-
Nursing Open Jul 2022This study identified and evaluated tested patient safety educational interventions. This study also described the content, curricular structures and teaching strategies... (Review)
Review
AIM
This study identified and evaluated tested patient safety educational interventions. This study also described the content, curricular structures and teaching strategies of the educational interventions and determined the methods used for evaluating patient safety learning outcomes.
DESIGN
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines directed this review.
METHODS
Searches for articles describing and evaluating patient safety educational interventions were conducted using four scholarly databases. Study quality was assessed using the McMaster Critical Review Form.
RESULTS
Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Educational interventions were either presented as stand-alone courses or as lessons embedded in an existing course. All studies employed a mixture of various teaching modalities and several evaluation methods and outcomes. Mixed results were observed in terms of the effects of educational interventions. Future researchers should continue to develop patient safety curricula and examine their effect on student competencies with stronger methodological rigour.
Topics: Curriculum; Education, Nursing; Faculty, Nursing; Humans; Patient Safety
PubMed: 34047058
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.955 -
Surgical Endoscopy Aug 2022Live Broadcast of Surgical Procedures (LBSP) has gained popularity in conferences and educational meetings in the past few decades. This is due to rapid advancement in... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Live Broadcast of Surgical Procedures (LBSP) has gained popularity in conferences and educational meetings in the past few decades. This is due to rapid advancement in both Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) that enable transmission of the entire operative field and transmission ease and technology to help broadcast the operation to a live audience. The aim of this study was to update the evidence with specific emphasis on the patient safety issues related to LBSP in MIS.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed using Medline, Embase and Pubmed using defined search terms related to LBSP in educational events across all surgical specialities, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We also consolidated the prior guidelines and position statements on this topic. Outcomes included reports on the educational value of LBSP as well as patient safety outcomes and ethical issues that were captured by clinical outcomes.
RESULTS
A total 1230 abstracts were identified with 27 papers meeting the inclusion criteria (13 original articles and 14 position statements/guidelines). All studies highlighted the educational benefits of LBSP but without clear measure of these benefits. Clinical outcomes were not compromised in 9 studies but were inferior in the remaining 4, including lower completion rate of endoscopic surgery and higher rate of re-operation. Only nine studies complied with dedicated consent forms for LBSP with no consistent approach of reporting on maintaining patient confidentiality during LBSP. There was a lack of recommendation on standardised approach of reporting on LBSP including the outcomes across the 14 published guidelines and positions statements.
CONCLUSIONS
Live Broadcast of Surgical Procedures can be of educational value but patient safety may be compromised. A standardised framework of reporting on LBSP and its outcomes is required from an ethical and patient safety perspective.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021256901.
Topics: Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Patient Safety
PubMed: 35604484
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09072-6 -
Cureus May 2023Operating theatres and surgical resource consumption comprise a significant proportion of healthcare costs. Inefficiencies in theatre lists remain an important focus... (Review)
Review
Operating theatres and surgical resource consumption comprise a significant proportion of healthcare costs. Inefficiencies in theatre lists remain an important focus for cost management, along with reducing patient morbidity and mortality. With the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the number of patients on theatre waiting lists has surged. Hence, there is a pressing need to utilise the already limited theatre time and fraught resources with innovative methods. In this systematic review, we discuss the Golden Patient Initiative (GPI), in which the first patient on the operating list is pre-assessed the day prior to surgery, and we aim to assess its impact and overall efficacy. A literature search using the following four databases was conducted to identify and select all clinical research concerning the GPI: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cochrane library. Two independent authors screened articles against the eligibility criteria, using a process adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data extracted included outcomes measured, follow-up period, and study design. The results showed significant heterogeneity, and hence a narrative review was conducted; 13 of the 73 eligible articles were included for analysis. Outcomes included delay in theatre start time, number of surgical case cancellations, and changes to total case numbers. Across the studies, a 19-30-minute improvement in theatre start time was reported (p<0.05), as well as a statistically significant decrease in case cancellations. Our analysis provides encouraging conclusions with regard to greater theatre efficiency following the application of GPI, a low-cost solution that can easily be implemented to help improve patient safety and lead to cost savings. However, at present, it is largely implemented among local trusts, and hence larger multi-centre studies are required to gather conclusive evidence about the efficacy of the initiative.
PubMed: 37398795
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39685 -
Journal of Biomedical Informatics Sep 2022Patient safety classifications/ontologies enable patient safety information systems to receive and analyze patient safety data to improve patient safety. Patient safety... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Patient safety classifications/ontologies enable patient safety information systems to receive and analyze patient safety data to improve patient safety. Patient safety classifications/ontologies have been developed and evaluated using a variety of methods. The purpose of this review was to discuss and analyze the methodologies for developing and evaluating patient safety classifications/ontologies.
