Sydney M. Dy

Rapid-Response Systems as a Patient Safety Strategy: A Systematic Review

Rapid-response systems (RRSs) are a popular intervention in U.S. hospitals and are supported by accreditors and quality improvement organizations. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of these systems in acute care settings. A literature search was performed between 1 January 2000 through 30 October 2012 using PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies published in any language evaluating outcome changes that occurred after implementing an RRS and differences between groups using and not using an RRS (effectiveness) or describing methods used by RRSs (implementation) were reviewed. A single reviewer (checked by a second reviewer) abstracted data and rated study quality and strength of evidence. Moderate-strength evidence from a high-quality meta-analysis of 18 studies and 26 lower-quality before-and-after studies published after that meta-analysis showed that RRSs are associated with reduced rates of cardiorespiratory arrest outside of the intensive care unit and reduced mortality. Eighteen studies examining facilitators of and barriers to implementation suggested that the rate of use of RRSs could be improved.

Promoting a Culture of Safety as a Patient Safety Strategy: A Systematic Review

Developing a culture of safety is a core element of many efforts to improve patient safety and care quality. This systematic review identifies and assesses interventions used to promote safety culture or climate in acute care settings. The authors searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and EMBASE to identify relevant English-language studies published from January 2000 to October 2012. They selected studies that targeted health care workers practicing in inpatient settings and included data about change in patient safety culture or climate after a targeted intervention. Two raters independently screened 3679 abstracts (which yielded 33 eligible studies in 35 articles), extracted study data, and rated study quality and strength of evidence. Eight studies included executive walk rounds or interdisciplinary rounds; 8 evaluated multicomponent, unit-based interventions; and 20 included team training or communication initiatives. Twenty-nine studies reported some improvement in safety culture or patient outcomes, but measured outcomes were highly heterogeneous. Strength of evidence was low, and most studies were pre-post evaluations of low to moderate quality. Within these limits, evidence suggests that interventions can improve perceptions of safety culture and potentially reduce patient harm.

The Top Patient Safety Strategies That Can Be Encouraged for Adoption Now

Over the past 12 years, since the publication of the Institute of Medicines report, “To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System,” improving patient safety has been the focus of considerable public and professional interest. Although such efforts required changes in policies; education; workforce; and health care financing, organization, and delivery, the most important gap has arguably been in research. Specifically, to improve patient safety we needed to identify hazards, determine how to measure them accurately, and identify solutions that work to reduce patient harm. A 2001 report commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, “Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices” (1), helped identify some early evidence-based safety practices, but it also highlighted an enormous gap between what was known and what needed to be known.

Symptom Burden, Depression, and Spiritual Well-Being: A Comparison of Heart Failure and Advanced Cancer Patients

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDA lower proportion of patients with chronic heart failure receive palliative care compared to patients with advanced cancer.OBJECTIVEWe examined the relative need for palliative care in the two conditions by comparing symptom burden, psychological well-being, and spiritual well-being in heart failure and cancer patients.DESIGNThis was a cross-sectional study.PARTICIPANTSSixty outpatients with symptomatic heart failure and 30 outpatients with advanced lung or pancreatic cancer.MEASUREMENTSSymptom burden (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form), depression symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form), and spiritual well-being (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Spiritual Well-Being scale).MAIN RESULTSOverall, the heart failure patients and the cancer patients had similar numbers of physical symptoms (9.1 vs. 8.6, p = 0.79), depression scores (3.9 vs. 3.2, p = 0.53), and spiritual well-being (35.9 vs. 39.0, p = 0.31) after adjustment for age, gender, marital status, education, and income. Symptom burden, depression symptoms, and spiritual well-being were also similar among heart failure patients with ejection fraction ≤30, ejection fraction >30, and cancer patients. Heart failure patients with worse heart failure-related health status had a greater number of physical symptoms (13.2 vs. 8.6, p = 0.03), higher depression scores (6.7 vs. 3.2, p = 0.001), and lower spiritual well-being (29.0 vs. 38.9, p < 0.01) than patients with advanced cancer.CONCLUSIONSPatients with symptomatic heart failure and advanced cancer have similar needs for palliative care as assessed by symptom burden, depression, and spiritual well-being. This implies that heart failure patients, particularly those with more severe heart failure, need the option of palliative care just as cancer patients do.

Advancing the science of patient safety

Despite a decades worth of effort, patient safety has improved slowly, in part because of the limited evidence base for the development and widespread dissemination of successful patient safety practices. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored an international group of experts in patient safety and evaluation methods to develop criteria to improve the design, evaluation, and reporting of practice research in patient safety. This article reports the findings and recommendations of this group, which include greater use of theory and logic models, more detailed descriptions of interventions and their implementation, enhanced explanation of desired and unintended outcomes, and better description and measurement of context and of how context influences interventions. Using these criteria and measuring and reporting contexts will improve the science of patient safety.

