and randomised to POC device plus usual practice or usual practice alone (controls). Patients aged 35-79 years were eligible if they met national guideline criteria for CVD risk assessment. Data on CVD risk assessments were aggregated using a web-based decision support programme common to each practice. Data entered into the on-line CVD risk assessment form could be saved pending blood test results. The primary outcome was the proportion of completed CVD risk assessments. Qualitative data on practice processes for CVD risk assessment and feasibility of POC testing were collected at the end of the study by interviews and questionnaire. The POC testing was supported by a comprehensive quality assurance programme. A CVD risk assessment entry was recorded for 7421 patients in 10 POC practices and 6217 patients in 10 control practices; 99.5% of CVD risk assessments had complete data in both groups (adjusted odds ratio 1.02 [95%CI 0.61-1.69]). There were major external influences that affected the trial: including a national performance target for CVD risk assessment and changes to CVD guidelines. All practices had invested in systems and dedicated staff time to identify and follow up patients to completion. However, the POC device was viewed by most as an additional tool rather than as an opportunity to review practice work flow and leverage the immediate test results for patient education and CVD risk management discussions. Shortly after commencement, the trial was halted due to a change in the HbA1c test assay performance. The trial restarted after the manufacturing issue was rectified but this affected the end use of the device. Performance incentives and external influences were more powerful modifiers of practice behaviours than the POC device in relation to CVD risk assessment completion. The promise of combining risk assessment, communication and management within one consultation was not realised. With shifts in policy focus, the utility of POC devices for patient engagement in CVD preventive care may be demonstrated if fully integrated into the clinical setting. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000607774.

Innovation in the education and training of healthcare staff is required to support complementary approaches to learning from patient safety and everyday events in healthcare. Debriefing is a commonly used learning tool in healthcare education but not in clinical practice. Little is known about how to implement debriefing as an approach to safety learning across a health system. After action review (AAR) is a debriefing approach designed to help groups come to a shared mental model about what happened, why it happened and to identify learning and improvement. This paper describes a digital-based implementation strategy adapted to the Irish healthcare system to promote AAR uptake. The digital strategy aims to assist implementation of national level incident management policies and was collaboratively developed by the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences and the National Quality and Patient Safety Directorate of the Health Service Executive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a well-established in-person AAR training programme was disrupted and this led to the development of a series of open access videos on AAR facilitation skills (which accompany the online version of this paper). These provide: (1) an introduction to the AAR facilitation process; (2) a simulation of a facilitated formal AAR; (3) techniques for handling challenging situations that may arise in an AAR and a (4) reflection on the benefits of the AAR process. These have the potential to be used widely to support learning from patient safety and everyday events including excellent care.

Background In spite of bearing a heavier burden of death, disease and disability, there is mixed evidence as to whether Indigenous Australians utilise more or less healthcare services than other Australians given their elevated risk level. This study analyses the Medicare expenditure and its predictors in a cohort of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Methods The healthcare expenditure of participants of the Kanyini Guidelines Adherence with the Polypill (GAP) pragmatic randomised controlled trial was modelled using linear regression methods. 535 adult (48% Indigenous) participants at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were recruited through 33 primary healthcare services (including 12 Aboriginal Medical Services) across Australia. Results There was no significant difference in the expenditure of Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants in non-remote areas following adjustment for individual characteristics. Indigenous individuals living in remote areas had lower MBS expenditure ($932 per year P  < 0.001) than other individuals. MBS expenditure was found to increase with being aged over 65 years ($128, p  = 0.013), being female ($472, p  = 0.003), lower baseline reported quality of life ($102 per 0.1 decrement of utility p  = 0.004) and a history of diabetes ($324, p  = 0.001), gout ($631, p  = 0.022), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ($469, p  = 0.019) and established CVD whether receiving guideline-recommended treatment prior to the trial ($452, p  = 0.005) or not ($483, p  = 0.04). When controlling for all other characteristics, morbidly obese patients had lower MBS expenditure than other individuals (−$887, p  = 0.002). Conclusion The findings suggest that for the majority of participants, once individuals are engaged with a primary care provider, factors other than whether they are Indigenous determine the level of Medicare expenditure for each person. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 126080005833347.

