In an apprenticeship model, for a trainee who is developing their skills, situating them in the workplace has distinct advantages. Starting from legitimate peripheral participation, the developing clinician is moulded by social interaction and collaboration while they learn from the spectrum of patients that make up a given clinical population.1 The goal is lasting behavioural and cognitive changes in the trainee as they take up the mantle of ‘expert clinician’.
However, to take on legitimate roles in the clinical workplace, a trainee requires direct just-in-time support, or ‘scaffolding’, in the form of supervision. Their preceptors provide enough support to ensure that safe and successful patient management can be accomplished. This is analogous to training wheels for someone learning to ride a bicycle—a scaffolding mechanism that enables a relative novice to perform the activity from start to finish when they...
Simulation-based training and assessment in healthcare are now commonplace in the majority of industrialised nations. The role of standardised patients, high-fidelity and low-fidelity manikins, synthetic, animal and virtual reality platforms, and simulation suites, are accepted, and integrated into training curricula in medical and nursing schools, and residency programmes. Despite this widespread use, only a handful of studies have assessed the impact of simulation-based education on patient and health system outcomes, and these studies have their focus on procedural skills such as central line insertion or laparoscopic surgery.1 2 Furthermore, the emphasis of such studies has been on simulation-based education as a tool to impact early learners, with minimal consideration of its use for independent practitioners such as attending physicians and experienced nurses.
An emerging area of simulation-based education is just-in-time training, or as it was termed by Niles et al in 2009, ‘rolling refreshers’, which...
Open communication between healthcare professionals about care concerns, also known as ‘speaking up’, is essential to patient safety.Objective
Compare interns' and residents' experiences, attitudes and factors associated with speaking up about traditional versus professionalism-related safety threats.Design
Anonymous, cross-sectional survey.Setting
Six US academic medical centres, 2013–2014.Participants
1800 medical and surgical interns and residents (47% responded).Measurements
Attitudes about, barriers and facilitators for, and self-reported experience with speaking up. Likelihood of speaking up and the potential for patient harm in two vignettes. Safety Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ) teamwork and safety scales; and Speaking Up Climate for Patient Safety (SUC-Safe) and Speaking Up Climate for Professionalism (SUC-Prof) scales.Results
Respondents more commonly observed unprofessional behaviour (75%, 628/837) than traditional safety threats (49%, 410/837); p<0.001, but reported speaking up about unprofessional behaviour less commonly (46%, 287/628 vs 71%, 291/410; p<0.001). Respondents more commonly reported fear of conflict as a barrier to speaking up about unprofessional behaviour compared with traditional safety threats (58%, 482/837 vs 42%, 348/837; p<0.001). Respondents were also less likely to speak up to an attending physician in the professionalism vignette than the traditional safety vignette, even when they perceived high potential patient harm (20%, 49/251 vs 71%, 179/251; p<0.001). Positive perceptions of SAQ teamwork climate and SUC-Safe were independently associated with speaking up in the traditional safety vignette (OR 1.90, 99% CI 1.36 to 2.66 and 1.46, 1.02 to 2.09, respectively), while only a positive perception of SUC-Prof was associated with speaking up in the professionalism vignette (1.76, 1.23 to 2.50).Conclusions
Interns and residents commonly observed unprofessional behaviour yet were less likely to speak up about it compared with traditional safety threats even when they perceived high potential patient harm. Measuring SUC-Safe, and particularly SUC-Prof, may fill an existing gap in safety culture assessment.
A subset of high-risk procedures present significant safety threats due to their (1) infrequent occurrence, (2) execution under time constraints and (3) immediate necessity for patient survival. A Just-in-Time (JIT) intervention could provide real-time bedside guidance to improve high-risk procedural performance and address procedural deficits associated with skill decay.Objective
To evaluate the impact of a novel JIT intervention on transvenous pacemaker (TVP) placement during a simulated patient event.Methods
This was a prospective, randomised controlled study to determine the effect of a JIT intervention on performance of TVP placement. Subjects included board-certified emergency medicine physicians from two hospitals. The JIT intervention consisted of a portable, bedside computer-based procedural adjunct. The primary outcome was performance during a simulated patient encounter requiring TVP placement, as assessed by trained raters using a technical skills checklist. Secondary outcomes included global performance ratings, time to TVP placement, number of critical omissions and System Usability Scale scores (intervention only).Results
Groups were similar at baseline across all outcomes. Compared with the control group, the intervention group demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the technical checklist score (11.45 vs 23.44, p<0.001, Cohen’s d effect size 4.64), the global rating scale (2.27 vs 4.54, p<0.001, Cohen’s d effect size 3.76), and a statistically significant reduction in critical omissions (2.23 vs 0.68, p<0.001, Cohen’s d effect size –1.86). The difference in time to procedural completion was not statistically significant between conditions (11.15 min vs 12.80 min, p=0.12, Cohen’s d effect size 0.65). System Usability Scale scores demonstrated excellent usability.Conclusion
A JIT intervention improved procedure perfromance, suggesting a role for JIT interventions in rarely performed procedures.
