Responses of Massachusetts hospitals to a state mandate to collect race, ethnicity and language data from patients: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A Massachusetts regulation implemented in 2007 has required all acute care hospitals to report patients' race, ethnicity and preferred language using standardized methodology based on self-reported information from patients. This study assessed implementation of the regulation and its impact on the use of race and ethnicity data in performance monitoring and quality improvement within hospitals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with executives from a representative sample of 28 Massachusetts hospitals in 2009.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The number of hospitals using race, ethnicity and language data internally beyond refining interpreter services increased substantially from 11 to 21 after the regulation. Thirteen of these hospitals were utilizing patient race and ethnicity data to identify disparities in quality performance measures for a variety of clinical processes and outcomes, while 16 had developed patient services and community outreach programs based on findings from these data. Commonly reported barriers to data utilization include small numbers within categories, insufficient resources, information system requirements, and lack of direction from the state.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The responses of Massachusetts hospitals to this new state regulation indicate that requiring the collection of race, ethnicity and language data can be an effective method to promote performance monitoring and quality improvement, thereby setting the stage for federal standards and incentive programs to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in the quality of health care.</p

Consumer perceptions of safety in hospitals

BACKGROUND: Studies investigating adverse events have traditionally been principally undertaken from a medical perspective. The impact that experience of an adverse event has on consumer confidence in health care is largely unknown. The objectives of the study were to seek public opinion on 1) the rate and severity of adverse events experienced in hospitals; and 2) the perception of safety in hospitals, so that predictors of lack of safety could be identified. METHODS: A multistage, clustered survey of persons residing in South Australia (2001), using household interviews (weighted n = 2,884). RESULTS: A total of 67% of respondents aged over forty years reported having at least one member of their household hospitalised in the past five years; with the average being two hospital admissions in five years. Respondents stated that 7.0% (95%CI: 6.2% to 7.9%) of those hospital admissions were associated with an adverse event; 59.7% of respondents (95% CI: 51.4% to 67.5%) rated the adverse event as really serious and 48.5% (95% CI: 40.4% to 56.8%) stated prolonged hospitalisation was required as a consequence of the adverse event. Perception of safety in hospitals was largely affected by the experience of an adverse event; really serious events were the most significant predictor of lack of safety in those aged 40 years and over (RR 2.38; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The experience of adverse events negatively impacted on public confidence in hospitals. The consumer-reported adverse event rate in hospitals (7.0%) is similar to that identified using medical record review. Based on estimates from other studies, self-reported claims of adverse events in hospital by consumers appear credible, and should be considered when developing appropriate treatment regimes

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