Cordula Wagner

The psychometric properties of the 'Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture' in Dutch hospitals.

BackgroundIn many different countries the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) is used to assess the safety culture in hospitals. Accordingly, the questionnaire has been translated into Dutch for application in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to examine the underlying dimensions and psychometric properties of the questionnaire in Dutch hospital settings, and to compare these results with the original questionnaire used in USA hospital settings.MethodsThe HSOPS was completed by 583 staff members of four general hospitals, three teaching hospitals, and one university hospital in the Netherlands. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to examine the applicability of the factor structure of the American questionnaire to the Dutch data. Explorative factor analyses were performed to examine whether another composition of items and factors would fit the data better. Supplementary psychometric analyses were performed, including internal consistency and construct validity.ResultsThe confirmatory factor analyses were based on the 12-factor model of the original questionnaire and resulted in a few low reliability scores. 11 Factors were drawn with explorative factor analyses, with acceptable reliability scores and a good construct validity. Two items were removed from the questionnaire. The composition of the factors was very similar to that of the original questionnaire. A few items moved to another factor and two factors turned out to combine into a six-item dimension. All other dimensions consisted of two to five items.ConclusionThe Dutch translation of the HSOPS consists of 11 factors with acceptable reliability and good construct validity. and is similar to the original HSOPS factor structure.

Community care in Europe. The Aged in HOme Care project (AdHOC)

Background and aims: Community care for older people is increasing dramatically in most European countries as the preferred option to hospital andlong-term care. While there has been a rapid expansion in Evidence-Based Medicine, apart from studies of specific interventions such as home visiting and hospital at home (specialist visits or hospital services provided to people in their own homes in the community), there is little evidence of characteristics of the recipients of community care services or the organisation of services that produce the best outcomes for them and their informal carers. The AdHOC Study was designed to compare outcomes of different models of community care using a structured comparison of services and a comprehensive standardised assessment instrument across 11 European countries. This paper describes the study and baseline data. Methods: 4,500 people 65 years and older already receiving home care services within the urban areas selected in each country were randomly sampled. They were assessed with the MDS-HC (Minimum Data Set-Home Care) instrument, containing over 300 items, including socio-demographic, physical and cognitive characteristics of patients as well as medical diagnoses and medications received. These data were linked to information on the setting, services structures and services utilization, including use of hospital and long-term care. After baseline assessment, patients were re-evaluated at 6 months with an abbreviated version of the instrument, and then at the end of one year. Data collection was performed by specially-trained personnel. In this paper, socio-demographics, physical and cognitive function and provision of hours of formal care are compared between countries at baseline. Results: The final study sample comprised 3,785 patients; mean age was 82±7.2 years, 74.2% were females. Marital and living status reflected close family relationships in southern Europe relative to Nordic countries, where 5 times as many patients live alone. Recipients of community care in France and Italy are characterised by very high physical and cognitive impairment compared with those in northern Europe, who have comparatively little impairment in Activities of Daily Living and cognitive function. The provision of formal care to people with similar dependency varies extremely widely with very little formal care in Italy and more than double the average across all levels of dependency in the UK. Conclusions: The AdHOC study, by virtue of the use of a common comprehensive standardised assessment instrument, is a unique tool in examining older recipients of community care services in European countries and their widely varied organisation. The extreme differences seen in dependency and hours of care illustrate the probable contribution the study will make to developing an evidence based on the structure, quantity and targeting of community care, which will have major policy implications.

Design of a retrospective patient record study on the occurrence of adverse events among patients in Dutch hospitals.

BackgroundVarious international studies have shown that a substantial number of patients suffer from injuries or even die as a result of care delivered in hospitals. The occurrence of injuries among patients caused by health care management in Dutch hospitals has never been studied systematically. Therefore, an epidemiological study was initiated to determine the incidence, type and impact of adverse events among discharged and deceased patients in Dutch hospitals.Methods/DesignThree stage retrospective patient record review study in 21 hospitals of 8400 patient records of discharged or deceased patients in 2004. The records were reviewed by trained nurses and physicians between August 2005 and October 2006. In addition to the determination of presence, the degree of preventability, and causes of adverse events, also location, timing, classification, and most responsible specialty of the adverse events were measured. Moreover, patient and admission characteristics and the quality of the patient records were recorded.DiscussionIn this paper we report on the design of the retrospective patient record study on the occurrence of adverse events in Dutch hospitals. Attention is paid to the strengths and limitations of the study design. Furthermore, alterations made in the original research protocol in comparison with former international studies are described in detail.

