Patricia Trbovich

Mitigating errors caused by interruptions during medication verification and administration: interventions in a simulated ambulatory chemotherapy setting

Background Nurses are frequently interrupted during medication verification and administration; however, few interventions exist to mitigate resulting errors, and the impact of these interventions on medication safety is poorly understood. Objective The study objectives were to (A) assess the effects of interruptions on medication verification and administration errors, and (B) design and test the effectiveness of targeted interventions at reducing these errors. Methods The study focused on medication verification and administration in an ambulatory chemotherapy setting. A simulation laboratory experiment was conducted to determine interruption-related error rates during specific medication verification and administration tasks. Interventions to reduce these errors were developed through a participatory design process, and their error reduction effectiveness was assessed through a postintervention experiment. Results Significantly more nurses committed medication errors when interrupted than when uninterrupted. With use of interventions when interrupted, significantly fewer nurses made errors in verifying medication volumes contained in syringes (16/18; 89% preintervention error rate vs 11/19; 58% postintervention error rate; p=0.038; Fishers exact test) and programmed in ambulatory pumps (17/18; 94% preintervention vs 11/19; 58% postintervention; p=0.012). The rate of error commission significantly decreased with use of interventions when interrupted during intravenous push (16/18; 89% preintervention vs 6/19; 32% postintervention; p=0.017) and pump programming (7/18; 39% preintervention vs 1/19; 5% postintervention; p=0.017). No statistically significant differences were observed for other medication verification tasks. Conclusions Interruptions can lead to medication verification and administration errors. Interventions were highly effective at reducing unanticipated errors of commission in medication administration tasks, but showed mixed effectiveness at reducing predictable errors of detection in medication verification tasks. These findings can be generalised and adapted to mitigate interruption-related errors in other settings where medication verification and administration are required.

Not All Interruptions are Created Equal: Positive Interruptions in Healthcare

Interruptions were studied extensively in the past but with a focus on their negative effects. Although many types of interruptions result in a break-in-task, in some cases interruptions communicate important information associated with patient’s safety. The majority of previous interruption research use a reductionist approach to minimize or prevent interruptions, and minimal attention has been given to the differentiation between positive and negative interruptions. Through the analysis of relevant healthcare literature, this paper first identifies the inconsistencies in the way interruptions are defined, and then categorizes potential sources of negative and positive interruptions.

Interruptions experienced by cardiovascular intensive care unit nurses: an observational study.

PURPOSE Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses get interrupted frequently. Although interruptions take cognitive resources from a primary task and may hinder performance, they may also convey critical information. Effective management of interruptions in ICUs requires the understanding of interruption characteristics, the context in which interruption happens, and interruption content. METHODS An observational study was conducted in a cardiovascular ICU at a Canadian teaching hospital. Four observers (1 PhD and 3 undergraduate students) trained in human factors research observed 40 nurses, approximately 1 hour each, over a 3-week period. Data were recorded by the observers in real time, using touchscreen tablet PCs and special software designed for this purpose. RESULTS Although approximately half of the interruptions (~51%) happened during high-severity tasks, more than half of these interruptions, which happened during high-severity tasks, conveyed either work- or patient-related information. Furthermore, the rate of interruptions with personal content was significantly higher during low-severity tasks compared with medium- and high-severity tasks. CONCLUSIONS Mitigation strategies other than blocking should also be explored. In addition, interrupters might have evaluated primary task severity before interrupting. Therefore, making task severity more transparent may help others modulate when and how they interrupt a nurse.

Root-cause analysis: swatting at mosquitoes versus draining the swamp

Many healthcare systems recommend root-cause analysis (RCA) as a key method for investigating critical incidents and developing recommendations for preventing future events. In practice, however, RCAs vary widely in terms of their conduct and the utility of the recommendations they produce.1 ,2 RCAs often fail to explore deep system problems that contributed to safety events3 due to the limited methods used, constrained time and meagre financial/human resources to conduct RCAs.4 Furthermore, healthcare organisations often lack the mandate and authority required to develop and implement sophisticated and effective corrective actions.4 Consequently, corrective actions primarily aim at changing human behaviour rather than system-based changes.5 ,6 In this issue of BMJ Quality and Safety , Kellogg et al 7 confirm these concerns about RCAs. Reviewing 302 RCAs conducted over an 8-year period at a US academic medical centre, the authors report the most common solution types as training, process change and policy reinforcement. Serious events (eg, retained surgical sponges) recurred repeatedly despite conducting RCAs. These findings highlight the long overdue need to enhance the effectiveness of RCAs. James Reason (of the Swiss Cheese Model8) once characterised the goal of error investigations as draining the swamp not swatting mosquitoes.8 Critical incidents arise from the interplay between active failures (eg, not double checking for allergies before administering a medication) and latent conditions9 (eg, workload for the nurse and reliance on human memory for a critical safeguard when electronic systems with built-in reminders exist). Returning to Reasons analogy, we do not want to spend our time and expend our resources swatting at the mosquitoes of ‘not double checking’. Rather, we want to drain the swamp of the many latent conditions that make not double checking more likely to occur. Too often, RCA teams focus on the …

