Suicide prevention and patient safety

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. 590-591
Author(s):  
John Tingle

Suicide is a major national and global problem. John Tingle discusses several recent reports on suicide prevention and addresses some litigation and patient safety issues

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Magdalena Hoffmann ◽  
Christine Maria Schwarz ◽  
Stefan Fürst ◽  
Christina Starchl ◽  
Elisabeth Lobmeyr ◽  
...  

Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have a high risk of developing malnutrition, and this is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. In clinical practice, nutrition, including enteral nutrition (EN), is often not prioritized. Resulting from this, risks and safety issues for patients and healthcare professionals can emerge. The aim of this literature review, inspired by the Rapid Review Guidebook by Dobbins, 2017, was to identify risks and safety issues for patient safety in the management of EN in critically ill patients in the ICU. Three databases were used to identify studies between 2009 and 2020. We assessed 3495 studies for eligibility and included 62 in our narrative synthesis. Several risks and problems were identified: No use of clinical assessment or screening nutrition assessment, inadequate tube management, missing energy target, missing a nutritionist, bad hygiene and handling, wrong time management and speed, nutritional interruptions, wrong body position, gastrointestinal complication and infections, missing or not using guidelines, understaffing, and lack of education. Raising awareness of these risks is a central aspect in patient safety in ICU. Clinical experts can use a checklist with 12 identified top risks and the recommendations drawn up to carry out their own risk analysis in clinical practice.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 755-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett W. Sadowski ◽  
Hector A. Medina ◽  
Joshua D. Hartzell ◽  
William T. Shimeall

ABSTRACT Background  Some residency programs responded to duty hour restrictions by implementing night rotations. Night supervision models can vary, resulting in potential patient safety issues and educational voids for residents. Objective  We evaluated the impact of multiple evidence-based interventions on resident satisfaction with supervision, perception of the education value of night rotations, and residents' use of online educational materials. Methods  The night team was augmented with an intern to assist with admissions and a senior resident (the “nighthawk”) to supervise inpatient care and deliver a night medicine curriculum. We instituted a “must-call” list, with specific clinical events requiring mandatory attending notification, and reduced conflict in the role of the night float team. We studied patient contact, online curriculum use, residents' perceptions of nighthawk involvement, exposure to educational materials, and satisfaction with supervision. Results  During the first half of academic year 2016–2017, 51% (64 of 126) of trainees were on the night medicine rotation. The nighthawk reviewed 1007 intern plans (15 per night; range, 6–36) and supervised 215 hands-on evaluations, including codes and rapid responses (3 per night; range, 0–12). The number of users of the online education materials increased by 85% (13 to 24), and instances of use increased 35% (85 to 115). The majority of residents (79%, 27 of 34) favored the new system. Conclusions  A nighthawk rotation, a must-call list, and reducing conflict in night team members' roles improved resident satisfaction with supervision and the night medicine rotation, resulting in increased communication.


2011 ◽  
pp. 2054-2072
Author(s):  
Jeongeun Kim

This chapter presents the overview of the current status and developmental stages of the PSIS technology and consensus around the patient safety issues as they emerge, grow, and mature globally. The first section gives the general description of the patient safety reporting system (PSRS), and then provides the brief summary of 23 patient safety information classifications and terminologies to date. In the next section, the development of the international classification of patient safety (ICPS) is overviewed, which evolved from the local to an international level by the joint initiatives of WHO. The essential elements of the PSIS and the clinical decision support system (CDSS) functionalities are explained to make the future goals of PSIS clearer. The patient safety indicator (PSI) is explained in a separate section, which provides the opportunity to assess the incidence of adverse events and in-hospital complications using administrative data found in the typical discharge record. The ultimate goals of PSIS and PSI are to improve the quality of healthcare and ensure patient safety.


2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 603-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah L. Jones

Abstract Background Patient safety is an important concept in resident education. To date, few studies have assessed resident perceptions of patient safety across different specialties. Objective The study explored residents' views on patient safety across the specialties of internal medicine, general surgery, and diagnostic radiology, focusing on common themes and differences. Methods In fall 2012, interviews of small groups of senior residents in internal medicine, general surgery, and diagnostic radiology were conducted at 3 academic medical centers and 3 community teaching hospitals in 3 major US metropolitan areas. In total, 33 residents were interviewed. Interviews used interactive discussion to explore multiple facets of patient safety. Results Residents identified lack of information, common errors, volume and acuity of patients, and inadequate supervision as major risks to patient safety. Specific threats to patient safety included communication problems, transitions of care, information technology interface issues, time constraints, and work flow. Residents disclosed that reporting safety issues was viewed as burdensome and carrying some degree of risk. There was variability as to whether residents would report safety threats they encountered. Conclusions Residents are aware of threats to patient safety and have a unique perspective compared with other health care professionals. Transitions of care and communication problems were the most common safety threats identified by the residents interviewed.


Author(s):  
Derek Tang ◽  
Peter A. Dowbeus ◽  
Michael S. Firstenberg ◽  
Thomas J. Papadimos

