Validity and reliability of a medical record review method identifying transitional patient safety incidents in merged primary and secondary care patients' records.

OBJECTIVE: Inadequate information transfer during transitions in healthcare is a major patient safety issue. Aim of this study was to pilot a review of medical records to identify transitional safety incidents (TSIs) for use in a large intervention study and assess its reliability and validity. DESIGN: A retrospective medical record review study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Combined primary and secondary care medical records of 301 patients who had visited their general practitioner and the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, in 2013 were randomly selected. Six trained reviewers assessed these medical records for presence of TSIs. OUTCOMES: To assess inter-rater reliability, 10% of medical records were independently reviewed twice. To assess validity, the identified TSIs were compared with a reference standard of three objectively identifiable TSIs. RESULTS: The reviewers identified TSIs in 52 (17.3%) of all transitional medical records. Variation between reviewers was high (range: 3-28 per 50 medical records). Positive agreement for finding a TSI between reviewers was 0%, negative agreement 80% and the Cohen's kappa -0.15. The reviewers identified 43 (22%) of 194 objectively identifiable TSIs. CONCLUSION: The reliability of our measurement tool for identifying TSIs in transitional medical record performed by clinicians was low. Although the TSIs that were identified by clinicians were valid, they missed 80% of them. Restructuring the record review procedure is necessary.This work was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS; grant number 320698), and Achmea Healthcare (grant number Z415)

Characteristics of patients in platform C19, a COVID-19 research database combining primary care electronic health record and patient reported information

Background Data to better understand and manage the COVID-19 pandemic is urgently needed. However, there are gaps in information stored within even the best routinely-collected electronic health records (EHR) including test results, remote consultations for suspected COVID-19, shielding, physical activity, mental health, and undiagnosed or untested COVID-19 patients. Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Singapore and Optimum Patient Care (OPC) UK established Platform C19, a research database combining EHR data and bespoke patient questionnaire. We describe the demographics, clinical characteristics, patient behavior, and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic using data within Platform C19. Methods EHR data from Platform C19 were extracted from 14 practices across UK participating in the OPC COVID-19 Quality Improvement program on a continuous, monthly basis. Starting 7th August 2020, consenting patients aged 18–85 years were invited in waves to fill an online questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were summarized using all data available up to 22nd January 2021. Findings From 129,978 invitees, 31,033 responded. Respondents were predominantly female (59.6%), white (93.5%), and current or ex-smokers (52.6%). Testing for COVID-19 was received by 23.8% of respondents, of which 7.9% received positive results. COVID-19 symptoms lasted ≥4 weeks in 19.5% of COVID-19 positive respondents. Up to 39% respondents reported a negative impact on questions regarding their mental health. Most (67%-76%) respondents with asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), diabetes, heart, or kidney disease reported no change in the condition of their diseases. Interpretation Platform C19 will enable research on key questions relating to COVID-19 pandemic not possible using EHR data alone

Validation of a questionnaire measuring transitional patient safety climate indicated differences in transitional patient safety climate between primary and secondary care

Objectives: This study describes the development and validation of the TRAnsitional patient safety Climate Evaluation (TRACE) questionnaire, measuring transitional patient safety climate from the perspective of general practitioners and hospital physicians. Patient safety climate reflects the professionals' perception of the organizational patient safety culture. Study Design and Setting: In the development of the TRACE, we adjusted existing questionnaires on patient safety culture. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. Internal consistency and correlations between factors and a global transitional patient safety rating were calculated. Results: In total, 162 questionnaires were completed (response 23%; general practice: N = 97, hospital physicians: N = 65). Analysis of all respondents did not provide an interpretable factor solution. However, the EFA on the results of hospital physicians revealed four relevant factors: (1) collaboration, (2) speaking up, (3) communication on transitional incidents and improvement measures, and (4) transitional patient safety management. The internal consistency of these factors was good for hospital respondents (0.71-0.87) and fair to acceptable for general practices' respondents (0.63-0.72). Conclusion: Although the TRACE questionnaire did not provide a solid factor structure in a combined sample of general practice and hospital respondents, the factors found reliable in hospital setting had acceptable reliability in general practice setting

