Learning from incident reports in the Australian medical imaging setting: handover and communication errors

Objective: To determine the type and nature of incidents occurring within medical imaging settings in Australia and identify strategies that could be engaged to reduce the risk of their re-occurrence. Methods: 71 search terms, related to clinical handover and communication, were applied to 3976 incidents in the Radiology Events Register. Detailed classification and thematic analysis of a subset of incidents that involved handover or communication (n=298) were undertaken to identify the most prevalent types of error and to make recommendations about patient safety initiatives in medical imaging. Results: Incidents occurred most frequently during patient preparation (34%), when requesting imaging (27%) and when communicating a diagnosis (23%). Frequent problems within each of these stages of the imaging cycle included: inadequate handover of patients (41%) or unsafe or inappropriate transfer of the patient to or from medical imaging (35%); incorrect information on the request form (52%); and delayed communication of a diagnosis (36%) or communication of a wrong diagnosis (36%). Conclusion: The handover of patients and clinical information to and from medical imaging is fraught with error, often compromising patient safety and resulting in communication of delayed or wrong diagnoses, unnecessary radiation exposure and a waste of limited resources. Corrective strategies to address safety concerns related to new information technologies, patient transfer and inadequate test result notification policies are relevant to all healthcare settings.N Hannaford, C Mandel, C Crock, K Buckley, F Magrabi, M Ong, S Allen, and T Schult

Validation of the care transition measure in multi-ethnic South-East Asia in Singapore

10.1186/1472-6963-12-256BMC Health Services Research121

Disclosure, Apology, and Offer Programs: Stakeholders’ Views of Barriers to and Strategies for Broad Implementation

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94445/1/j.1468-0009.2012.00679.x.pd

Readability of pediatric health materials for preventive dental care

BACKGROUND: This study examined the content and general readability of pediatric oral health education materials for parents of young children. METHODS: Twenty-seven pediatric oral health pamphlets or brochures from commercial, government, industry, and private nonprofit sources were analyzed for general readability ("usability") according to several parameters: readability, (Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Flesch Reading Ease, and SMOG grade level); thoroughness, (inclusion of topics important to young childrens' oral health); textual framework (frequency of complex phrases, use of pictures, diagrams, and bulleted text within materials); and terminology (frequency of difficult words and dental jargon). RESULTS: Readability of the written texts ranged from 2(nd )to 9(th )grade. The average Flesch-Kincaid grade level for government publications was equivalent to a grade 4 reading level (4.73, range, 2.4 – 6.6); F-K grade levels for commercial publications averaged 8.1 (range, 6.9 – 8.9); and industry published materials read at an average Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 7.4 (range, 4.7 – 9.3). SMOG readability analysis, based on a count of polysyllabic words, consistently rated materials 2 to 3 grade levels higher than did the Flesch-Kincaid analysis. Government sources were significantly lower compared to commercial and industry sources for Flesch-Kincaid grade level and SMOG readability analysis. Content analysis found materials from commercial and industry sources more complex than government-sponsored publications, whereas commercial sources were more thorough in coverage of pediatric oral health topics. Different materials frequently contained conflicting information. CONCLUSION: Pediatric oral health care materials are readily available, yet their quality and readability vary widely. In general, government publications are more readable than their commercial and industry counterparts. The criteria for usability and results of the analyses presented in this article can be used by consumers of dental educational materials to ensure that their choices are well-suited to their specific patient population