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 49-50
Author(s):  
Laura Camarata ◽  
Stephen P. Juraschek ◽  
Pamela Sheff ◽  
Peter A. Doyle ◽  
Robert M. Graham ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Enhancing Patient Safety for hospitalized patients is a priority for healthcare facilities, providers, and federal funding agencies. Multidisciplinary partnerships in clinical and translational research better defines the scope of complex patient-safety issues, and is part of more effectively developing interventions. The discipline represented by engineering-trained partners brings valuable perspective to patient safety problems through their training background in human factors and systems analysis. The objective of this education program was to create and implement a collaboration between engineering students and clinical providers. Through the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, a multidisciplinary partnership was created, to identify contributing factors, and suggest novel solutions, to key patient safety problems using an ethnographic research approach. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The collaboration was formed between the following Johns Hopkins (JH) groups: (1) The Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR), (2) The Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety, (3) The JH Hospital Clinical Engineering Services, (4) The Homecare Group, (5) The Masters of Science in Engineering Management Program at the Whiting School of Engineering, and (6) The JH Hospital Risk Management. All 6 provided representation to contribute to the planning, structure, and implementation of the project. The initial cohort was 24 masters students enrolled in the JHU Whiting School of engineering, and included 46% men, 54% women, and 75% international students. Students were placed in teams of 2–3 to work on 9 distinct patient safety concerns, as provided by the Armstrong Institute as priority. Potential clinical hosts from the appropriate clinical departments were vetted for feasibility and scope before students were assigned to them. Students and clinical hosts were oriented to the process. The students then spent 3–6 hours a week, for 7 weeks, observing and interacting with patients and health professionals at their specific clinical sites, conducting ethnographic research under the guidance of their hosts. Ethnographic research is the systematic investigation of a culture or system; in our application, teams were looking at the environment, culture, and its contributing factors, with respect to patient safety issues. Teams made observations, then formulated hypothesis and collected data relevant to what systems factors may be contributing to the patient safety issue. Following data collection and analyses, teams made recommendations for culture and/or systems shifts that could impact change and improve patient safety. Ethnography research process training is a tenet of the training undertaken by all Masters of Science in Engineering Management Students. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: At the end of the 7-week project, each team generated a comprehensive report suggesting potential solutions for each problem, and gave presentations on their findings to their peers, clinical hosts, and JHU steering committee representatives. Requirements on the student side included a midterm, final presentation, and report. Both students and site leaders submitted mid- and final program evaluations. Based on follow-up survey data, 71% of students said that the course may impact their career choice, 57% said the collaboration changed the way they viewed themselves, and 28% elected to continue working or were planning to work with their site in some fashion after the course ended. Nearly 60% of students believed additional funding or resources would benefit the course and 71% thought they would benefit from more or similar experiences with their clinical partners. Furthermore, 85% wanted to see the course expanded. Of the clinical hosts, 71% said that students added value, 86% believed students changed their perspective on their problem, unveiled new areas of investigation, and improved or likely would improve patient safety in their department. Seventy-one percent of hosts were actively acting on the students’ findings, and over 86% shared findings with their colleagues. Following the 7-week program, 2 teams also presented their findings to committees within the hospital departments, 2 patient-safety projects are being continued with engineering teams, and 2 new collaborative projects have been initiated. Based on the popularity of this program with the students, hosts, and teaching faculty, this will be implemented within the engineering curriculum for a second time next year. Additional outcomes data collection are currently ongoing, and we plan to continue to monitor and analyze results. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: In its first year our engineering collaboration exceeded expectations. Engineering students and clinical providers successfully worked toward tangible solutions that were directly applicable to patient care. Furthermore, interactions were both personally and professionally beneficial for students while simultaneously adding value to clinical hosts. Beyond the collaboration, this initiative allowed for secondary connections between engineers and clinicians that are also have great potential for resulting in translational innovation. Despite the overwhelming success of this project, it highlighted the need for increased resources for sustainability. Our pilot highlighted a role for funding with regards to: (1) students in the execution of their projects (eg, transportation to sites, prototype materials); (2) clinical hosts, particularly protecting time to interact with and lead student teams; (3) the Armstrong Institute—to aid the identification and prioritization of high impact, patient safety projects; and (4) the ICTR for staff to facilitate placements, student orientation to the hospital setting, and program execution and maintenance. Ultimately, this collaboration addressed an unmet need for the clinical providers as well as the engineering students: thus, all partners agree that (1) the impact of this pilot would be greatly magnified by more time, longer duration, and additional resources; and (2) this collaboration could provide a useful model for approaching other complex health care problems. In terms of larger and longer-term impact, engaging engineers at the training level together with clinicians provides early exposure, and could potentially prime them to continue collaborations with clinical and translational science, across their careers.Student Research Assistant Acknowledgements: The authors thank Manik Arora, Alexandra Morani, and Thomas Cornish -- Johns Hopkins University.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e000753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatima Aldawood ◽  
Yasser Kazzaz ◽  
Ali AlShehri ◽  
Hamza Alali ◽  
Khaled Al-Surimi

BackgroundOpen communication between leadership and frontline staff at the unit level is vital in promoting safe hospital culture. Our hospital staff culture survey identified the failure to address safety issues as one of the areas where staff felt unable to express their concerns openly. Thus, this improvement project using the daily safety huddle tool has been developed to enhance teamwork communication and respond effectively to patient safety issues identified in a paediatric intensive care unit.MethodsWe used the TeamSTEPPS quality approach. TeamSTEPPS is an evidence-based set of teamwork tools developed by the US Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality to enhance teamwork and communication. We applied TeamSTEPPS using a tool called the Daily Safety Huddle, aiming at improving communication and interaction between healthcare workers and building trust by acting immediately when there is any patient safety issue or concern at the unit level.ResultsDuring the period from April to December 2017, the interaction between frontline staff and unit leadership increased through compliance with the daily safety huddle. Initially, compliance was at 73%, but it increased to 97%, with a total of 340 safety issues addressed. The majority of these safety issues pertained to infection control and medication errors (109; 32.05%), followed by communication (83; 24.41%), documentation (59; 17.35%), other issues (37; 10.88%), procedure (20; 5.88%), patient flow (16; 4.7%) and equipment and supplies (16; 4.7%).ConclusionsSystematic use of daily safety huddle is a powerful tool to create an equitable environment where frontline staff can speak up freely about daily patient safety concerns. The huddle leads to a more open and active discussion with unit leadership and to the ability to perform the right action at the right time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document