METHODS
Studies that developed or evaluated patient safety classifications, terminologies, taxonomies, or ontologies were searched through Google Scholar, Google search engines, National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) BioPortal, Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry and World Health Organization (WHO) websites and Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Science Direct. We updated our search on 30 February 2021 and included all studies published until the end of 2020. Studies that developed or evaluated classifications only for patient safety and provided information on how they were developed or evaluated were included. Systems with covered patient safety terms (such as ICD-10) but are not specifically developed for patient safety were excluded. The quality and the risk of bias of studies were not assessed because all methodologies and criteria were intended to be covered. In addition, we analyzed the data through descriptive narrative synthesis and compared and classified the development and evaluation methods and evaluation criteria according to available development and evaluation approaches for biomedical ontologies.
RESULTS
We identified 84 articles that met all of the inclusion criteria, resulting in 70 classifications/ontologies, nine of which were for the general medical domain. The most papers were published in 2010 and 2011, with 8 and 7 papers, respectively. The United States (50) and Australia (23) have the most studies. The most commonly used methods for developing classifications/ontologies included the use of existing systems (for expanding or mapping) (44) and qualitative analysis of event reports (39). The most common evaluation methods were coding or classifying some safety report samples (25), quantitative analysis of incidents based on the developed classification (24), and consensus among physicians (16). The most commonly applied evaluation criteria were reliability (27), content and face validity (9), comprehensiveness (6), usability (5), linguistic clarity (5), and impact (4), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the weaknesses and strengths of the development/evaluation methods, it is advised that more than one method for development or evaluation, as well as evaluation criteria, should be used. To organize the processes of developing classification/ontologies, well-established approaches such as Methontology are recommended. The most prevalent evaluation methods applied in this domain are well fitted to the biomedical ontology evaluation methods, but it is also advised to apply some evaluation approaches such as logic, rules, and Natural language processing (NLP) based in combination with other evaluation approaches. This research can assist domain researchers in developing or evaluating domain ontologies using more complete methodologies. There is also a lack of reporting consistency in the literature and same methods or criteria were reported with different terminologies.
Topics: Biological Ontologies; Humans; Logic; Natural Language Processing; Patient Safety; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 35878822
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2022.104150 -
International Journal of Critical... 2022Medication errors (MEs) present a significant issue in health care area, as they pose a threat to patient safety and could occur at any stage of the medication use... (Review)
Review
Medication errors (MEs) present a significant issue in health care area, as they pose a threat to patient safety and could occur at any stage of the medication use process. The objective of this systematic review was to review studies reporting the rates, prevalence, and/or incidence of various MEs in different health care clinical settings in Jordan. We searched PubMed, HINARI, Google, and SCOPUS for relevant published studies. We included observational, cross-sectional or cohort studies on MEs targeting adults in different health-care settings in Jordan. A total of 411 records were identified through searching different databases. Following the removal of duplicates, screening of title, abstract and full-text screening, 24 papers were included for the final review step. Prescribing errors was the most common error reported in the included studies, where it was reported in 15 studies. The prevalence of prescribing errors ranged from 0.1% to 96%. Two studies reported unintentional discrepancies and documentation errors as other types of MEs, where the prevalence of unintentional discrepancies ranged from 47% to 67.9%, and the prevalence of documentation errors ranged from 33.7% to 65%. In conclusion, a wide variation was found between the reviewed studies in the error prevalence rates. This variation may be due to the variation in the clinical settings, targeted populations, methodologies employed. There is an imperative need for addressing the issue of MEs and improving drug therapy practice among health-care professionals by introducing education and training.
PubMed: 35845119
DOI: 10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_72_21 -
Nursing Open Nov 2022To provide an overview of responsibilities and tasks of nurses in pharmaceutical care. (Review)
Review
AIM
To provide an overview of responsibilities and tasks of nurses in pharmaceutical care.
DESIGN
Scoping review.
METHODS
Two databases were systematically searched (MEDLINE and Scopus) for recent original research papers concerning nurses' responsibilities and tasks in pharmaceutical care. The definition of responsibility was based on literature, moral and ethical discussions. Existing responsibilities and tasks beyond preparation and administration of medication were collected and synthesized. This main study outcome was extracted from titles and abstracts only. Results were reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines.
RESULTS
Of the 3,805 titles and abstracts reviewed, 453 abstracts were included. A total of seven responsibilities were identified: (a) management of therapeutic and adverse effects of medication, (b) management of medication adherence, (c) management of patient medication self-management, (d) management of patient education and information about medication, (e) prescription management, (f) medication safety management and (g) (transition of) care coordination. Within these responsibilities, all tasks performed by nurses were described.
Topics: Humans; Medication Adherence; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Self-Management; Pharmaceutical Services; Nurses
PubMed: 34268910
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.984 -
JMIR Medical Informatics Jul 2020Artificial intelligence (AI) provides opportunities to identify the health risks of patients and thus influence patient safety outcomes. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Artificial intelligence (AI) provides opportunities to identify the health risks of patients and thus influence patient safety outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic literature review was to identify and analyze quantitative studies utilizing or integrating AI to address and report clinical-level patient safety outcomes.