Study protocol for a framework analysis using video review to identify latent safety threats: trauma resuscitation using in situ simulation team training (TRUST)

Introduction Errors in trauma resuscitation are common and have been attributed to breakdowns in the coordination of system elements (eg, tools/technology, physical environment and layout, individual skills/knowledge, team interaction). These breakdowns are triggered by unique circumstances and may go unrecognised by trauma team members or hospital administrators; they can be described as latent safety threats (LSTs). Retrospective approaches to identifying LSTs (ie, after they occur) are likely to be incomplete and prone to bias. To date, prospective studies have not used video review as the primary mechanism to identify any and all LSTs in trauma resuscitation. Methods and analysis A series of 12 unannounced in situ simulations (ISS) will be conducted to prospectively identify LSTs at a level 1 Canadian trauma centre (over 800 dedicated trauma team activations annually). 4 scenarios have already been designed as part of this protocol based on 5 recurring themes found in the hospitals mortality and morbidity process. The actual trauma team will be activated to participate in the study. Each simulation will be audio/video recorded from 4 different camera angles and transcribed to conduct a framework analysis. Video reviewers will code the videos deductively based on a priori themes of LSTs identified from the literature, and/or inductively based on the events occurring in the simulation. LSTs will be prioritised to target interventions in future work. Ethics and dissemination Institutional research ethics approval has been acquired (SMH REB #15-046). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. Findings will also be presented to key institutional stakeholders to inform mitigation strategies for improved patient safety.

Toward successful migration to computerized physician order entry for chemotherapy

BACKGROUND Computerized physician order entry (cpoe) systems allow for medical order management in a clinical setting. Use of a cpoe has been shown to significantly improve chemotherapy safety by reducing the number of prescribing errors. Usability of these systems has been identified as a critical factor in their successful adoption. However, there is a paucity of literature investigating the usability of cpoe for chemotherapy and describing the experiences of cancer care providers in implementing and using a cpoe system. METHODS A mixed-methods study, including a national survey and a workshop, was conducted to determine the current status of cpoe adoption in Canadian oncology institutions, to identify and prioritize knowledge gaps in cpoe usability and adoption, and to establish a research agenda to bridge those gaps. Survey respondents were representatives of cancer care providers from each Canadian province. The workshop participants were oncology clinicians, human factors engineers, patient safety researchers, policymakers, and hospital administrators from across Canada, with participation from the United States. RESULTS A variety of issues related to implementing and using a cpoe for chemotherapy were identified. The major issues concerned the need for better understanding of current practices of chemotherapy ordering, preparation, and administration; a lack of system selection and procurement guidance; a lack of implementation and maintenance guidance; poor cpoe usability and workflow support; and other cpoe system design issues. An additional three research themes for addressing the existing challenges and advancing successful adoption of cpoe for chemotherapy were identified: The need to investigate variances in workflows and practices in chemotherapy ordering and administrationThe need to develop best-practice cpoe procurement and implementation guidance specifically for chemotherapyThe need to measure the effects of cpoe implementation in medical oncology. CONCLUSIONS Addressing the existing challenges in cpoe usability and adoption for chemotherapy, and accelerating successful migration to cpoe by cancer care providers requires future research focusing on workflow variations, chemotherapy-specific cpoe procurement needs, and implementation guidance needs.

Implementation and Optimization of Smart Infusion Systems: Are we Reaping the Safety Benefits?

&NA; To address the high incidence of infusion errors, manufacturers have replaced the development of standard infusion pumps with smart pump systems. The implementation and ongoing optimization processes for smart pumps are more complex, as they require larger coordinated efforts with stakeholders throughout the medication process. If improper implementation/optimization processes are followed, hospitals invest in this technology while extracting minimal benefit. We assessed the processes hospitals employed when migrating from standard to smart infusion systems, and the extent to which they leveraged their investments from both a systems and resource perspective. Twenty‐nine hospitals in Ontario, Canada, were surveyed that had either implemented smart pump systems or were in the process of implementing, representing a response rate of 69%. Results demonstrated that hospitals purchased smart pumps for reasons other than safety, did not involve a multidisciplinary team during implementation, made little effort to standardize drug concentrations or develop drug libraries and dosing limits, seldom monitored how nurses use the pumps, and failed to ensure wireless connectivity to upgrade protocols and download use data. Consequently, they are failing to realize the safety benefits these systems can provide.

