BMJ quality & safety
-
Avoiding low value care received increasing attention in many countries, as with the Choosing Wisely campaign and other initiatives to abandon care that wastes resources or delivers no benefit to patients. While an extensive literature characterises approaches to implementing evidence-based care, we have limited understanding of the process of de-implementation, such as abandoning existing low value practices. To learn more about the differences between implementation and de-implementation, we explored the literature and analysed data from two published studies (one implementation and one de-implementation) by the same orthopaedic surgeons. ⋯ De-implementation seemed to be hampered by motivational factors such as department priorities, and economic and political factors such as cost-benefit considerations in care delivery, whereas organisational factors were associated only with implementation. The only barrier or facilitator common to both implementation and de-implementation consisted of outcome expectancy (ie, the perceived net benefit to patients). Future studies need to test the hypotheses generated from this study and improve our understanding of differences between the processes of implementation and de-implementation in the people who are most likely to lead (or resist) these efforts.
-
BMJ quality & safety · Jun 2017
Observational StudyA work observation study of nuclear medicine technologists: interruptions, resilience and implications for patient safety.
Errors by nuclear medicine technologists during the preparation of radiopharmaceuticals or at other times can cause patient harm and may reflect the impact of interruptions, busy work environments and deficient systems or processes. We aimed to: (a) characterise the rate and nature of interruptions technologists experience and (b) identify strategies that support safety. ⋯ Some interruptions appear beneficial. Technologists' self-initiated strategies to support safe work practices appear to be an important element in supporting a resilient work environment in nuclear medicine.
-
BMJ quality & safety · May 2017
Cognitive tests predict real-world errors: the relationship between drug name confusion rates in laboratory-based memory and perception tests and corresponding error rates in large pharmacy chains.
Drug name confusion is a common type of medication error and a persistent threat to patient safety. In the USA, roughly one per thousand prescriptions results in the wrong drug being filled, and most of these errors involve drug names that look or sound alike. Prior to approval, drug names undergo a variety of tests to assess their potential for confusability, but none of these preapproval tests has been shown to predict real-world error rates. ⋯ Across two distinct pharmacy chains, there is a strong and significant association between drug name confusion error rates observed in the real world and those observed in laboratory-based tests of memory and perception. Regulators and drug companies seeking a validated preapproval method for identifying confusing drug names ought to consider using these simple tests. By using a standard battery of memory and perception tests, it should be possible to reduce the number of confusing look-alike and sound-alike drug name pairs that reach the market, which will help protect patients from potentially harmful medication errors.
-
BMJ quality & safety · May 2017
Our current approach to root cause analysis: is it contributing to our failure to improve patient safety?
Despite over a decade of efforts to reduce the adverse event rate in healthcare, the rate has remained relatively unchanged. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a process used by hospitals in an attempt to reduce adverse event rates; however, the outputs of this process have not been well studied in healthcare. This study aimed to examine the types of solutions proposed in RCAs over an 8-year period at a major academic medical institution. ⋯ This study found that the most commonly proposed solutions were weaker actions, which were less likely to decrease event recurrence. These findings support recent attempts to improve the RCA process and to develop guidance for the creation of effective and sustainable solutions to be used by RCA teams.
-
BMJ quality & safety · Apr 2017
Assessing content validity and user perspectives on the Team Check-up Tool: expert survey and user focus groups.
This study assesses content validity and user feedback on the Team Check-up Tool (TCT), an instrument used for measuring dynamic context of quality improvement (QI) teams and their implementation of QI activities. ⋯ The findings support the conclusion that the TCT measures meaningful areas of context and implementation in team-based QI initiatives, particularly intervention activity tracking, review and sharing of performance data and team progress barriers. We offer a modified instrument with a framework for real-time measurement of important elements of implementation and context of QI teams based on the findings.