Speaking up for patient safety by hospital-based health care professionals: a literature review

BackgroundSpeaking up is important for patient safety, but often, health care professionals hesitate to voice concerns. Understanding the influencing factors can help to improve speaking-up behaviour and team communication. This review focused on health care professionals’ speaking-up behaviour for patient safety and aimed at (1) assessing the effectiveness of speaking up, (2) evaluating the effectiveness of speaking-up training, (3) identifying the factors influencing speaking-up behaviour, and (4) developing a model for speaking-up behaviour.MethodsFive databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for English articles describing health care professionals’ speaking-up behaviour as well as those evaluating the relationship between speaking up and patient safety. Influencing factors were identified and then integrated into a model of voicing behaviour.ResultsIn total, 26 studies were identified in 27 articles. Some indicated that hesitancy to speak up can be an important contributing factor in communication errors and that training can improve speaking-up behaviour. Many influencing factors were found: (1) the motivation to speak up, such as the perceived risk for patients, and the ambiguity or clarity of the clinical situation; (2) contextual factors, such as hospital administrative support, interdisciplinary policy-making, team work and relationship between other team members, and attitude of leaders/superiors; (3) individual factors, such as job satisfaction, responsibility toward patients, responsibility as professionals, confidence based on experience, communication skills, and educational background; (4) the perceived efficacy of speaking up, such as lack of impact and personal control; (5) the perceived safety of speaking up, such as fear for the responses of others and conflict and concerns over appearing incompetent; and (6) tactics and targets, such as collecting facts, showing positive intent, and selecting the person who has spoken up.ConclusionsHesitancy to speak up can be an important contributing factor to communication errors. Our model helps us to understand how health care professionals think about voicing their concerns. Further research is required to investigate the relative importance of different factors.

Measuring patient safety culture: an assessment of the clustering of responses at unit level and hospital level

Objectives: To test the claim that the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) measures patient safety culture instead of mere individual attitudes and to determine the most appropriate level (individual, unit or hospital level) for interventions aimed at improving the culture of patient safety. Methods: National patient safety culture data were used from 1889 hospital staff working at 87 units in 19 hospitals across The Netherlands. The multilevel structure of the variation of responses to the 11 dimensions of the questionnaire was explored by fitting three-level random intercept models: individual, unit and hospital level. Results: The unit level was the dominating level for the clustering of responses to the 11 dimensions. Intraclass correlations (ICC) at unit level ranged from 4.3 to 31.7, representing considerable higher-level variation. For three dimensions of patient safety culture, there was significant clustering of responses at hospital level as well: (1) Feedback about and learning from error, (2) Teamwork across hospital units and (3) Non-punitive response to error. Conclusions: At a conceptual level, the detection of clustering of responses within units and hospitals confirms the claim that the HSOPS measures group culture and not just individual attitudes. In addition, the results have implications for interventions on patient safety culture. Improvement efforts should be directed at their most relevant organisational level. In general, improvement efforts on patient safety culture should be addressed at the unit level, rather than the individual or hospital level.

Direct medical costs of adverse events in Dutch hospitals

BackgroundUp to now, costs attributable to adverse events (AEs) and preventable AEs in the Netherlands were unknown. We assessed the total direct medical costs associated with AEs and preventable AEs in Dutch hospitals to gain insight in opportunities for cost savings.MethodsTrained nurses and physicians retrospectively reviewed 7926 patient records in 21 hospitals. Additional patient information of 7889 patients was received from the Dutch registration of hospital information. Direct medical costs attributable to AEs were assessed by measuring excess length of stay and additional medical procedures after an AE occurred. Costs were valued using Dutch standardized cost prices.ResultsThe annual direct medical costs in Dutch hospitals were estimated at a total of euro 355 million for all AEs and euro 161 million for preventable AEs in 2004. The total number of hospital admissions in which a preventable AE occurred was 30,000 (2.3% of all admissions) and more than 300,000 (over 3% of all bed days) bed days were attributable to preventable AEs in 2004. Multilevel analysis showed that variance in direct medical costs was not determined by differences between hospitals or hospital departments.ConclusionThe estimates of the total preventable direct medical costs of AEs indicate that they form a substantial part (1%) of the expenses of the national health care budget and are of importance to hospital management. The cost driver of the direct medical costs is the excess length of stay (including readmissions) in a hospital. Insight in which determinants are associated with high preventable costs will offer useful information for policymakers and hospital management to determine starting points for interventions to reduce the costs of preventable AEs.

