J. Bryan Sexton

Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys

Abstract Objectives: To survey operating theatre and intensive care unit staff about attitudes concerning error, stress, and teamwork and to compare these attitudes with those of airline cockpit crew. Design: Cross sectional surveys. Setting: Urban teaching and non-teaching hospitals in the United States, Israel, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Major airlines around the world. Participants: 1033 doctors, nurses, fellows, and residents working in operating theatres and intensive care units and over 30 000 cockpit crew members (captains, first officers, and second officers). Main outcome measures: Perceptions of error, stress, and teamwork. Results: Pilots were least likely to deny the effects of fatigue on performance (26% v70% of consultant surgeons and 47% of consultant anaesthetists). Most pilots (97%) and intensive care staff (94%) rejected steep hierarchies (in which senior team members are not open to input from junior members), but only 55% of consultant surgeons rejected such hierarchies. High levels of teamwork with consultant surgeons were reported by 73% of surgical residents, 64% of consultant surgeons, 39% of anaesthesia consultants, 28% of surgical nurses, 25% of anaesthetic nurses, and 10% of anaesthetic residents. Only a third of staff reported that errors are handled appropriately at their hospital. A third of intensive care staff did not acknowledge that they make errors. Over half of intensive care staff reported that they find it difficult to discuss mistakes. Conclusions: Medical staff reported that error is important but difficult to discuss and not handled well in their hospital. Barriers to discussing error are more important since medical staff seem to deny the effect of stress and fatigue on performance. Further problems include differing perceptions of teamwork among team members and reluctance of senior theatre staff to accept input from junior members.

Discrepant attitudes about teamwork among critical care nurses and physicians.

ObjectiveTo measure and compare critical care physicians’ and nurses’ attitudes about teamwork. DesignCross-sectional surveys. SettingEight nonsurgical intensive care units in two teaching and four nonteaching hospitals in the Houston, TX, metropolitan area. SubjectsPhysicians and nurses who worked in the intensive care units. Measurements and Main ResultsThree hundred twenty subjects (90 physicians and 230 nurses) responded to the survey. The response rate was 58% (40% for physicians and 71% for nurses). Only 33% of nurses rated the quality of collaboration and communication with the physicians as high or very high. In contrast, 73% of physicians rated collaboration and communication with nurses as high or very high. By using factor analysis, we developed a seven-item teamwork scale. Multivariate analysis of variance of the items yielded an omnibus (F [7, 163] = 8.37;p < .001), indicating that physicians and nurses perceive their teamwork climate differently. Analysis of individual items revealed that relative to physicians, nurses reported that it is difficult to speak up, disagreements are not appropriately resolved, more input into decision making is needed, and nurse input is not well received. ConclusionsCritical care physicians and nurses have discrepant attitudes about the teamwork they experience with each other. As evidenced by individual item content, this discrepancy includes suboptimal conflict resolution and interpersonal communication skills. These findings may be the result of the differences in status/authority, responsibilities, gender, training, and nursing and physician cultures.

Sustaining reductions in catheter related bloodstream infections in Michigan intensive care units: observational study

Objectives To evaluate the extent to which intensive care units participating in the initial Keystone ICU project sustained reductions in rates of catheter related bloodstream infections. Design Collaborative cohort study to implement and evaluate interventions to improve patients’ safety. Setting Intensive care units predominantly in Michigan, USA. Intervention Conceptual model aimed at improving clinicians’ use of five evidence based recommendations to reduce rates of catheter related bloodstream infections rates, with measurement and feedback of infection rates. During the sustainability period, intensive care unit teams were instructed to integrate this intervention into staff orientation, collect monthly data from hospital infection control staff, and report infection rates to appropriate stakeholders. Main outcome measures Quarterly rate of catheter related bloodstream infections per 1000 catheter days during the sustainability period (19-36 months after implementation of the intervention). Results Ninety (87%) of the original 103 intensive care units participated, reporting 1532 intensive care unit months of data and 300 310 catheter days during the sustainability period. The mean and median rates of catheter related bloodstream infection decreased from 7.7 and 2.7 (interquartile range 0.6-4.8) at baseline to 1.3 and 0 (0-2.4) at 16-18 months and to 1.1 and 0 (0.0-1.2) at 34-36 months post-implementation. Multilevel regression analysis showed that incidence rate ratios decreased from 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.88) at 0-3 months to 0.38 (0.26 to 0.56) at 16-18 months and 0.34 (0.24-0.48) at 34-36 months post-implementation. During the sustainability period, the mean bloodstream infection rate did not significantly change from the initial 18 month post-implementation period (−1%, 95% confidence interval −9% to 7%). Conclusions The reduced rates of catheter related bloodstream infection achieved in the initial 18 month post-implementation period were sustained for an additional 18 months as participating intensive care units integrated the intervention into practice. Broad use of this intervention with achievement of similar results could substantially reduce the morbidity and costs associated with catheter related bloodstream infections.

Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND Little evidence exists that links teamwork to patient outcomes. We conducted this study to determine if patients of teams with good teamwork had better outcomes than those with poor teamwork. METHODS Observers used a standardized instrument to assess team behaviors. Retrospective chart review was performed to measure 30-day outcomes. Multiple logistic regressions were calculated to assess the independence of the association between teamwork with patient outcome after adjusting for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. RESULTS In univariate analyses, patients had increased odds of complications or death when the following behaviors were exhibited less frequently: information sharing during intraoperative phases, briefing during handoff phases, and information sharing during handoff phases. Composite measures of teamwork across all operative phases were significantly associated with complication or death after adjusting for ASA score (odds ratio 4.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-17.87). CONCLUSION When teams exhibited infrequent team behaviors, patients were more likely to experience death or major complication.

Improving patient safety in intensive care units in Michigan.

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to describe the design and lessons learned from implementing a large-scale patient safety collaborative and the impact of an intervention on teamwork climate in intensive care units (ICUs) across the state of Michigan. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study used a collaborative model for improvement involving researchers from the Johns Hopkins University and Michigan Health and Hospital Association. A quality improvement team in each ICU collected and submitted baseline data and implemented quality improvement interventions. Primary outcome measures were improvements in safety culture scores using the Teamwork Climate Scale of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ); 99 ICUs provided baseline SAQ data. Baseline performance for adherence to evidence-based interventions for ventilated patients is also reported. The intervention to improve safety culture was the comprehensive unit-based safety program. The rwg statistic measures the extent to which there is a group consensus. RESULTS Overall response rate for the baseline SAQ was 72%. Statistical tests confirmed that teamwork climate scores provided a valid measure of teamwork climate consensus among caregivers in an ICU, mean rwg was 0.840 (SD = 0.07). Teamwork climate varied significantly among ICUs at baseline (F98, 5325 = 5.90, P < .001), ranging from 16% to 92% of caregivers in an ICU reporting good teamwork climate. A subset of 72 ICUs repeated the culture assessment in 2005, and a 2-tailed paired samples t test showed that teamwork climate improved from 2004 to 2005, t(71) = -2.921, P < .005. Adherence to using evidence-based interventions ranged from a mean of 25% for maintaining glucose at 110 mg/dL or less to 89% for stress ulcer prophylaxis. CONCLUSION This study describes the first statewide effort to improve patient safety in ICUs. The use of the comprehensive unit-based safety program was associated with significant improvements in safety culture. This collaborative may serve as a model to implement feasible and methodologically rigorous methods to improve and sustain patient safety on a larger scale.

Implementing and Validating a Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program

Background: The IOM identified patient safety as a significant problem. This paper describes the implementation and validation of a comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) in intensive care settings. Methods: An 8-step safety program was implemented in the Weinberg ICU, with a second control (SICU) subsequently receiving the intervention. Unit improvement teams (physician, nurse, administrator) were identified to champion efforts between staff and Safety Committee. CUSP steps: (1) culture of safety assessment; (2) sciences of safety education; (3) staff identification of safety concerns; (4) senior executives adopt a unit; (5) improvements implemented from safety concerns; (6) efforts documented/analyzed; (7) results shared; and (8) culture reassessment. Results: Safety culture improved post versus pre-intervention (35% to 52% in WICU and 35% to 67% in SICU). Senior executive adoption led to patient transport teams and pharmacy presence in ICUs. Interventions from safety assessment included: medication reconciliation, short-term goals sheet and relabeling epidural catheters. One-year post-CUSP implementation, length of stay (LOS) decreased from 2 to 1 day in WICU and 3 to 2 days in SICU (P < 0.05 WICU and SICU). Medication errors in transfer orders were nearly eliminated, and nursing turnover decreased from 9% to 2% in WICU and 8% to 2% in SICU (neither statistically significant). Conclusions: CUSP successfully implemented in 2 ICUs. CUSP can improve patient safety and reduce medication errors, LOS, and potentially nursing turnover.

Teamwork in the operating room: frontline perspectives among hospitals and operating room personnel.

Background:The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations is proposing that hospitals measure culture beginning in 2007. However, a reliable and widely used measurement tool for the operating room (OR) setting does not currently exist. Methods:OR personnel in 60 US hospitals were surveyed using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. The teamwork climate domain of the survey uses six items about difficulty speaking up, conflict resolution, physician–nurse collaboration, feeling supported by others, asking questions, and heeding nurse input. To justify grouping individual-level responses to a single score at each hospital OR level, the authors used a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis, intraclass correlations, within-group interrater reliability, and Cronbach’s &agr;. To detect differences at the hospital OR level and by caregiver type, the authors used multivariate analysis of variance (items) and analysis of variance (scale). Results:The response rate was 77.1%. There was robust evidence for grouping individual-level respondents to the hospital OR level using the diverse set of statistical tests, e.g., Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, root mean squared error of approximation = 0.05, and acceptable intraclasss correlations, within-group interrater reliability values, and Cronbach’s &agr; = 0.79. Teamwork climate differed significantly by hospital (F59, 1,911 = 4.06, P < 0.001) and OR caregiver type (F4, 1,911 = 9.96, P < 0.001). Conclusions:Rigorous assessment of teamwork climate is possible using this psychometrically sound teamwork climate scale. This tool and initial benchmarks allow others to compare their teamwork climate to national means, in an effort to focus more on what excellent surgical teams do well.