METHODS
We restricted our search to the PubMed, PubMed Central, and Web of Science databases to retrieve research articles published in English between January 2009 and August 2019. We focused on quantitative studies that reported positive, negative, or intermediate changes in patient safety outcomes using AI apps, specifically those based on machine-learning algorithms and natural language processing. Quantitative studies reporting only AI performance but not its influence on patient safety outcomes were excluded from further review.
RESULTS
We identified 53 eligible studies, which were summarized concerning their patient safety subcategories, the most frequently used AI, and reported performance metrics. Recognized safety subcategories were clinical alarms (n=9; mainly based on decision tree models), clinical reports (n=21; based on support vector machine models), and drug safety (n=23; mainly based on decision tree models). Analysis of these 53 studies also identified two essential findings: (1) the lack of a standardized benchmark and (2) heterogeneity in AI reporting.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review indicates that AI-enabled decision support systems, when implemented correctly, can aid in enhancing patient safety by improving error detection, patient stratification, and drug management. Future work is still needed for robust validation of these systems in prospective and real-world clinical environments to understand how well AI can predict safety outcomes in health care settings.
PubMed: 32706688
DOI: 10.2196/18599 -
International Journal For Quality in... Feb 2021Prehospital care is potentially hazardous with the possibility for patients to experience an adverse event. However, as compared to secondary care, little is known about...
BACKGROUND
Prehospital care is potentially hazardous with the possibility for patients to experience an adverse event. However, as compared to secondary care, little is known about how patient safety is managed in prehospital care settings.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this systematic review were to identify and classify the methods of measuring and monitoring patient safety that have been used in prehospital care using the five dimensions of the Measuring and Monitoring Safety (MMS) framework and use this classification to identify where there are safety 'blind spots' and make recommendations for how these deficits could be addressed.
METHODS
Searches were conducted in January 2020, with no limit on publication year, using Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science and Academic Search. Reference lists of included studies and existing related reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies concerned with measuring and monitoring safety in prehospital care were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from studies and applied a quality appraisal tool (the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs).
RESULTS
A total of 5301 studies were screened, with 52 included in the review. A total of 73% (38/52) of the studies assessed past harm, 25% (13/52) the reliability of safety critical processes, 1.9% (1/52) sensitivity to operations, 38.5% (20/52) anticipation and preparedness and 5.8% (3/52) integration and learning. A total of 67 methods for measuring and monitoring safety were used across the included studies. Of these methods, 38.8% (26/67) were surveys, 29.9% (20/67) were patient records reviews, 14.9% (10/67) were incident reporting systems, 11.9% (8/67) were interviews or focus groups and 4.5% (3/67) were checklists.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no single method of measuring and monitoring safety in prehospital care. Arguably, most safety monitoring systems have evolved, rather than been designed. This leads to safety blind spots in which information is lacking, as well as to redundancy and duplication of effort. It is suggested that the findings from this systematic review, informed by the MMS framework, can provide a structure for critically thinking about how safety is being measured and monitored in prehospital care. This will support the design of a safety surveillance system that provides a comprehensive understanding of what is being done well, where improvements should be made and whether safety interventions have had the desired effect.
Topics: Checklist; Delivery of Health Care; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Patient Safety; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 33459774
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab013 -
American Journal of Surgery Jul 2022Previous systematic reviews have found high burnout in healthcare professionals is associated with poorer patient care. However, no review or meta-analysis has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Previous systematic reviews have found high burnout in healthcare professionals is associated with poorer patient care. However, no review or meta-analysis has investigated this association in surgeons specifically. The present study addressed this gap, by examining the association between surgeon burnout and 1) patient safety and 2) surgical professionalism.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We included original empirical studies that measured burnout and patient care or professionalism in surgeons. Six databases were searched (PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Database, CINAHL, and Web of Science) from inception to February 2021. An adapted version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were utilised to synthesise results.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in the narrative review (including 27,248 participants) and nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. Burnout was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk of involvement in medical error (OR = 2.51, 95% Cl [1.68-3.72]). The professionalism outcome variables were too diverse for meta-analysis, however, the narrative synthesis indicated a link between high burnout and a higher risk of loss of temper and malpractice suits and lower empathy. No link was found between burnout and patient satisfaction.
CONCLUSION
There is a significant association between higher burnout in surgeons and poorer patient safety. The delivery of interventions to reduce surgeon burnout should be prioritised; such interventions should be evaluated for their potential to produce concomitant improvements in patient safety.
Topics: Burnout, Professional; Burnout, Psychological; Humans; Patient Safety; Professionalism; Surgeons
PubMed: 34974884
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.12.027