Anne Schuster

Patient safety incident reporting: a qualitative study of thoughts and perceptions of experts 15 years after ‘To Err is Human’

One of the key recommendations of the Institute of Medicines (IOM) report, To Err is Human, 15 years ago was for greater attention to incident reporting in healthcare, analogous to the role it has played in aviation and other high-risk industries. With the passage of time and maturation of the patient safety field, we conducted semistructured interviews with 11 international patient safety experts with knowledge of the US healthcare and meeting at least one of the following criteria: (1) involved in the development of the IOMs recommendations, (2) responsible for the design and/or implementation of national or regional incident reporting systems, (3) conducted research on patient safety/incident reporting at a national level. Five key challenges emerged to explain why incident reporting has not reached its potential: poor processing of incident reports (triaging, analysis, recommendations), inadequate engagement of doctors, insufficient subsequent visible action, inadequate funding and institutional support of incident reporting systems and inadequate usage of evolving health information technology. Leading patient safety experts acknowledge the current challenges of incident reports. The future of incident reporting lies in targeted incident reporting, effective triaging and robust analysis of the incident reports and meaningful engagement of doctors. Incident reporting must be coupled with visible, sustainable action and linkage of incident reports to the electronic health record. If the healthcare industry wants to learn from its mistakes, miss or near miss events, it will need to take incident reporting as seriously as the health budget.

An Environmental Scan of Advance Care Planning Decision Aids for Patients Undergoing Major Surgery: A Study Protocol

BackgroundPatients who undergo major surgery are at risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality. It would be appropriate to initiate advance care planning with patients prior to surgery, but surgeons may experience difficulty initiating such conversations. Rather than focus on changing clinician behavior, advance care planning decision aids can be an innovative vehicle to motivate advance care planning among surgical patients and their families.ObjectiveThe purpose of this paper is to describe a study protocol for conducting an environmental scan concerning advance care planning decision aids that may be relevant to patients undergoing high-risk surgery.Methods/designThis study will gather information from written or verbal data sources that incorporate professional and lay perspectives: a systematic review, a grey literature review, key informant interviews, and patient and family engagement. It is envisioned that this study will generate three outcomes: a synthesis of current evidence, a summary of gaps in knowledge, and a taxonomy of existing advance care planning decision aids.DiscussionThis environmental scan will demonstrate principles of patient-centered outcomes research, and it will exemplify a pioneering approach for reviewing complex interventions. Anticipated limitations are that information will be gathered from a small sample of patients and families, and that potentially relevant information could also be missing from the environmental scan due to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Outcomes from the environmental scan will inform future patient-centered research to develop and evaluate a new decision aid.

Creating an advance-care-planning decision aid for high-risk surgery: a qualitative study

BackgroundHigh-risk surgery patients may lose decision-making capacity as a result of surgical complications. Advance care planning prior to surgery may be beneficial, but remains controversial and is hindered by a lack of appropriate decision aids. This study sought to examine stakeholders’ views on the appropriateness of using decision aids, in general, to support advance care planning among high-risk surgery populations and the design of such a decision aid.MethodsKey informants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone until data collected reached theoretical saturation. Key informants were asked to discuss their thoughts about advance care planning and interventions to support advance care planning, particularly for this population. Researchers took de-identified notes that were analyzed for emerging concordant, discordant, and recurrent themes using interpretative phenomenological analysis.ResultsKey informants described the importance of initiating advance care planning preoperatively, despite potential challenges present in surgical settings. In general, decision aids were viewed as an appropriate approach to support advance care planning for this population. A recipe emerged from the data that outlines tools, ingredients, and tips for success that are needed to design an advance care planning decision aid for high-risk surgical settings.ConclusionsStakeholders supported incorporating advance care planning in high-risk surgical settings and endorsed the appropriateness of using decision aids to do so. Findings will inform the next stages of developing the first advance care planning decision aid for high-risk surgery patients.

Promoting perioperative advance care planning: a systematic review of advance care planning decision aids.

This systematic review identifies possible decision aids that promote perioperative advance care planning (ACP) and synthesizes the available evidence regarding their use. Using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Sociological Abstracts, researchers identified and screened articles for eligibility. Data were abstracted and risk of bias assessed for included articles. Thirty-nine of 5327 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria. Primarily completed in outpatient ambulatory populations, studies evaluated a variety of ACP decision aids. None were evaluated in a perioperative population. Fifty unique outcomes were reported with no head-to-head comparisons conducted. Findings are likely generalizable to a perioperative population and can inform development of a perioperative ACP decision aid. Future studies should compare the effectiveness of ACP decision aids.

Economic Evaluation of a Community Health Worker-Led Health Literacy Intervention to Promote Cancer Screening Among Korean American Women

Objective. The study’s objectives were to calculate the costs and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing a health literacy-focused intervention to promote breast and cervical cancer screenings among Korean American women overdue for these tests. Methods. Researchers estimated the costs of a cluster-randomized controlled trial that evaluated this intervention. Effectiveness was measured as the number of breast or cervical cancer screenings received by women in either the intervention and control arms of the study. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost of each additional screening received by the intervention group. Results. Comparing the intervention and control group, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be US

Why don't end-of-life conversations go viral? A review of videos on YouTube

236 per screening, without program development costs. Conclusion. These findings suggest this program, when compared with others, offered a more cost-effective approach for promoting cancer screening. Local health officials could use this information to guide decisions about reducing cancer disparities among recent immigrant women.

