Creating European guidelines for Chiropractic Incident Reporting and Learning Systems (CIRLS): relevance and structure

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In 2009, the heads of the Executive Council of the European Chiropractors' Union (ECU) and the European Academy of Chiropractic (EAC) involved in the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) process for the chiropractic profession, set out to establish European guidelines for the reporting of adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment. There were a number of reasons for this: first, to improve the overall quality of patient care by aiming to reduce the application of potentially harmful interventions and to facilitate the treatment of patients within the context of achieving maximum benefit with a minimum risk of harm; second, to inform the training objectives for the Graduate Education and Continuing Professional Development programmes of all 19 ECU member nations, regarding knowledge and skills to be acquired for maximising patient safety; and third, to develop a guideline on patient safety incident reporting as it is likely to be part of future CEN standards for ECU member nations.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To introduce patient safety incident reporting within the context of chiropractic practice in Europe and to help individual countries and their national professional associations to develop or improve reporting and learning systems.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Providing health care of any kind, including the provision of chiropractic treatment, can be a complex and, at times, a risky activity. Safety in healthcare cannot be guaranteed, it can only be improved. One of the most important aspects of any learning and reporting system lies in the appropriate use of the data and information it gathers. Reporting should not just be seen as a vehicle for obtaining information on patient safety issues, but also be utilised as a tool to facilitate learning, advance quality improvement and to ultimately minimise the rate of the occurrence of errors linked to patient care.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Before a reporting and learning system can be established it has to be clear what the objectives of the system are, what resources will be required and whether the implementing organisation has the capacity to operate the system to its full advantage. Responding to adverse event reports requires the availability of experts to analyse the incidents and to provide feedback in a timely fashion. A comprehensive strategy for national implementation must be in place including, but not limited to, presentations at national meetings, the provision of written information to all practitioners and the running of workshops, so that all stakeholders fully understand the purposes of adverse event reporting. Unless this is achieved, any system runs the risk of failure, or at the very least, limited usefulness.</p

Modeling Operator Behavior in the Safety Analysis of Collaborative Robotic Applications

Human-Robot Collaboration is increasingly prominent in peo- ple's lives and in the industrial domain, for example in manufacturing applications. The close proximity and frequent physical contacts between humans and robots in such applications make guaranteeing suitable levels of safety for human operators of the utmost importance. Formal veri- cation techniques can help in this regard through the exhaustive explo- ration of system models, which can identify unwanted situations early in the development process. This work extends our SAFER-HRC method- ology with a rich non-deterministic formal model of operator behaviors, which captures the hazardous situations resulting from human errors. The model allows safety engineers to rene their designs until all plausi- ble erroneous behaviors are considered and mitigated

A qualitative study of professional and carer perceptions of the threats to safe hospital discharge for stroke and hip fracture patients in the English National Health Service

Background: Hospital discharge is a vulnerable transitional stage in patient care. This qualitative study investigated the views of healthcare professionals and patients about the threats to safe hospital discharge with aim of identifying contributory and latent factors. The study was undertaken in two regional health and social care systems in the English National Health Service, each comprising three acute hospitals, community and primary care providers and municipal social care services. The study focused on the threats to safe discharge for hip fracture and stroke patients as exemplars of complex care transitions. Methods: A qualitative study involving narrative interviews with 213 representative stakeholders and professionals involved in discharge planning and care transition activities. Narratives were analysed in line with ‘systems’ thinking to identify proximal (active) and distal (latent) factors, and the relationships between them. Results: Three linked categories of commonly and consistently identified threat to safe discharge were identified:(1) ‘direct’ patient harms comprising falls, infection, sores and ulceration, medicines-related issues, and relapse; (2) proximal ‘contributing’ factors including completion of tests, assessment of patient, management of equipment and medicines, care plan, follow-up care and patient education; and distal ‘latent’ factors including discharge planning, referral processes, discharge timing, resources constraints, and organisational demands. Conclusion: From the perspective of stakeholders, the study elaborates the relationship between patient harms and systemic factors in the context of hospital discharge. It supports the importance of communication and collaboration across occupational and organisational boundaries, but also the challenges to supporting such communication with the inherent complexity of the care system

Adverse Event Investigation and Risk Assessment

AbstractThis chapter describes a comprehensive approach to adverse event investigation and risk assessment, as well as the characteristics of an integrated system for patient safety and clinical risk management. Drawing on evidence from other industries and healthcare organizations across the globe, the author's report how such a system can be developed with the active involvement of policy-makers, healthcare managers, health professionals, and patients. Human factors and ergonomics provide the theoretical framework in which the guiding principles, methods, and tools are selected and applied to identify, analyze, and prevent risks related to unsafe care in any healthcare setting

Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions

Background: Due to the chronic disease burden on society, there is a need for preventive public health interventions to stimulate society towards a healthier lifestyle. To deal with the complex variability between individual lifestyles and settings, collaborating with end-users to develop interventions tailored to their unique circumstances has been suggested as a potential way to improve effectiveness and adherence. Co-creation of public health interventions using participatory methodologies has shown promise but lacks a framework to make this process systematic. The aim of this paper was to identify and set key principles and recommendations for systematically applying participatory methodologies to co-create and evaluate public health interventions. Methods: These principles and recommendations were derived using an iterative reflection process, combining key learning from published literature in addition to critical reflection on three case studies conducted by research groups in three European institutions, all of whom have expertise in co-creating public health interventions using different participatory methodologies. Results: Key principles and recommendations for using participatory methodologies in public health intervention co-creation are presented for the stages of: Planning (framing the aim of the study and identifying the appropriate sampling strategy); Conducting (defining the procedure, in addition to manifesting ownership); Evaluating (the process and the effectiveness) and Reporting (providing guidelines to report the findings). Three scaling models are proposed to demonstrate how to scale locally developed interventions to a population level. Conclusions: These recommendations aim to facilitate public health intervention co-creation and evaluation utilising participatory methodologies by ensuring the process is systematic and reproducible

What do family physicians consider an error? A comparison of definitions and physician perception

BACKGROUND: Physicians are being asked to report errors from primary care, but little is known about how they apply the term "error." This study qualitatively assesses the relationship between the variety of error definitions found in the medical literature and physicians' assessments of whether an error occurred in a series of clinical scenarios. METHODS: A systematic literature review and pilot survey results were analyzed qualitatively to search for insights into what may affect the use of the term error. The National Library of Medicine was systematically searched for medical error definitions. Survey participants were a random sample of active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and a selected sample of family physician patient safety "experts." A survey consisting of 5 clinical scenarios with problems (wrong test performed, abnormal result not followed-up, abnormal result overlooked, blood tube broken and missing scan results) was sent by mail to AAFP members and by e-mail to the experts. Physicians were asked to judge if an error occurred. A qualitative analysis was performed via "immersion and crystallization" of emergent insights from the collected data. RESULTS: While one definition, that originated by James Reason, predominated the literature search, we found 25 different definitions for error in the medical literature. Surveys were returned by 28.5% of 1000 AAFP members and 92% of 25 experts. Of the 5 scenarios, 100% felt overlooking an abnormal result was an error. For other scenarios there was less agreement (experts and AAFP members, respectively agreeing an error occurred): 100 and 87% when the wrong test was performed, 96 and 87% when an abnormal test was not followed up, 74 and 62% when scan results were not available during a patient visit, and 57 and 47% when a blood tube was broken. Through qualitative analysis, we found that three areas may affect how physicians make decisions about error: the process that occurred vs. the outcome that occurred, rare vs. common occurrences and system vs. individual responsibility CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus about what constitutes an error both in the medical literature and in decision making by family physicians. These potential areas of confusion need further study

Predicting the seasonal evolution of southern African summer precipitation in the DePreSys3 prediction system

We assess the ability of the DePreSys3 prediction system to predict austral summer precipitation (DJF) over southern Africa, defined as the African continent south of 15°S. DePresys3 is a high resolution prediction system (at a horizontal resolution of ~ 60 km in the atmosphere in mid-latitudes and of the quarter degree in the Ocean) and spans the long period 1959–2016. We find skill in predicting interannual precipitation variability, relative to a long-term trend; the anomaly correlation skill score over southern Africa is greater than 0.45 for the first summer (i.e. lead month 2–4), and 0.37 over Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia for the second summer (i.e. lead month 14–16). The skill is related to the successful prediction of the El-Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the successful simulation of ENSO teleconnections to southern Africa. However, overall skill is sensitive to the inclusion of strong La-Nina events and also appears to change with forecast epoch. For example, the skill in predicting precipitation over Mozambique is significantly larger for the first summer in the 1990–2016 period, compared to the 1959–1985 period. The difference in skill in predicting interannual precipitation variability over southern Africa in different epochs is consistent with a change in the strength of the observed teleconnections of ENSO. After 1990, and consistent with the increased skill, the observed impact of ENSO appears to strengthen over west Mozambique, in association with changes in ENSO related atmospheric convergence anomalies. However, these apparent changes in teleconnections are not captured by the ensemble-mean predictions using DePreSys3. The changes in the ENSO teleconnection are consistent with a warming over the Indian Ocean and modulation of ENSO properties between the different epochs, but may also be associated with unpredictable atmospheric variability