H Calsbeek

Performance measurements in diabetes care: the complex task of selecting quality indicators

PURPOSE To review the literature on the content and development of the sets of quality indicators used in studies on the quality of diabetes care in primary care settings. DATA SOURCES The MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched for relevant articles published up to January 2011. STUDY SELECTION and data extraction We included studies on the quality of adult diabetes care, using quality indicators. We excluded studies focusing on the hospital setting, patient subgroups, specific components of diabetes care and specific outcomes. In total, 102 studies (including 102 sets and 1494 indicators) were analyzed by two independent reviewers, using the criteria of the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse and international guidelines to document the content and selection of the identified indicators. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS Sets varied greatly in number, content and definitions of quality indicators. Most of the indicators concerned HbA1C, lipids, blood pressure, eye and foot examination and urinalysis. Few sets included indicators on lifestyle counseling, patient experiences, healthcare structure or access to healthcare providers. Seventy sets did not specify explicit selection criteria, and 19 of these did not report the sources of the indicators. CONCLUSIONS Sets of quality indicators are diverse in number, content and definitions. This diversity reflects a lack of uniformity in the concept of diabetes care quality and hinders the interpretation of and comparison between quality assessments. Methodology regarding defining constructs such as the quality of diabetes care and indicator selection procedures is available and should be used more rigorously.

The impact of a standardized incident reporting system in the perioperative setting: a single center experience on 2,563 'near-misses' and adverse events

BackgroundThe reduction of perioperative harm is a major priority of in-hospital health care and the reporting of incidents and their causes is an important source of information to improve perioperative patient safety. We explored the number, nature and causes of voluntarily reported perioperative incidents in order to highlight the areas where further efforts are required to improve patient safety.MethodsData from the Hospital Incident Management System (HIMS), entered in the period from July 2009 to July 2012, were analyzed in a Dutch university hospital. Employees in the perioperatve field filled out a semi-structured digital form of the reporting system. The risk classification of the reported adverse events and ‘near misses’ was based on the estimated patient consequences and the risk of recurrence, according to national guidelines. Predefined reported incident causes were categorized as human, organizational, technical and patient related.ResultsIn total, 2,563 incidents (1,300 adverse events and 1,263 ‘near-miss’ events) were reported during 67,360 operations. Reporters were anesthesia, operating room and recovery nurses (37%), ward nurses (31%), physicians (17%), administrative personnel (5%), others (6%) and unmentioned (3%). A total of 414 (16%) adverse events had patient consequences (which affected 0,6% of all surgery patients), estimated as catastrophic in 2, very serious in 34, serious in 105, and marginally serious in 273 cases. Shortcomings in communication was the most frequent reported type of incidents. Non-compliance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs: instructions, regulations, protocols and guidelines) was reported with 877 (34%) of incident reports. In total, 1,194 (27%) voluntarily reported causes were SOP-related, mainly human-based (79%) and partially organization-based (21%). SOP-related incidents were not associated with more patient consequences than other voluntarily reported incidents. Furthermore ‘mistake or forgotten’ (15%) and ‘communication problems’ (11%) were frequently reported causes of incidents.ConclusionsThe analysis of voluntarily reported perioperative incidents identified an association between perioperative patient safety problems and human failure, such as SOP non-compliance, mistakes, forgetting, and shortcomings in communication. The data suggest that professionals themselves indicate that SOP compliance in combination with other human failures provide room for improvement.

Development and measurement of perioperative patient safety indicators

BACKGROUND To improve perioperative patient safety, hospitals are implementing evidence-based perioperative safety guidelines. To facilitate this process, it is important to provide insight into current practice. For this purpose, we aimed to develop patient safety indicators. METHODS The RAND-modified Delphi method was used to develop a set of patient safety indicators based on the perioperative guidelines. First, a core group of experts systematically selected recommendations from the guidelines. Then, an expert panel of representative professionals appraised the recommendations against safety criteria, prioritized them and reached consensus about 11 patient safety indicators. Measurability, applicability, improvement potential (based on current practice) and discriminatory capacity of each indicator were pilot tested in eight hospitals. RESULTS Seven structure, two process and two outcome indicators were developed covering the entire perioperative care process. Most indicators showed good applicability (N=11), improvement potential (N=6) and discriminatory capacity (N=7). Four indicators were difficult to measure. Improvement opportunities concerned the use of perioperative stops, timely administration of antibiotics, availability of protocols on perioperative anticoagulants and on prospective risk analysis of medical equipment, presence of a surveillance system for postoperative wound infections, and a morbidity and mortality registration. CONCLUSIONS Using a systematic, stepwise method 11 patient safety indicators were developed for internal assessment, monitoring and improvement of the perioperative care process. There was large variation in guideline adherence between and within hospitals, identifying opportunities for improvement in the quality of perioperative care.

Development of the Surgical Patient safety Observation Tool (SPOT)

A Surgical Patient safety Observation Tool (SPOT) was developed and tested in a multicentre observational pilot study. The tool enables monitoring and benchmarking perioperative safety performance across departments and hospitals, covering international patient safety goals.

Development and validation of a Self-assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS)

Patient safety is a fundamental value of healthcare to avoid patient harm. Non‐compliance with patient safety standards may result in patient harm and is therefore a global concern. A Self‐assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS) monitoring and benchmarking compliance to safety standards was validated in a multicentre pilot study.

Patient Education May Improve Perioperative Safety.

Importance: There is a growing interest in enabling ways for patients to participate in their own care to improve perioperative safety, but little is known about the effectiveness of interventions enhancing an active patient role. Objective: To evaluate the effect of patient participation on perioperative safety. Evidence review: We conducted a systematic review by searching the Cochrane, PubMed and EMBASE databases without a time limit for publications on the effect of patient-related interventions on perioperative safety. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and cohort studies. The included studies were analyzed for type of intervention, safety outcomes, effects and quality. Results: Thirteen studies were included: eight RCT’s, four cohort studies and one quasi-experimental study. All studies concerned a preoperative structured educational intervention on postoperative self-management activities of patients, such as everyday movements, coughing, getting out of bed or exercising. Safety outcomes were complications, in-hospital falls and mortality. Results from eleven studies indicate positive effects of such patient-related interventions. Conclusion and relevance: Patients appear able to improve their perioperative safety by participating in preoperative structured educational programs about postoperative regimes. Educational programs on self-management activities should be integrated in the preoperative trajectory. Further research should address the most effective components and timing of education, explore other kinds of patient involvement and link the robustness of the intervention, e.g. in terms of behavior change, to perioperative patient safety outcomes.