How will we know patients are safer? An organization-wide approach to measuring and improving safety. Crit Care Med

Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Critical Care Medicine (Impact Factor: 6.31). 08/2006; 34(7):1988-95. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000226412.12612.B6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Our institution, like many, is struggling to develop measures that answer the question, How do we know we are safer? Our objectives are to present a framework to evaluate performance in patient safety and describe how we applied this model in intensive care units.
We focus on measures of safety rather than broader measures of quality. The measures will allow health care organizations to evaluate whether they are safer now than in the past by answering the following questions: How often do we harm patients? How often do patients receive the appropriate interventions? How do we know we learned from defects? How well have we created a culture of safety? The first two measures are rate based, whereas the latter two are qualitative. To improve care within institutions, caregivers must be engaged, must participate in the selection and development of measures, and must receive feedback regarding their performance. The following attributes should be considered when evaluating potential safety measures: Measures must be important to the organization, must be valid (represent what they intend to measure), must be reliable (produce similar results when used repeatedly), must be feasible (affordable to collect data), must be usable for the people expected to employ the data to improve safety, and must have universal applicability within the entire institution.
Health care institutions.
Health care currently lacks a robust safety score card. We developed four aggregate measures of patient safety and present how we applied them to intensive care units in an academic medical center. The same measures are being applied to nearly 200 intensive care units as part of ongoing collaborative projects. The measures include how often do we harm patients, how often do we do what we should (i.e., use evidence-based medicine), how do we know we learned from mistakes, and how well do we improve culture. Measures collected by different departments can then be aggregated to provide a hospital level safety score card.
The science of measuring patient safety is immature. This article is a starting point for developing feasible and scientifically sound approaches to measure safety within an institution. Institutions will need to find a balance between measures that are scientifically sound, affordable, usable, and easily applied across the institution.

Download full-text


Available from: Albert W Wu, Feb 18, 2015
46 Reads
  • Source
    • "In determining how best to publicly report CLABSI outcome data, MHCC considered the goals and challenges of public reporting. The goals of public reporting are to inform the public about hospital performance, to increase transparency and trust between hospitals and consumers, and to drive best practices and improvement to eliminate healthcare-associated infections [2,3]. The purpose of this study was to help MHCC in choosing the best way of communicating these data that would address needs and concerns of consumers, hospitals, and the State. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate information visualization of publicly-reported central line-associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) outcome data for decision making by diverse target audiences - health care consumers and practitioners. We describe the challenges in publicly reporting of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) data and the interpretation of an evaluation metric. Several options for visualization of CLABSI data were designed and evaluated employing exploratory working group, two confirmatory focus groups' observations, and experts' committee validation of the final designs. Survey-data collection and evaluation criteria results, collected from the two focus groups, are presented and are used to develop the final recommendations for how to visualize publicly-reported CLABSI data from Maryland acute care hospitals. Both health care consumer and practitioner's perspectives are highlighted and categorized based on the visualizations' dimensions framework. Finally, a recommended format for visualizing CLABSI outcome data based on the evaluation study is summarized.
    07/2013; 5(2):218. DOI:10.5210/ojphi.v5i2.4364
  • Source
    • "Despite the demonstrated benefits of checklists in improving the delivery of patient care, their integration into practice, including cardiac surgery, has not been as widespread as in other fields (Hales & Pronovost, 2006). Perhaps one reason for this limited deployment of checklists is the fear that they will reduce the autonomy and flexibility of the healthcare provider. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the past 50 years, significant improvements in cardiac surgical care have been achieved. Nevertheless, surgical errors that significantly impact patient safety continue to occur. In order to further improve surgical outcomes, patient safety programs must focus on rectifying work system factors in the operating room (OR) that negatively impact the delivery of reliable surgical care. The goal of this paper is to provide an integrative review of specific work system factors in the OR that may directly impact surgical care processes, as well as the subsequent recommendations that have been put forth to improve surgical outcomes and patient safety. The important role that surgeons can play in facilitating work system changes in the OR is also discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion of the challenges involved in assessing the impact that interventions have on improving surgical care. Opportunities for future research are also highlighted throughout the paper.
    Applied ergonomics 03/2010; 41(5):701-12. DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2009.12.008 · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Safety culture is one aspect of organisational culture. It is the pattern of shared values, beliefs and attitudes concerning safety present in an organisation. In this article, Edgar Schein's three-layer model is used to demonstrate to what extent a safety culture can be directly and indirectly measured. Several methods for the assessment of safety culture are presented: questionnaires evaluating the safety climate, methods enabling teams to perform self-assessment, interviews, audits, analyses of safety reports and observation. The aim of the assessment is crucial to the choice of the appropriate mode of measurement. In healthcare, the currently most widely used instrument is questionnaires since it is comparatively simple to use and inexpensive and yields rapid results. However, the employment of additional measures (interviews, audits, analyses of safety reports) is more appropriate if the most important aspects of safety culture in a given organisation need to be covered.
    Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 01/2009; 103(8):515-520. DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2009.08.004
Show more