IntroductionIrish healthcare has undergone extensive change recently with spending cuts and a focus on quality initiatives; however, little is known about adverse event occurrence.ObjectiveTo assess the frequency and nature of adverse events in Irish hospitals.Methods1574 (53% women, mean age 54 years) randomly selected adult inpatient admissions from a sample of eight hospitals, stratified by region and size, across the Republic of Ireland in 2009 were reviewed using two-stage (nurse review of patient charts, followed by physician review of triggered charts) retrospective chart review with electronic data capture. Results were weighted to reflect the sampling strategy. The impact on adverse event rate of differing application of international adverse event criteria was also examined.Results45% of charts were triggered. The prevalence of adverse events in admissions was 12.2% (95% CI 9.5% to 15.5%), with an incidence of 10.3 events per 100 admissions (95% CI 7.5 to 13.1). Over 70% of events were considered preventable. Two-thirds were rated as having a mild-to-moderate impact on the patient, 9.9% causing permanent impairment and 6.7% contributing to death. A mean of 6.1 added bed days was attributed to events, representing an expenditure of €5550 per event. The adverse event rate varied substantially (8.6%–17.0%) when applying different published adverse event eligibility criteria.ConclusionsThis first study of adverse events in Ireland reports similar rates to other countries. In a time of austerity, adverse events in adult inpatients were estimated to cost over €194 million. These results provide important baseline data on the adverse event burden and, alongside web-based chart review, provide an incentive and methodology to monitor future patient-safety initiatives.

ObjectivesTo quantify the prevalence and nature of adverse events in acute Irish hospitals in 2015 and to assess the impact of the National Clinical Programmes and the National Clinical Guidelines on the prevalence of adverse events by comparing these results with the previously published data from 2009.Design and methodsA retrospective chart review of 1605 admissions to eight Irish hospitals in 2015, using identical methods to those used in 2009.ResultsThe percentage of admissions associated with one or more adverse events was unchanged (p=0.48) at 14% (95% CI=10.4% to 18.4%) in 2015 compared with 12.2% (95% CI=9.5% to 15.5%) in 2009. Similarly, the prevalence of preventable adverse events was unchanged (p=0.3) at 7.4% (95% CI=5.3% to 10.5%) in 2015 compared with 9.1% (95% CI=6.9% to 11.9%) in 2009. The incidence densities of preventable adverse events were 5.6 adverse events per 100 admissions (95% CI=3.4 to 8.0) in 2015 and 7.7 adverse events per 100 admissions (95% CI=5.8 to 9.6) in 2009 (p=0.23). However, the percentage of preventable adverse events due to hospital-associated infections decreased to 22.2% (95% CI=15.2% to 31.1%) in 2015 from 33.1% (95% CI=25.6% to 41.6%) in 2009 (p=0.01).ConclusionAdverse event rates remained stable between 2009 and 2015. The percentage of preventable adverse events related to hospital-associated infection decreased, which may represent a positive impact of the related national programmes and guidelines.