Changes in adverse event rates in hospitals over time: a longitudinal retrospective patient record review study

Objective To determine the change in adverse event (AE) rates and preventable AE rates over time, identify certain patient risk groups and discuss factors influencing the outcome. Design Longitudinal retrospective patient record review study. Setting and participants A random sample of 21 hospitals in The Netherlands in 2004, and 20 hospitals in 2008. In each hospital, 400 patient admissions were included in 2004, and 200 in 2008. Main outcome measures AEs and preventable AEs. Results Multilevel analyses of 11 883 patient records (7.887 in 2004, 3.996 in 2008) showed that the rate of patients experiencing an AE increased from 4.1% (95% CI 3.3% to 5.1%) in 2004 to 6.2% (95% CI 5.0% to 7.6%) in 2008. The preventable AE rate remained relatively stable at 1.8% (95% CI 1.3% to 2.4%) in 2004 and 1.6% (95% CI 1.2% to 2.3%) in 2008. The risk of experiencing a preventable AE was increasingly higher for patients admitted to a surgical unit (OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.16) in 2004 and 3.32 (95% CI 2.17 to 5.07)) in 2008. More than 50% of all AEs were related to surgery. Indications were found that differences in the risk of experiencing a preventable AE between hospital departments were larger in 2008 than in 2004, while differences between hospitals themselves were smaller. Conclusions Patient harm related to healthcare is a persistent problem that is hard to influence. Measuring AEs over time stresses the continuing urgency, and also identifies possible areas for improvement.

Patient record review of the incidence, consequences, and causes of diagnostic adverse events

BACKGROUND Diagnostic errors often result in patient harm. Previous studies have shown that there is large variability in results in different medical specialties. The present study explored diagnostic adverse events (DAEs) across all medical specialties to determine their incidence and to gain insight into their causes and consequences by comparing them with other AE types. METHODS A structured review study of 7926 patient records was conducted. Randomly selected records were reviewed by trained physicians in 21 hospitals across the Netherlands. The method used in this study was based on the well-known protocol developed by the Harvard Medical Practice Study. All AEs with diagnostic error as the main category were selected for analysis and were compared with other AE types. RESULTS Diagnostic AEs occurred in 0.4% of hospital admissions and represented 6.4% of all AEs. Of the DAEs, 83.3% were judged to be preventable. Human failure was identified as the main cause (96.3%), although organizational- and patient-related factors also contributed (25.0% and 30.0%, respectively). The consequences of DAEs were more severe (higher mortality rate) than for other AEs (29.1% vs 7.4%). CONCLUSIONS Diagnostic AEs represent an important error type, and the consequences of DAEs are severe. The causes of DAEs were mostly human, with the main causes being knowledge-based mistakes and information transfer problems. Prevention strategies should focus on training physicians and on the organization of knowledge and information transfer.

To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?

BackgroundPatient record review is believed to be the most useful method for estimating the rate of adverse events among hospitalised patients. However, the method has some practical and financial disadvantages. Some of these disadvantages might be overcome by using existing reporting systems in which patient safety issues are already reported, such as incidents reported by healthcare professionals and complaints and medico-legal claims filled by patients or their relatives. The aim of the study is to examine to what extent the hospital reporting systems cover the adverse events identified by patient record review.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study using a database from a record review study of 5375 patient records in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands. Trained nurses and physicians using a method based on the protocol of The Harvard Medical Practice Study previously reviewed the records. Four reporting systems were linked with the database of reviewed records: 1) informal and 2) formal complaints by patients/relatives, 3) medico-legal claims by patients/relatives and 4) incident reports by healthcare professionals. For each adverse event identified in patient records the equivalent was sought in these reporting systems by comparing dates and descriptions of the events. The study focussed on the number of adverse event matches, overlap of adverse events detected by different sources, preventability and severity of consequences of reported and non-reported events and sensitivity and specificity of reports.ResultsIn the sample of 5375 patient records, 498 adverse events were identified. Only 18 of the 498 (3.6%) adverse events identified by record review were found in one or more of the four reporting systems. There was some overlap: one adverse event had an equivalent in both a complaint and incident report and in three cases a patient/relative used two or three systems to complain about an adverse event. Healthcare professionals reported relatively more preventable adverse events than patients.Reports are not sensitive for adverse events nor do reports have a positive predictive value.ConclusionsIn order to detect the same adverse events as identified by patient record review, one cannot rely on the existing reporting systems within hospitals.

The inter-rater agreement of retrospective assessments of adverse events does not improve with two reviewers per patient record

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the inter-rater agreement of the record review process of the Dutch Adverse Event study, which we aimed to improve by the involvement of two independent physician reviewers per record instead of one including a consensus procedure in case of disagreement. METHODS The inter-rater agreement within pairs of physicians (independent review between physician A+B) and between pairs of physicians (independent review between physician A+B and C+D) was measured to evaluate the record review process with two physicians including a consensus procedure, with 4,272 and 119 records, respectively. RESULTS The inter-rater agreement within pairs of physicians was substantial for the determination of adverse events (AEs) with a kappa of 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61, 0.68). The inter-rater agreement between pairs of physicians was fair for the determination of AEs with a kappa of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.45). CONCLUSION A record review process with two physicians per record including a consensus procedure to assess AEs is not more reliable than a record review process with one physician. Retrospective estimates of incidence of AEs from record review studies should be interpreted with caution. Improvement of the method is necessary for monitoring incidence of AEs over time at a national level.