Maria Unbeck

Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? an evaluation of the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool”

BackgroundThere has been a theoretical debate as to which retrospective record review method is the most valid, reliable, cost efficient and feasible for detecting adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and capability of two common retrospective record review methods, the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” in detecting adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients.MethodsWe performed a three-stage structured retrospective record review process in a random sample of 350 orthopaedic admissions during 2009 at a Swedish university hospital. Two teams comprised each of a registered nurse and two physicians were assigned, one to each method. All records were primarily reviewed by registered nurses. Records containing a potential adverse event were forwarded to physicians for review in stage 2. Physicians made an independent review regarding, for example, healthcare causation, preventability and severity. In the third review stage all adverse events that were found with the two methods together were compared and all discrepancies after review stage 2 were analysed. Events that had not been identified by one of the methods in the first two review stages were reviewed by the respective physicians.ResultsAltogether, 160 different adverse events were identified in 105 (30.0%) of the 350 records with both methods combined. The “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method identified 155 of the 160 (96.9%, 95% CI: 92.9-99.0) adverse events in 104 (29.7%) records compared with 137 (85.6%, 95% CI: 79.2-90.7) adverse events in 98 (28.0%) records using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Adverse events “causing harm without permanent disability” accounted for most of the observed difference. The overall positive predictive value for criteria and triggers using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” was 40.3% and 30.4%, respectively.ConclusionsMore adverse events were identified using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method than using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Differences in review methodology, perception of less severe adverse events and context knowledge may explain the observed difference between two expert review teams in the detection of adverse events.

Identification of adverse events at an orthopedics department in Sweden

Background and purpose Adverse events (AEs) are common in acute care hospitals, but there have been few data concerning AEs in orthopedic patients. We tested and evaluated a patient safety model (the Wim‐mera clinical risk management model) and performed a three‐stage retrospective review of records to determine the occurrence of AEs in adult orthopedic inpatients. Methods The computerized medical and nursing records of 395 patients were included and screened for AEs using 12 criteria. Positive records were then reviewed by two senior orthopedic surgeons using a standardized protocol. An AE had to have occurred during the index admission or within the first 28 days of discharge from the Orthopedics Department. Screening of additional systems for reporting of AEs was also carried out for the same period. The number of patients suffering an AE and the number of AEs were recorded. Results Altogether, 60 (15 %) of 395 patients checked in the screening of records experienced 65 AEs (16%) due to healthcare management. Of the 65 AEs, 34 were estimated to have a high degree of preventability. 47 of the 65 AEs occurred during the index admission and 18 within 28 days of discharge. In screening of local and nationwide reporting systems for the same patients, 4 additional AEs were identified—2 of which were previously unknown. 67 different AEs were detected by using the Wimmera model (17%) Interpretation Using the Wimmera model with manual screening and review of records, many more AEs were detected than in all other traditional local and nationwide reporting systems used in Sweden when screening was done for the same period.

Validation of triggers and development of a pediatric trigger tool to identify adverse events

BackgroundLittle is known about adverse events (AEs) in pediatric patients. Record review is a common methodology for identifying AEs, but in pediatrics the record review tools generally have limited focus. The aim of the present study was to develop a broadly applicable record review tool to identify AEs in pediatric inpatients.MethodsUsing a broad literature review and expert opinion with a modified Delphi process, a pediatric trigger tool with 88 triggers, definitions, and descriptions including AE preventability decision support was developed and tested in a random sample of 600 hospitalized pediatric patients admitted in 2010 to a single university children’s hospital. Four registered nurse-physician teams performed complete two-stage retrospective reviews of 150 records each from either neonatal, surgical/orthopedic, medicine, or emergency medicine units.ResultsRegistered nurse review identified 296 of 600 records with triggers indicating potential AEs. Records (n = 121) with only false positive triggers not indicating any potential AEs were not forwarded to the next review stage. On subsequent physician review, 204 (34.0%) of patients were found to have had 563 AEs, range 1–27 AEs/patient. A total of 442 preventable AEs were found in 161 patients (26.8%), range 1–22. Overall, triggers were found 3,598 times in 417 (69.5%) records, with a mean of 6 (median 1, range 0–176) triggers per patient. The overall positive predictive value of the triggers was 22.9%, (range 0.0-100.0%). The final pediatric trigger tool, developed with a second Delphi round, required 29 triggers.ConclusionsAEs are common in pediatric patients and most are preventable. The main contributions of this study are to further develop and adapt trigger definitions, including AE preventability decision support, to introduce new triggers in pediatric care, as well as to apply pediatric triggers in different clinical specialties. Our findings resulted in a national pediatric trigger tool, and might also be adapted internationally. The pediatric trigger tool can help healthcare organizations to measure and analyze the AEs occurring in hospitalized children in order to improve patient safety.

Peripheral venous catheter related complications are common among paediatric and neonatal patients.