Validation of a questionnaire measuring transitional patient safety climate indicated differences in transitional patient safety climate between primary and secondary care

Objectives: This study describes the development and validation of the TRAnsitional patient safety Climate Evaluation (TRACE) questionnaire, measuring transitional patient safety climate from the perspective of general practitioners and hospital physicians. Patient safety climate reflects the professionals' perception of the organizational patient safety culture. Study Design and Setting: In the development of the TRACE, we adjusted existing questionnaires on patient safety culture. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed. Internal consistency and correlations between factors and a global transitional patient safety rating were calculated. Results: In total, 162 questionnaires were completed (response 23%; general practice: N = 97, hospital physicians: N = 65). Analysis of all respondents did not provide an interpretable factor solution. However, the EFA on the results of hospital physicians revealed four relevant factors: (1) collaboration, (2) speaking up, (3) communication on transitional incidents and improvement measures, and (4) transitional patient safety management. The internal consistency of these factors was good for hospital respondents (0.71-0.87) and fair to acceptable for general practices' respondents (0.63-0.72). Conclusion: Although the TRACE questionnaire did not provide a solid factor structure in a combined sample of general practice and hospital respondents, the factors found reliable in hospital setting had acceptable reliability in general practice setting

Pilot study on identification of incidents in healthcare transitions and concordance between medical records and patient interview data

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether transitional incidents can be identified from the medical records of the general practitioners and the hospital and to assess the concordance of transitional incidents between medical records and patient interviews. DESIGN: A pilot study. SETTING: The study was conducted in 2 regions in the Netherlands: a rural and an urban region. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of patients who experienced a transitional incident or are at high risk of experiencing transitional incidents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Transitional incidents were identified from both the interviews with patients and medical records and concordance was assessed. We also classified the transitional incidents according to type, severity, estimated cause and preventability. RESULTS: We identified 28 transitional incidents within 78 transitions of which 3 could not be found in the medical records and another 5 could have been missed without the patient as information source. To summarise, 8 (29%) incidents could have been missed using solely medical records, and 7 (25%) using the patients' information exclusively. Concordance in transitional incidents between patient interviews and medical records was 64% (18/28). The majority of the transitional incidents were unsafe situations; however, 43% (12/28) of the incidents reached the patient and 18% (5/28) caused temporary patient harm. Over half of the incidents were potentially preventable. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that the majority of transitional incidents can be identified from medical records of the general practitioner and hospital. With this information, we aim to develop a measurement tool for transitional incidents in the medical record of general practitioner and hospital

Pilot study on identification of incidents in healthcare transitions and concordance between medical records and patient interview data

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether transitional incidents can be identified from the medical records of the general practitioners and the hospital and to assess the concordance of transitional incidents between medical records and patient interviews. DESIGN: A pilot study. SETTING: The study was conducted in 2 regions in the Netherlands: a rural and an urban region. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of patients who experienced a transitional incident or are at high risk of experiencing transitional incidents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Transitional incidents were identified from both the interviews with patients and medical records and concordance was assessed. We also classified the transitional incidents according to type, severity, estimated cause and preventability. RESULTS: We identified 28 transitional incidents within 78 transitions of which 3 could not be found in the medical records and another 5 could have been missed without the patient as information source. To summarise, 8 (29%) incidents could have been missed using solely medical records, and 7 (25%) using the patients' information exclusively. Concordance in transitional incidents between patient interviews and medical records was 64% (18/28). The majority of the transitional incidents were unsafe situations; however, 43% (12/28) of the incidents reached the patient and 18% (5/28) caused temporary patient harm. Over half of the incidents were potentially preventable. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that the majority of transitional incidents can be identified from medical records of the general practitioner and hospital. With this information, we aim to develop a measurement tool for transitional incidents in the medical record of general practitioner and hospital

The Transitional Risk and Incident Questionnaire (TRIQ) was valid and reliable for measuring transitional patient safety from the patients' perspective