Clinical review: Checklists - translating evidence into practice

Checklists are common tools used in many industries. Unfortunately, their adoption in the field of medicine has been limited to equipment operations or part of specific algorithms. Yet they have tremendous potential to improve patient outcomes by democratizing knowledge and helping ensure that all patients receive evidence-based best practices and safe high-quality care. Checklist adoption has been slowed by a variety of factors, including provider resistance, delays in knowledge dissemination and integration, limited methodology to guide development and maintenance, and lack of effective technical strategies to make them available and easy to use. In this article, we explore some of the principles and possible strategies to further develop and encourage the implementation of checklists into medical practice. We describe different types of checklists using examples and explore the benefits they offer to improve care. We suggest methods to create checklists and offer suggestions for how we might apply them, using some examples from our own experience, and finally, offer some possible directions for future research.

The effect of executive walk rounds on nurse safety climate attitudes: A randomized trial of clinical units

BackgroundExecutive walk rounds (EWRs) are a widely used but unstudied activity designed to improve safety culture in hospitals. Therefore, we measured the impact of EWRs on one important part of safety culture – provider attitudes about the safety climate in the institution.MethodsRandomized study of EWRs for 23 clinical units in a tertiary care teaching hospital. All providers except physicians participated. EWRs were conducted at each unit by one of six hospital executives once every four weeks for three visits. Providers were asked about their concerns regarding patient safety and what could be done to improve patient safety. Suggestions were tabulated and when possible, changes were made. Provider attitudes about safety climate measured by the Safety Climate Survey before and after EWRs. We report mean scores, percent positive scores (percentage of providers who responded four or higher on a five point scale (agree slightly or agree strongly), and the odds of EWR participants agreeing with individual survey items when compared to non-participants.ResultsBefore EWRs the mean safety climate scores for nurses were similar in the control units and EWR units (78.97 and 76.78, P = 0.458) as were percent positive scores (64.6% positive and 61.1% positive). After EWRs the mean safety climate scores were not significantly different for all providers nor for nurses in the control units and EWR units (77.93 and 78.33, P = 0.854) and (56.5% positive and 62.7% positive). However, when analyzed by exposure to EWRs, nurses in the control group who did not participate in EWRs (n = 198) had lower safety climate scores than nurses in the intervention group who did participate in an EWR session (n = 85) (74.88 versus 81.01, P = 0.02; 52.5% positive versus 72.9% positive). Compared to nurses who did not participate, nurses in the experimental group who reported participating in EWRs also responded more favorably to a majority of items on the survey.ConclusionEWRs have a positive effect on the safety climate attitudes of nurses who participate in the walk rounds sessions. EWRs are a promising tool to improve safety climate and the broader construct of safety culture.

Intensive care unit safety culture and outcomes: a US multicenter study

OBJECTIVE Safety culture may influence patient outcomes, but evidence is limited. We sought to determine if intensive care unit (ICU) safety culture is independently associated with outcomes. DESIGN Cohort study combining safety culture survey data with the Project IMPACT Critical Care Medicine (PICCM) clinical database. SETTING Thirty ICUs participating in the PICCM database. PARTICIPANTS A total of 65 978 patients admitted January 2001-March 2005. INTERVENTIONS None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS). METHODS From December 2003 to April 2004, we surveyed study ICUs using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire-ICU version, a validated instrument that assesses safety culture across six factors. We calculated factor mean and percent-positive scores (% respondents with mean score > or =75 on a 0-100 scale) for each ICU, and generated case-mix adjusted, patient-level, ICU-clustered regression analyses to determine the independent association of safety culture and outcome. RESULTS We achieved a 47.9% response (2103 of 4373 ICU personnel). Culture scores were mostly low to moderate and varied across ICUs (range: 13-88, percent-positive scores). After adjustment for patient, hospital and ICU characteristics, for every 10% decrease in ICU perceptions of management percent-positive score, the odds ratio for hospital mortality was 1.24 (95% CI: 1.07-1.44; P = 0.005). For every 10% decrease in ICU safety climate percent-positive score, LOS increased 15% (95% CI: 1-30%; P = 0.03). Sensitivity analyses for non-response bias consistently associated safety climate with outcome, but also yielded some counterintuitive results. CONCLUSION In a multicenter study conducted in the USA, perceptions of management and safety climate were moderately associated with outcomes. Future work should further develop methods of assessing safety culture and association with outcomes.