Usability of data integration and visualization software for multidisciplinary pediatric intensive care: a human factors approach to assessing technology

BackgroundIntensive care clinicians use several sources of data in order to inform decision-making. We set out to evaluate a new interactive data integration platform called T3™ made available for pediatric intensive care. Three primary functions are supported: tracking of physiologic signals, displaying trajectory, and triggering decisions, by highlighting data or estimating risk of patient instability. We designed a human factors study to identify interface usability issues, to measure ease of use, and to describe interface features that may enable or hinder clinical tasks.MethodsTwenty-two participants, consisting of bedside intensive care physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists, tested the T3™ interface in a simulation laboratory setting. Twenty tasks were performed with a true-to-setting, fully functional, prototype, populated with physiological and therapeutic intervention patient data. Primary data visualization was time series and secondary visualizations were: 1) shading out-of-target values, 2) mini-trends with exaggerated maxima and minima (sparklines), and 3) bar graph of a 16-parameter indicator. Task completion was video recorded and assessed using a use error rating scale. Usability issues were classified in the context of task and type of clinician. A severity rating scale was used to rate potential clinical impact of usability issues.ResultsTime series supported tracking a single parameter but partially supported determining patient trajectory using multiple parameters. Visual pattern overload was observed with multiple parameter data streams. Automated data processing using shading and sparklines was often ignored but the 16-parameter data reduction algorithm, displayed as a persistent bar graph, was visually intuitive. However, by selecting or automatically processing data, triggering aids distorted the raw data that clinicians use regularly. Consequently, clinicians could not rely on new data representations because they did not know how they were established or derived.ConclusionsUsability issues, observed through contextual use, provided directions for tangible design improvements of data integration software that may lessen use errors and promote safe use. Data-driven decision making can benefit from iterative interface redesign involving clinician-users in simulated environments. This study is a first step in understanding how software can support clinicians’ decision making with integrated continuous monitoring data. Importantly, testing of similar platforms by all the different disciplines who may become clinician users is a fundamental step necessary to understand the impact on clinical outcomes of decision aids.

ReCAP: Comparison of Independent Error Checks for Oral Versus Intravenous Chemotherapy

PURPOSE Intravenous (IV) chemotherapy is routinely delivered to patients in hospital settings, where safeguards such as independent checks and guidelines govern their administration. In contrast, oral chemotherapy, which is typically ordered in a cancer center but dispensed and administered in the community and home, respectively, is subject to fewer controls. Research in the United States has found that few safeguards in routine use for IV chemotherapy have been adopted for oral chemotherapy; however, less is known about the Canadian context. The objective of this study was to determine whether similar safeguards, in the form of independent checks, existed to identify potential errors related to both formulations. METHODS Human factors specialists conducted observations and interviews in cancer center clinics, a cancer center pharmacy, and four community pharmacies across Nova Scotia. Processes were analyzed to determine if an independent check was performed, which qualified provider completed the check, and at what point of the process the check occurred. RESULTS A total of 57 systematic checks were identified for IV chemotherapy, whereas only six systematic checks were identified for oral chemotherapy. Community pharmacists were the only qualified professionals involved in independent systematic checking of oral chemotherapy, which occurred during ordering and dispensing. CONCLUSION There is an enormous opportunity for pharmacists and other qualified professionals to take on an expanded role in improving patient safety for oral chemotherapy. Greater involvement of pharmacists, in both the clinic environment and the community, would facilitate increased systematic checking, which could improve patient safety related to oral chemotherapy.

Five Ways to Incorporate Systems Thinking into Healthcare Organizations

Healthcare is a complex system that involves high risk to patients, clinicians, manufacturers, and other stakeholders. Clinicians process inordinate amounts of data and synthesize these inputs to make critical decisions that affect patient health and safety. The unprecedented advancement in medical technology during the past half-century has contributed substantially to healthcare’s expanding complexity.1 Consequently, clinicians have more knowledge to synthesize, tasks to perform, and processes to manage than ever before.1 The delivery of care often is overly complex and unstandardized, thereby reducing rather than increasing safety. For example, new devices are being implemented in medical practice at an astounding pace, requiring clinicians to continuously expand their breadth of knowledge and expertise. Consequently, a main cause of adverse events is misuse of medical devices. Variation in medical devices among hospitals (and within a given hospital) is a key cause of these adverse events. Design improvements and standardization of equipment have been suggested as ways to reduce errors. Although new technologies usually are advantageous for the patient, health professionals often encounter difficulties in using devices. Furthermore, current healthcare systems are not designed to support the care of complex patients, such as populations with chronic conditions requiring care management across multiple providers and services. In 2005, a joint report from the National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine advocated the extensive application of systems thinking to improve the delivery of healthcare.2 Systems thinking centers on the dynamic interaction, synchronization, and integration of people, processes, and technology.3 By gaining an understanding of the dynamics among people, processes, and technology, systems thinking aids in recognizing how to intervene (e.g., focusing on changes to device design, clinician training, and/or clinical practice) in the system successfully. Moreover, systems thinking helps identify the critical relationships and connections often missed or undervalued that are pivotal to a successful implementation effort. If the high-risk healthcare industry focuses on an enhanced application of systems-thinking approaches, it will benefit from opportunities to reform the care delivery system by reducing unnecessary complexities and unexplained practice variations. This article describes five ways in which systems thinking can be incorporated into healthcare organizations. Rather than providing an exhaustive list of information, this report is meant to serve as a starting point for exploring how to integrate systems thinking.