The aims of this study were to describe the characteristics of peripheral venous catheters (PVCs), including dwell time and reasons for removal, and explore predictors for PVC‐related complications.

Retrospective record review in proactive patient safety work – identification of no-harm incidents

BackgroundIn contrast to other safety critical industries, well-developed systems to monitor safety within the healthcare system remain limited. Retrospective record review is one way of identifying adverse events in healthcare. In proactive patient safety work, retrospective record review could be used to identify, analyze and gain information and knowledge about no-harm incidents and deficiencies in healthcare processes. The aim of the study was to evaluate retrospective record review for the detection and characterization of no-harm incidents, and compare findings with conventional incident-reporting systems.MethodsA two-stage structured retrospective record review of no-harm incidents was performed on a random sample of 350 admissions at a Swedish orthopedic department. Results were compared with those found in one local, and four national incident-reporting systems.ResultsWe identified 118 no-harm incidents in 91 (26.0%) of the 350 records by retrospective record review. Ninety-four (79.7%) no-harm incidents were classified as preventable. The five incident-reporting systems identified 16 no-harm incidents, of which ten were also found by retrospective record review. The most common no-harm incidents were related to drug therapy (n = 66), of which 87.9% were regarded as preventable.ConclusionsNo-harm incidents are common and often preventable. Retrospective record review seems to be a valuable tool for identifying and characterizing no-harm incidents. Both harm and no-harm incidents can be identified in parallel during the same record review. By adding a retrospective record review of randomly selected records to conventional incident-reporting, health care providers can gain a clearer and broader picture of commonly occurring, no-harm incidents in order to improve patient safety.

Waiting time to surgery is correlated with an increased risk of serious adverse events during hospital stay in patients with hip-fracture: A cohort study

BACKGROUND Hip fractures are common in the elderly and are associated with a high adverse event and mortality rate. Time to surgery is one of the major modifiable risk factors influencing adverse outcomes in hip-fracture patients. National guidelines and recommendations have been introduced which advocate specific time frames in which surgery should be performed i.e. within 24-48h. These time constraints have been arbitrarily set without being modelled on the linear assumption i.e. that risk increases continually over time and not within specific cut-off times. OBJECTIVES To investigate how waiting time to surgery influenced the risk of serious adverse events in hip-fracture patients during the hospital stay and to examine how the risk increased over time. DESIGN An observational single cohort study Participants 576 patients (72.4% females, mean [SD] age 82 [10]) years, with a hip fracture were included in the cohort study. METHODS The outcomes of the study were the occurrence of serious adverse events during hospital stay, length of stay and one-year mortality. A structured medical record review was carried out to identify outcomes and mortality data was obtained from the Swedish National Death Registry. Waiting time to surgery was used as the exposure variable and age, sex, type of fracture, comorbidities using the American Society of Anaesthesiologists classification score and the presence of cognitive dysfunction were identified as confounders. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors influencing outcomes. RESULTS A total of 119 patients (20.6%) suffered 397 (range 1-5) serious adverse events during hospital stay. Every 10h of waiting time to surgery increased the risk of serious adverse events by 12% (odds ratio 1.12 [95% confidence interval 1.02-1.23]). We found no optimal cut-off times for waiting time to surgery. For every 24h of waiting time, the length of stay from surgery was increased by 0.6days (95% CI 0.1-1.1). We found no correlation between waiting time to surgery and one-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS A large proportion of patients suffered from at least one serious adverse event after hip-fracture surgery and there are no safe limits for waiting time to surgery for hip-fracture patients. As the risk increases with every hour of waiting time, patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification scores, males and those with subtrochanteric fractures should be prioritized for surgery.

Development of a trigger tool to identify adverse events and no-harm incidents that affect patients admitted to home healthcare

Background Adverse events (AEs) and no-harm incidents are common and of great concern in healthcare. A common method for identification of AEs is retrospective record review (RRR) using predefined triggers. This method has been used frequently in inpatient care, but AEs in home healthcare have not been explored to the same extent. The aim of this study was to develop a trigger tool (TT) for the identification of both AEs and no-harm incidents affecting adult patients admitted to home healthcare in Sweden, and to describe the methodology used for this development. Methods The TT was developed and validated in a stepwise manner, in collaboration with experts with different skills, using (1) literature review and interviews, (2) a five-round modified Delphi process, and (3) two-stage RRRs. Ten trained teams from different sites in Sweden reviewed 600 randomly selected records. Results In all, triggers were found 4031 times in 518 (86.3%) records, with a mean of 6.7 (median 4, range 1–54) triggers per record with triggers. The positive predictive values (PPVs) for AEs and no-harm incidents were 25.4% and 16.3%, respectively, resulting in a PPV of 41.7% (range 0.0%–96.1% per trigger) for the total TT when using 38 triggers. The most common triggers were unplanned contact with physician and/or registered nurse, moderate/severe pain, moderate/severe worry, anxiety, suffering, existential pain and/or psychological pain. AEs were identified in 37.7% of the patients and no-harm incidents in 29.5%. Conclusion This study shows that adapted triggers with definitions and decision support, developed to identify AEs and no-harm incidents that affect patients admitted to home healthcare, may be a valid method for safety and quality improvement work in home healthcare.