A patient and community-centered approach selecting endpoints for a randomized trial of a novel advance care planning tool

Objective To identify videos on YouTube concerning advance care planning (ACP) and synthesise existing video content and style elements. Methods Informed by stakeholder engagement, two researchers searched YouTube for ACP videos using predefined search terms and snowballing techniques. Videos identified were reviewed and deemed ineligible for analysis if they: targeted healthcare professionals; contained irrelevant content; focused on viewers under the age of 18; were longer than 7 min in duration; received fewer than 150 views; were in a language other than English; or were a duplicate version. For each video, two investigators independently extracted general information as well as video content and stylistic characteristics. Results The YouTube search identified 23 100 videos with 213 retrieved for assessment and 42 meeting eligibility criteria. The majority of videos had been posted to YouTube since 2010 and produced by organisations in the USA (71%). Viewership ranged from 171 to 10 642. Most videos used a documentary style and featured healthcare providers (60%) rather than patients (19%) or families (45%). A minority of videos (29%) used upbeat or hopeful music. The videos frequently focused on completing legal medical documents (86%). Conclusions None of the ACP videos on YouTube went viral and a relatively small number of them contained elements endorsed by stakeholders. In emphasising the completion of legal medical documents, videos may have failed to support more meaningful ACP. Further research is needed to understand the features of videos that will engage patients and the wider community with ACP and palliative and end-of-life care conversations.

A review of paper-based advance care planning aids

Background Despite a movement toward patient-centered outcomes, best practices on how to gather and refine patients’ perspectives on research endpoints are limited. Advanced care planning (ACP) is inherently patient centered and would benefit from patient prioritization of endpoints for ACP-related tools and studies. Objective This investigation sought to prioritize patient-centered endpoints for the content and evaluation of an ACP video being developed for patients undergoing major surgery. We also sought to highlight an approach using complementary engagement and research strategies to document priorities and preferences of patients and other stakeholders. Materials and methods Endpoints identified from a previously published environmental scan were operationalized following rating by a caregiver co-investigator, refinement by a patient co-investigator, review by a stakeholder committee, and validation by patients and family members. Finalized endpoints were taken to a state fair where members of the public who indicated that they or a loved one had undergone major surgery prioritized their most relevant endpoints and provided comments. Results Of the initial 50 ACP endpoints identified from the review, 12 endpoints were selected for public prioritization. At the state fair, 359 individuals prioritized the endpoints, the highest ranking of which was having a meaningful conversation with a physician before surgery (57%). Conclusion Using a novel combination of engagement and research techniques provided the opportunity to understand which endpoints were most important to patients and families and fostered framework development clarifying the differential contributions of engagement and research. Results from this study ultimately changed the content and evaluation of the ACP video.

An advance care plan decision support video before major surgery: a patient- and family-centred approach

BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) aids can help prepare patients, family members, and physicians for in-the-moment medical decision-making. We wished to describe the content and approach of paper-based ACP aids in order to characterize existing aids and inform the development of a new ACP aid.MethodsPaper-based ACP aids were identified through an environmental scan and screened for eligibility. ACP conceptual frameworks and data were gathered via stakeholder engagement and used to inform the coding framework that two investigators used to independently code each aid. A directed content analysis was conducted on these eligible aids. Aids were categorized through a deliberative process with an investigator abstracting general information for each aid.ResultsFifteen aids met the eligibility criteria. They ranged in length from 6 to 78 pages with the average aid written at an eighth-grade reading level. The content analysis revealed that many aids encouraged choosing a surrogate decision maker and informed users about legal medical documents. Fewer than half of the aids facilitated patient clarification of values regarding quality of life issues. The authors identified and termed the following three categories of aids: informative; semi-action oriented; and action-oriented. It was often unclear whether patients contributed to the development or testing of the ACP aids reviewed.ConclusionsMost existing paper-based ACP aids address legal matters such as completing an advance directive. Only a minority elicited patient values and it was unclear whether any were developed in partnership with patients. Future development of ACP aids should account for patient preferences with a goal of supporting in-the-moment medical decision-making.

Exploring the Comparative Effectiveness of Video and Paper Decision Support Tools for Advance Care Planning: A Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (S706)

Objective Video-based advanc care planning (ACP) tools have been studied in varied medical contexts; however, none have been developed for patients undergoing major surgery. Using a patient- and family-centredness approach, our objective was to implement human-centred design (HCD) to develop an ACP decision support video for patients and their family members when preparing for major surgery. Design and methods The study investigators partnered with surgical patients and their family members, surgeons and other health professionals to design an ACP decision support video using key HCD principles. Adapting Maguire’s HCD stages from computer science to the surgical context, while also incorporating Elwyn et al’s specifications for patient-oriented decision support tool development, we used a six-stage HCD process to develop the video: (1) plan HCD process; (2) specify where video will be used; (3) specify user and organisational requirements; (4) produce and test prototypes; (5) carry out user-based assessment; (6) field test with end users. Results Over 450 stakeholders were engaged in the development process contributing to setting objectives, applying for funding, providing feedback on the storyboard and iterations of the decision tool video. Throughout the HCD process, stakeholders’ opinions were compiled and conflicting approaches negotiated resulting in a tool that addressed stakeholders’ concerns. Conclusions Our patient- and family-centred approach using HCD facilitated discussion and the ability to elicit and balance sometimes competing viewpoints. The early engagement of users and stakeholders throughout the development process may help to ensure tools address the stated needs of these individuals. Trial registration number NCT02489799.