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development and validation of the Transitional Risk and Incident Questionnaire (TRIQ), which measures transitional patient safety from the patients' perspective. METHODS: The TRIQ questionnaire was developed based on literature review, tested in the target group using a think-aloud procedure, and validated by a cross-sectional study among patients receiving healthcare at the interface between general practice and hospital care in two regions in the Netherlands. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed and internal consistency was assessed. The relationships between the occurrence of transitional safety incidents (TSI) as measured by the TRIQ questionnaire and relational continuity, and between TSI occurrence and overall rating of transitions were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 451 questionnaires were completed for analysis. The EFA provided a four-factor solution: 1) personal relation with general practitioner, 2) personal relation with hospital physician, 3) information exchange, and 4) treatment consistency. Internal consistency was good (composite reliability 0.75-0.95). An experienced TSI was related to a poorer relational continuity both with the general practitioner and hospital, and with a lower overall rating of all transitions. CONCLUSIONS: The TRIQ questionnaire is a valid and reliable questionnaire measuring transitional patient safety from the patients' perspective

Transitional safety incidents as reported by patients and healthcare professionals in the Netherlands : A descriptive study

BACKGROUND: Care transitions between general practice and hospital are hazardous regarding patient safety. For developing an improvement strategy adjusted to local settings, understanding of type and potential causes of transitional safety incidents (TSIs) is needed. OBJECTIVES: To provide a broad overview of the nature of TSIs reported by patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We collected data (2011-2015) from three hospitals and 56 affiliated general practitioners (GPs) in two Dutch regions (one urban, one rural). We collected data from patients through a survey, interviews and incident reporting weeks, and from GPs and hospital specialists through incident reporting systems, surveys, interviews and focus group discussions. We classified reported TSIs according to type, cause and severity. RESULTS: In total, 548 TSIs were reported by 411 patients and 137 healthcare professionals; 368 of 548 TSI reports contained sufficient information for classification into aspects of the care transition process, 191 of 548 for cause, and 149 of 548 for severity. Most TSIs concerned handover correspondence from hospital to GP (26%), referral (14%) and communication/collaboration (14%). Concerning cause, reported TSIs could be attributed to organizational (48%) and human factors (43%). Twenty-four percent concerned unsafe situations, 45% near misses and 31% adverse events. Patients and healthcare professionals reported differently on referral (17% vs 9%), repeated diagnostic testing (20% vs 1%), and uncertainty about assigned responsible physician (10% vs 3%). CONCLUSION: Reported TSIs typically concerned informational discontinuity. One third caused harm to the patient. Patients report different TSIs than healthcare professionals, suggesting a different view

Measurement tools and outcome measures used in transitional patient safety; a systematic review

Background Patients are at risk for harm when treated simultaneously by healthcare providers from different healthcare organisations. To assess current practice and improvements of transitional patient safety, valid measurement tools are needed. Aim and methods To identify and appraise all measurement tools and outcomes that measure aspects of transitional patient safety, PubMed, Cinahl, Embase and Psychinfo were systematically searched. Two researchers performed the title and abstract and full-text selection. First, publications about validation of measurement tools were appraised for quality following COSMIN criteria. Second, we inventoried all measurement tools and outcome measures found in our search that assessed current transitional patient safety or the effect of interventions targeting transitional patient safety. Results The initial search yielded 8288 studies, of which 18 assessed validity of measurement tools of different aspects of transitional safety, and 191 assessed current transitional patient safety or effect of interventions. In the validated measurement tools, the overall quality of content and structural validity was acceptable; other COSMIN criteria, such as reliability, measurement error and responsiveness, were mostly poor or not reported. In our outcome inventory, the most frequently used validated outcome measure was the Care Transition Measure (n = 9). The most frequently used non-validated outcome measures were: medication discrepancies (n = 98), hospital readmissions (n = 55), adverse events (n = 34), emergency department visits (n = 33), (mental or physical) health status (n = 28), quality and timeliness of discharge summary, and patient satisfaction (n = 23). Conclusions Although no validated measures exist that assess all aspects of transitional patient safety, we found validated measurement tools on specific aspects. Reporting of validity of transitional measurement tools was incomplete. Numerous outcome measures with unknown measurement properties are used in current studies on safety of care transitions, which makes interpretation or comparison of their results uncertain