Relatively little attention has been devoted to the role of communication between physicians as a mechanism for individual and organisational learning about diagnostic delays. This study’s objective was to elicit physicians’ perceptions about and experiences with communication among physicians regarding diagnostic delays in cancer.Design, setting, participants
Qualitative analysis based on seven focus groups. Fifty-one physicians affiliated with three New York-based academic medical centres participated, with six to nine subjects per group. We used content analysis to identify commonalities among primary care physicians and specialists (ie, medical and surgical oncologists).Primary outcome measure
Perceptions and experiences with physician-to-physician communication about delays in cancer diagnosis.Results
Our analysis identified five major themes: openness to communication, benefits of communication, fears about giving and receiving feedback, infrastructure barriers to communication and overcoming barriers to communication. Subjects valued communication about cancer diagnostic delays, but they had many concerns and fears about providing and receiving feedback in practice. Subjects expressed reluctance to communicate if there was insufficient information to attribute responsibility, if it would have no direct benefit or if it would jeopardise their existing relationships. They supported sensitive approaches to conveying information, as they feared eliciting or being subject to feelings of incompetence or shame. Subjects also cited organisational barriers. They offered suggestions that might facilitate communication about delays.Conclusions
Addressing the barriers to communication among physicians about diagnostic delays is needed to promote a culture of learning across specialties and institutions. Supporting open and honest discussions about diagnostic delays may help build safer health systems.
To identify patient and family practice characteristics associated with patient-reported experiences of safety problems and harm.Design
Cross-sectional study combining data from the individual postal administration of the validated Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) questionnaire to a random sample of patients in family practices (response rate=18.4%) and practice-level data for those practices obtained from NHS Digital. We built linear multilevel multivariate regression models to model the association between patient-level (clinical and sociodemographic) and practice-level (size and case-mix, human resources, indicators of quality and safety of care, and practice safety activation) characteristics, and outcome measures.Setting
Practices distributed across five regions in the North, Centre and South of England.Participants
1190 patients registered in 45 practices purposefully sampled (maximal variation in practice size and levels of deprivation).Main outcome measures
Self-reported safety problems, harm and overall perception of safety.Results
Higher self-reported levels of safety problems were associated with younger age of patients (beta coefficient 0.15) and lower levels of practice safety activation (0.44). Higher self-reported levels of harm were associated with younger age (0.13) and worse self-reported health status (0.23). Lower self-reported healthcare safety was associated with lower levels of practice safety activation (0.40). The fully adjusted models explained 4.5% of the variance in experiences of safety problems, 8.6% of the variance in harm and 4.4% of the variance in perceptions of patient safety.Conclusions
Practices’ safety activation levels and patients’ age and health status are associated with patient-reported safety outcomes in English family practices. The development of interventions aimed at improving patient safety outcomes would benefit from focusing on the identified groups.
Readmissions of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have devastating effects on patient quality-of-life, disease progression and healthcare cost. Effective interventions to reduce COPD readmissions are needed.Objectives
Reduce 30-day all-cause readmissions by (1) creating a COPD care bundle that addresses care delivery failures, (2) using improvement science to achieve 90% bundle adherence.Setting
An 800-bed academic hospital in Ohio, USA. The COPD 30-day all-cause readmission rate was 22.7% from August 2013 to September 2015.Method
We performed a cross-sectional study of COPD 30-day readmissions from October 2014 to March 2015 to identify care delivery failures. We interviewed readmitted patients with COPD to identify their needs after discharge. A multidisciplinary team created a care bundle designed to mitigate system failures. Using a quasi-experimental study and ‘Model for Improvement’, we redesigned care delivery to improve bundle adherence. We used statistical process control charts to analyse bundle adherence and all-cause 30-day readmissions.Results
Cross-sectional review of the index (first-time) admissions revealed COPD was the most common readmission diagnosis and identified 42 system-level failures. The most prevalent failures were deficient inhaler regimen at discharge, late or non-existent follow-up appointments, and suboptimal discharge instructions. Patient interviews revealed confusing discharge instructions, especially regarding inhaler use. The COPD care-bundle components were: (1) appropriate inhaler regimen, (2) 30-day inhaler supply, (3) inhaler education on the device available postdischarge, (4) follow-up within 15 days (5) standardised patient-centred discharge instructions. The adherence to completing bundle components reached 90% in 5.5 months and was sustained. The COPD 30-day readmission rate decreased from 22.7% to 14.7%. Patients receiving all bundle components had a readmission rate of 10.9%. As a balancing measure for the targeted reduction in readmission rate, we assessed length of stay, which did not change (4.8 days before vs 4.6 days after; p=0.45).Conclusion
System-level failures and unmet patient needs are modifiable risks for readmissions. Development and reliable implementation of a COPD care bundle that mitigates these failures reduced COPD readmissions.
