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

Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Critical Care Medicine (Impact Factor: 6.15). 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.


Available from: Albert W Wu, Feb 18, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Substantial attention over the last decade has focused on ensuring improvement in the increasingly complex world of healthcare. This has resulted in significant efforts in the arena of patient safety. The issue of how best to evaluate the validity of patient safety initiatives is a matter of significant discussion. Many quality improvement initiatives in healthcare are poorly developed, with few patient safety interventions sharing characteristics with evidence based medicine. We will discuss the key elements of a framework as an example to help structure our thinking and approach to answer these questions. Elements include an explanation of the theoretical basis, the use of appropriate measures, detailing of the involved processes, and assessment of the initiative itself as well as the contextual factors surrounding it.
    06/2014; 4(2). DOI:10.1007/s40140-014-0059-4
  • Source
    [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
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In den letzten zehn Jahren ist weltweit das Bewusstsein dafür gewachsen, dass die Gesundheitssysteme trotz überall steigender Kosten nicht so sicher sind, wie sie sein sollten. Die medizinische Tätigkeit wird dauerhaft ein risikobehaftetes Unterfangen bleiben, denn die Hoffnung auf Nutzen und Heilung ist immer auch mit der Möglichkeit des Schadens verbunden. Umso dringlicher ist deshalb in den letzten Jahren bei den Professionellen und auch bei den politischen Organen der Ruf nach mehr Sicherheit. Die Patientensicherheit – definiert als die Abwesenheit unerwünschter Ereignisse und die Anwesenheit von Maßnahmen zu ihrer Vermeidung oder zur Abschwächung ihrer Auswirkungen – wird so zu einem zentralen Thema des Gesundheitswesens des 21.Jahrhunderts und ergänzt die Qualitätsdiskussion um eine entscheidende Facette. Die zahlreichen getroffenen oder zu treffenden Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Patientensicherheit verlangen nach einer neuen Kultur des Umgangs mit Fehlern, nämlich sie zu registrieren und zu analysieren, um aus ihnen zu lernen und so Veränderungen der Systeme zu bewirken, die solche Fehler möglich machen. Diese Art des Umgangs mit Fehlern in der Praxis – klinisches Risikomanagement – verlangt eine Sicherheitskultur, deren Ermöglichung zu den wichtigsten Aufgaben der Führenden von Organisationen im Gesundheitswesen gehört. Die Maßnahmen, die getroffen werden, um die Patientensicherheit zu verbessern, bedürfen einer Evaluation, um nachzuweisen, dass sie hierzu einen wirksamen Beitrag leisten. Dies soll im vorliegenden Beitrag exemplarisch für Fehlerberichtsysteme, für Verbesserungen des Medikationsprozesses, für die Erhöhung der Sicherheit bei operativen Eingriffen und für die Verringerung nosokomialer Infektionen durch eine konsequente Händehygiene aufgezeigt werden. Dabei sollen die Prozessmodifikationen ebenso evaluiert werden wie der Einbezug der Patienten zur Verbesserung ihrer Sicherheit beim Kontakt mit Institutionen des Gesundheitswesens im ambulanten und stationären Bereich. Over the last 10years, there has been increasing awareness of medical errors and harm to patients in healthcare. There is now widespread acceptance of the problem of medical harm and a determination to tackle major patient safety problems. Safety is defined as freedom from accidental injury. Thus, clinical risk management has been increasingly requested by professionals and their professional organizations to make healthcare safer. Clinical risk management is one of a number of organizational systems or processes aimed to improve the quality of healthcare, but one which is primarily concerned with creating and maintaining safe systems of care. A definition of this form – identifying, analyzing, and controlling risks – fits more comfortably with the culture and mission of healthcare organizations and is more likely to achieve the support and involvement of clinical professionals because it better reflects their purpose and values. Patient safety needs to become embedded in the culture of healthcare, not just in the sense of individual high standards, but a widespread acceptance of understanding of risk and safety and the need of everyone to actively promote patient safety. Measures taken to enhance patient safety encompass a wide range of activities with regard to the errors in the process of medication, to surgical errors and surgical outcome (“safer surgery saves lives”), and to hospitalism and hospital-acquired infections taking into consideration adherence to hand hygiene. An evaluation of the added value to patient safety, when processes are systematically changed and the patients become involved in making healthcare safer, is needed. SchlüsselwörterSicherheitskultur–Fehlermeldesystem–Medikationsprozess–Checklisten–Nosokomiale Infektionen KeywordsSafety management–Critical incident reporting system–Medication process–Checklist–Nosocomial infections
    Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 02/2011; 54(2):171-175. DOI:10.1007/s00103-010-1201-1 · 1.01 Impact Factor