Objective To evaluate whether provision of fixed dose combination treatment improves adherence and risk factor control compared with usual care of patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care.Design Open label randomised control trial: IMPACT (IMProving Adherence using Combination Therapy).Setting 54 general practices in the Auckland and Waikato regions of New Zealand, July 2010 to August 2013.Participants 513 adults (including 257 indigenous Māori) at high risk of cardiovascular disease (established cardiovascular disease or five year risk ≥15%) who were recommended for treatment with antiplatelet, statin, and two or more blood pressure lowering drugs. 497 (97%) completed 12 months’ follow-up.Interventions Participants were randomised to continued usual care or to fixed dose combination treatment (with two versions available: aspirin 75 mg, simvastatin 40 mg, and lisinopril 10 mg with either atenolol 50 mg or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg). All drugs in both treatment arms were prescribed by their usual general practitioners and dispensed by local community pharmacists.Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were self reported adherence to recommended drugs (antiplatelet, statin, and two or more blood pressure lowering agents) and mean change in blood pressure and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months.Results Adherence to all four recommended drugs was greater among fixed dose combination than usual care participants at 12 months (81% v 46%; relative risk 1.75, 95% confidence interval 1.52 to 2.03, P<0.001; number needed to treat 2.9, 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 3.7). Adherence for each drug type at 12 months was high in both groups but especially in the fixed dose combination group: for antiplatelet treatment it was 93% fixed dose combination v 83% usual care (P<0.001), for statin 94% v 89% (P=0.06), for combination blood pressure lowering 89% v 59% (P<0.001), and for any blood pressure lowering 96% v 91% (P=0.02). Self reported adherence was highly concordant with dispensing data (dispensing of all four recommended drugs 79% fixed dose combination v 47% usual care, relative risk 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.44 to 1.93, P<0.001). There was no statistically significant improvement in risk factor control between the fixed dose combination and usual care groups over 12 months: the difference in systolic blood pressure was −2.2 mm Hg (−4.5 v −2.3, 95% confidence interval −5.6 to 1.2, P=0.21), in diastolic blood pressure −1.2 mm Hg (−2.1 v −0.9, −3.2 to 0.8, P=0.22) and in low density lipoprotein cholesterol −0.05 mmol/L (−0.20 v −0.15, −0.17 to 0.08, P=0.46). The number of participants with cardiovascular events or serious adverse events was similar in both treatment groups (fixed dose combination 16 v usual care 18 (P=0.73), 99 v 93 (P=0.56), respectively). Fixed dose combination treatment was discontinued in 94 participants (37%). The most commonly reported reason for discontinuation was a side effect (54/75, 72%). Overall, 89% (227/256) of fixed dose combination participants’ general practitioners completed a post-trial survey, and the fixed dose combination strategy was rated as satisfactory or very satisfactory for starting treatment (206/227, 91%), blood pressure control (180/220, 82%), cholesterol control (170/218, 78%), tolerability (181/223, 81%), and prescribing according to local guidelines (185/219, 84%). When participants were asked at 12 months how easy they found taking their prescribed drugs, most responded very easy or easy (224/246, 91% fixed dose combination v 212/246, 86% usual care, P=0.09). At 12 months the change in other lipid fractions, difference in EuroQol-5D, and difference in barriers to adherence did not differ significantly between the treatment groups.Conclusions Among this well treated primary care population, fixed dose combination treatment improved adherence to the combination of all recommended drugs but improvements in clinical risk factors were small and did not reach statistical significance. Acceptability was high for both general practitioners and patients, although the discontinuation rate was high.Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12606000067572.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the effect of polypill-based care on the achievement of 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline targets for blood pressure (BP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and antiplatelet therapy.MethodsWe conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of three randomised clinical trials that compared a strategy using a polypill containing aspirin, statin and antihypertensive therapy with usual care in patients with a prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) event or who were at high risk of their first event. Overall, the trials included 3140 patients from Australia, England, India, Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand (75% male, mean age 62 years and 76% with a prior CVD event). The primary outcome for this study was the proportion of people achieving ESC guideline targets for BP, LDL and antiplatelet therapy.ResultsThose randomised to polypill-based care were more likely than those receiving usual care to achieve recommended targets for BP (62% vs 58%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15), LDL (39% vs 34%, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25) and all three targets for BP, LDL and adherence to antiplatelet therapy (the latter only applicable to those with a prior CVD event) simultaneously (24% vs 19%, RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.47) at 12 months. There was no difference between groups in antiplatelet adherence (96% vs 96%, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01). There was heterogeneity by baseline treatment intensity such that treatment effects increased with the fewer the number of treatments being taken at baseline: for patients taking 3, 2 and 0–1 treatment modalities the RRs for reaching all three guideline goals simultaneously were 1.10 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.30, 22% vs 20%), 1.62 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.42, 27% vs 17%) and 3.07 (95% CI 1.77 to 5.33, 35% vs 11%), respectively.ConclusionsPolypill-based therapy significantly improved the achievement of all three ESC targets for BP, LDL and antiplatelet therapy compared with usual care, particularly among those undertreated at baseline.

BackgroundAfter Action Review is a form of facilitated team learning and review of events. The methodology originated in the United States Army and forms part of the Incident Management Framework in the Irish Health Services. After Action Review has been hypothesized to improve safety culture and the effect of patient safety events on staff (second victim experience) in health care settings. Yet little direct evidence exists to support this and its implementation has not been studied.AimTo investigate the effect of After Action Review on safety culture and second victim experience and to examine After Action Review implementation in a hospital setting.MethodsA mixed methods study will be conducted at an Irish hospital. To assess the effect on safety culture and second victim experience, hospital staff will complete surveys before and twelve months after the introduction of After Action Review to the hospital (Hospital Survey on Safety Culture 2.0 and Second Victim Experience and Support Tool). Approximately one in twelve staff will be trained as After Action Review Facilitators using a simulation based training programme. Six months after the After Action Review training, focus groups will be conducted with a stratified random sample of the trained facilitators. These will explore enablers and barriers to implementation using the Theoretical Domains Framework. At twelve months, information will be collected from the trained facilitators and the hospital to establish the quality and resource implications of implementing After Action Review.DiscussionThe results of the study will directly inform local hospital decision-making and national and international approaches to incorporating After Action Review in hospitals and other healthcare settings.