Time series charts are increasingly used by clinical teams to monitor their performance, but statistical control charts are not widely used, partly due to uncertainty about which chart to use. Although there is a large literature on methods, there are few systematic comparisons of charts for detecting changes in rates of binary clinical performance data.Methods
We compared four control charts for binary data: the Shewhart p-chart; the exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) chart; the cumulative sum (CUSUM) chart; and the g-chart. Charts were set up to have the same long-term false signal rate. Chart performance was then judged according to the expected number of patients treated until a change in rate was detected.Results
For large absolute increases in rates (>10%), the Shewhart p-chart and EWMA both had good performance, although not quite as good as the CUSUM. For small absolute increases (<10%), the CUSUM detected changes more rapidly. The g-chart is designed to efficiently detect decreases in low event rates, but it again had less good performance than the CUSUM.Implications
The Shewhart p-chart is the simplest chart to implement and interpret, and performs well for detecting large changes, which may be useful for monitoring processes of care. The g-chart is a useful complement for determining the success of initiatives to reduce low-event rates (eg, adverse events). The CUSUM may be particularly useful for faster detection of problems with patient safety leading to increases in adverse event rates.
Globally, nurses constitute the largest segment of healthcare professionals; therefore, they are also the most expensive, and in a hospital these costs can reach 25% of the total expenditure.1 When costs are calculated, usually the monthly sum of nursing working hours and nursing labour costs is divided by the total number of patient days to produce mean general measures such as ‘nursing hours per patient’ or ‘nursing costs per patient day.’ This is only a general average cost calculation that takes into account large groups of nurses caring for large groups of patients, but through this system it is difficult to accurately control costs if the specific costs are unknown.2 In this regard, Needleman3 pointed to the ‘invisibility’ of a significant portion of nursing today, which explains why this discipline in many countries around the world is still not fully recognised by...
Quality improvement and implementation (QI&I) initiatives face critical challenges in an era of evidence-based, value-driven patient care. Whether front-line staff, large organisations or government bodies design and run QI&I, there is increasing need to demonstrate impact to justify investment of time and resources in implementing and scaling up an intervention.
Decisions about sustaining, scaling up and spreading an initiative can be informed by evidence of causation and the estimated attributable effect of an intervention on observed outcomes. Achieving this in healthcare can be challenging, where interventions often are multimodal and applied in complex systems.1 Where there is weak evidence of causation, credibility in the effectiveness of the intervention is reduced with a resultant reduced desire to replicate. The greater confidence of a causal relationship between QI&I interventions and observed results, the greater our confidence that improvement will result when the intervention occurs in different settings....
Standard admission order sets have become ubiquitous across hospitals to promote adherence to practice guidelines and increase ordering efficiency.1 2 This standardisation arose in part out of a need to minimise waste in healthcare, a phenomenon identified as a major barrier to reducing future healthcare costs.3 However, few studies have systematically evaluated whether these standardised orders can actually promote overordering of investigations. At our academic hospital’s coronary care unit (CCU), a single mandatory generic order set is used regardless of admitting diagnosis and includes optional check boxes for serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). We postulated that physicians order investigations differently on admission based on which investigations are included in the admission order set.Methods
We quasi-randomised a convenience sample of participants in a double-blind fashion to receive either our standard CCU admission order set or...
Patient safety is a core focus now in medical education, with an increasing number of training programmes educating learners about its key tenets.1–3 Residents now undergo formal training about the importance of contributing to a culture of safety by speaking up to avoid errors or harm, but still face difficulties enacting these behaviours in practice.4 In this issue of the journal, Martinez et al have attempted to tease out differences in speaking-out behaviours between traditional and professionalism-related patient safety threats.5 The authors have raised several interesting points worthy of further exploration. In this editorial we focus on unprofessional behaviour as a potential threat to patient safety and propose some new ways of thinking about how to integrate research and lessons from both the patient safety and professionalism literature.
In the study by Martinez and colleagues, residents reported witnessing unprofessional...