Team-training in healthcare: a narrative synthesis of the literature

Background Patients are safer and receive higher quality care when providers work as a highly effective team. Investment in optimising healthcare teamwork has swelled in the last 10 years. Consequently, evidence regarding the effectiveness for these interventions has also grown rapidly. We provide an updated review concerning the current state of team-training science and practice in acute care settings. Methods A PubMed search for review articles examining team-training interventions in acute care settings published between 2000 and 2012 was conducted. Following identification of relevant reviews with searches terminating in 2008 and 2010, PubMed and PSNet were searched for additional primary studies published in 2011 and 2012. Primary outcomes included patient outcomes and quality indices. Secondary outcomes included teamwork behaviours, knowledge and attitudes. Results Both simulation and classroom-based team-training interventions can improve teamwork processes (eg, communication, coordination and cooperation), and implementation has been associated with improvements in patient safety outcomes. Thirteen studies published between 2011 and 2012 reported statistically significant changes in teamwork behaviours, processes or emergent states and 10 reported significant improvement in clinical care processes or patient outcomes, including mortality and morbidity. Effects were reported across a range of clinical contexts. Larger effect sizes were reported for bundled team-training interventions that included tools and organisational changes to support sustainment and transfer of teamwork competencies into daily practice. Conclusions Overall, moderate-to-high-quality evidence suggests team-training can positively impact healthcare team processes and patient outcomes. Additionally, toolkits are available to support intervention development and implementation. Evidence suggests bundled team-training interventions and implementation strategies that embed effective teamwork as a foundation for other improvement efforts may offer greatest impact on patient outcomes.

Evidence-Based Standards for Cancer Pain Management

High-quality management of cancer pain depends on evidence-based standards for screening, assessment, treatment, and follow-up for general cancer pain and specific pain syndromes. We developed a set of standards through an iterative process of structured literature review and development and refinement of topic areas and standards and subjected recommendations to rating by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Providers should routinely screen for the presence or absence and intensity of pain and should perform descriptive pain assessment for patients with a positive screen, including assessment for likely etiology and functional impairment. For treatment, providers should provide pain education, offer breakthrough opioids in patients receiving long-acting formulations, offer bowel regimens in patients receiving opioids chronically, and ensure continuity of opioid doses across health care settings. Providers should also follow up on patients after treatment for pain. For metastatic bone pain, providers should offer single-fraction radiotherapy as an option when offering radiation, unless there is a contraindication. When spinal cord compression is suspected, providers should treat with corticosteroids and evaluate with whole-spine magnetic resonance imaging scan or myelography as soon as possible but within 24 hours. Providers should initiate definitive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression) within 24 hours for diagnosed cord compression and should follow up on patients after treatment. These standards provide an initial framework for high-quality evidence-based management of general cancer pain and pain syndromes.

What context features might be important determinants of the effectiveness of patient safety practice interventions

Background Differences in contexts (eg, policies, healthcare organisation characteristics) may explain variations in the effects of patient safety practice (PSP) implementations. However, knowledge of which contextual features are important determinants of PSP effectiveness is limited and consensus is lacking on a taxonomy of which contexts matter. Methods Iterative, formal discussions were held with a 22-member technical expert panel composed of experts or leaders in patient safety, healthcare systems, and methods. First, potentially important contextual features were identified, focusing on five PSPs. Then, two surveys were conducted to determine the context likely to influence PSP implementations. Results The panel reached a consensus on a taxonomy of four broad domains of contextual features important for PSP implementations: safety culture, teamwork and leadership involvement; structural organisational characteristics (eg, size, organisational complexity or financial status); external factors (eg, financial or performance incentives or PSP regulations); and availability of implementation and management tools (eg, training organisational incentives). Panelists also tended to rate specific patient safety culture, teamwork and leadership contexts as high priority for assessing their effects on PSP implementations, but tended to rate specific organisational characteristic contexts as high priority only for use in PSP evaluations. Panelists appeared split on whether specific external factors and implementation/management tools were important for assessment or only description. Conclusion This work can guide research commissioners and evaluators on the contextual features of PSP implementations that are important to report or evaluate. It represents a first step towards developing guidelines on contexts in PSP implementation evaluations. However, the science of context measurement needs maturing.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Cancer Nausea and Vomiting

The experience of patients living with cancer and being treated with chemotherapy often includes the symptoms of nausea and vomiting. To provide a framework for high-quality management of these symptoms, we developed a set of key targeted evidence-based standards through an iterative process of targeted systematic review, development, and refinement of topic areas and standards and consensus ratings by a multidisciplinary expert panel as part of the RAND Cancer Quality-Assessing Symptoms Side Effects and Indicators of Supportive Treatment Project. For nausea and vomiting, key clinical standards included screening at the initial outpatient and inpatient visit, prophylaxis for acute and delayed emesis in patients receiving moderate to highly emetic chemotherapy, and follow-up after treatment for nausea and vomiting symptoms. In addition, patients with cancer and small bowel obstruction were examined as a special subset of patients who present with nausea and vomiting. The standards presented here for preventing and managing nausea and vomiting in cancer care should be incorporated into care pathways and should become the expectation rather than the exception.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Information and Care Planning in Cancer Care

The practice of oncology is characterized by challenging communication tasks that make it difficult to ensure optimal physician-patient information sharing and care planning. Discussions of diagnosis, prognosis, and patient goals are essential processes that inform decisions. However, data suggest that there are deficiencies in this area. We conducted a systematic review to identify the evidence supporting high-quality clinical practices for information and care planning in the context of cancer care as part of the RAND Cancer Quality-Assessing Symptoms, Side Effects, and Indicators of Supportive Treatment Project. Domains of information and care planning that are important for high-quality cancer care include integration of palliation into cancer care, advance care planning, sentinel events as markers for the need to readdress a patients goals of care, and continuity of care planning. The standards presented here for information and care planning in cancer care should be incorporated into care pathways and should become the expectation rather than the exception.