Operational strategies to manage non-elective orthopaedic surgical flows: a simulation modelling study

Objectives To explore the value of simulation modelling in evaluating the effects of strategies to plan and schedule operating room (OR) resources aimed at reducing time to surgery for non-elective orthopaedic inpatients at a Swedish hospital. Methods We applied discrete-event simulation modelling. The model was populated with real world data from a university hospital with a strong focus on reducing waiting time to surgery for patients with hip fracture. The system modelled concerned two patient groups that share the same OR resources: hip-fracture and other non-elective orthopaedic patients in need of surgical treatment. We simulated three scenarios based on the literature and interaction with staff and managers: (1) baseline; (2) reduced turnover time between surgeries by 20 min and (3) one extra OR during the day, Monday to Friday. The outcome variables were waiting time to surgery and the percentage of patients who waited longer than 24 hours for surgery. Results The mean waiting time in hours was significantly reduced from 16.2 hours in scenario 1 (baseline) to 13.3 hours in scenario 2 and 13.6 hours in scenario 3 for hip-fracture surgery and from 26.0 hours in baseline to 18.9 hours in scenario 2 and 18.5 hours in scenario 3 for other non-elective patients. The percentage of patients who were treated within 24 hours significantly increased from 86.4% (baseline) to 96.1% (scenario 2) and 95.1% (scenario 3) for hip-fracture patients and from 60.2% (baseline) to 79.8% (scenario 2) and 79.8% (scenario 3) for patients with other non-elective patients. Conclusions Healthcare managers who strive to improve the timelines of non-elective orthopaedic surgeries may benefit from using simulation modelling to analyse different strategies to support their decisions. In this specific case, the simulation results showed that the reduction of surgery turnover times could yield the same results as an extra OR.

The Swedish Safety Attitudes Questionnaire—Operating Room Version: Psychometric Properties in the Surgical Team

Purpose: To validate the Swedish Safety Attitudes Questionnaire–operating room (SAQ‐OR) version by re‐evaluating its psychometric properties for the surgical team. Design: Cross‐sectional questionnaire study. Methods: 541 surgical team members including perioperative nurses, physicians, and licensed practical nurses at three Swedish hospitals were included. Findings: For the total sample, the Cronbachs &agr; for the six factors ranged from 0.51 to 0.76. Goodness‐of‐fit analyses indicated that the six‐factor model was acceptable and the factor loadings were statistically significant. The test of the hypothesized relationships among the factors showed a correlation from 0.936 to 0.042. Conclusions: The refined Swedish version of the SAQ‐OR is a reasonably reliable and acceptably valid instrument for the measurement of patient safety climate in the surgical team. However, the results related to the different analyses varied among the different professionals and further research, using larger samples, is needed to explore these differences, especially among the physicians.

Adverse events in patients in home healthcare: a retrospective record review using trigger tool methodology

Objective Home healthcare is an increasingly common part of healthcare. The patients are often aged, frail and have multiple diseases, and multiple caregivers are involved in their treatment. This study explores the origin, incidence, types and preventability of adverse events (AEs) that occur in patients receiving home healthcare. Design A study using retrospective record review and trigger tool methodology. Setting and methods Ten teams with experience of home healthcare from nine regions across Sweden reviewed home healthcare records in a two-stage procedure using 38 predefined triggers in four modules. A random sample of records from 600 patients (aged 18 years or older) receiving home healthcare during 2015 were reviewed. Primary and secondary outcome measures The cumulative incidence of AEs found in patients receiving home healthcare; secondary measures were origin, types, severity of harm and preventability of the AEs. Results The patients were aged 20–79 years, 280 men and 320 women. The review teams identified 356 AEs in 226 (37.7%; 95% CI 33.0 to 42.8) of the home healthcare records. Of these, 255 (71.6%; 95% CI 63.2 to 80.8) were assessed as being preventable, and most (246, 69.1%; 95% CI 60.9 to 78.2) required extra healthcare visits or led to a prolonged period of healthcare. Most of the AEs (271, 76.1%; 95% CI 67.5 to 85.6) originated in home healthcare; the rest were detected during home healthcare but were related to care outside home healthcare. The most common AEs were healthcare-associated infections, falls and pressure ulcers. Conclusions AEs in patients receiving home healthcare are common, mostly preventable and often cause temporary harm requiring extra healthcare resources. The most frequent types of AEs must be addressed and reduced through improvements in interprofessional collaboration. This is an important area for future studies.