Violence in health care: the contribution of the Australian Patient Safety Foundation to incident monitoring and analysis

The document attached has been archived with permission from the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Because of growing concern about violence in health care in Australia, we reviewed the relevant data on incidents involving violence collected using the Australian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS). Among 42 338 incidents reported from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2002, 3621 (9% of all incidents) involved patients and physical violence or violent verbal exchange; staff injury was reported in 5% of cases. The proportion was higher in emergency departments (16%, with frequent involvement of mental health problems or alcohol or drug intoxication) and mental health units (28%). Contributing factors include changes in our society and in mental health service provision. With the closure of public psychiatric hospitals in the past decade, more patients with mental illness are seeking care in public hospital emergency departments. AIMS analysis highlights the importance of understanding the contributing and precipitating factors in violent incidents, and supports a variety of preventive initiatives, including de-escalation training for staff; violence management plans; improved building design to protect staff and patients; and fast-tracking of patients with mental health problems as well as improved waiting times in public hospital emergency services. We recommend that a national system be developed to share and compare incident monitoring data, to monitor trends, and to facilitate learning and thinking at all levels - ward, department, hospital, state and national.Klee A Benveniste, Peter D Hibbert and William B Runcima

Psychiatric wards: places of safety?

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to explore the experiences of service users on acute inpatient psychiatric wards in England regarding their feelings of safety and security whilst in hospital. Background. In recent years the purpose and quality of provision delivered in acute inpatient psychiatric settings have been increasingly questioned. Studies from a service user perspective have reported that whilst some psychiatric inpatients feel safe and cared for, others see their time there as neither safe nor therapeutic. Method. Sixty semi-structured interviews were conducted with psychiatric inpatients randomly selected from sixty psychiatric wards in England. The interviews were conducted over an 18 month period in 2004–2005. The interviews were analysed thematically. Findings. A third of the respondents felt safe in hospital and felt supported by staff and other patients in times of need. However, anything that threatened their sense of security, such as fighting between patients, intimidation, bullying, theft, racism, and illegal substances such as alcohol or cannabis being smuggled onto the ward, made many of them feel insecure and unsafe. Psychiatric wards are still perceived by many as volatile environments, where service users feel forced to devise personal security strategies in order to protect themselves and their property. Conclusion. It would appear that there remains much to do before research findings and policies are implemented in ways that facilitate all service users to derive the maximum benefit from their in-patient experience

Exploring the evidence base for how people with dementia and their informal carers manage their medication in the community:a mixed studies review

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the general medicines management issues for people with dementia living in the community. This review has three aims: firstly to explore and evaluate the international literature on how people with dementia manage medication; assess understanding of medicines management from an informal carers perspective; and lastly to understand the role that healthcare professionals play in assisting this population with medicines management. METHODS: A mixed studies review was conducted. Web of Knowledge, PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched post-1999 for studies that explored medicines management in people with dementia dwelling in the community, and the role healthcare professionals play in supporting medicines management in people with dementia. Following screening, nine articles were included. Data from included studies were synthesised using a convergent synthesis approach and analysed thematically to combine findings from studies using a range of methods (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods). RESULTS: Four themes were generated from the synthesis: The nature of the disease and the effects this had on medicines management; the additional responsibilities informal carers have; informal caregivers' knowledge of the importance of managing medication and healthcare professionals' understanding of medicines management in people with dementia. Consequently, these were found to affect management of medication, in particular adherence to medication. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified that managing medication for people with dementia dwelling in the community is a complex task with a frequently associated burden on their informal caregivers. Healthcare professionals can be unaware of this burden. The findings warrant the need for healthcare professionals to undergo further training in supporting medicines management for people with dementia in their own homes

Medication errors in the Middle East countries: a systematic review of the literature

Background: Medication errors are a significant global concern and can cause serious medical consequences for patients. Little is known about medication errors in Middle Eastern countries. The objectives of this systematic review were to review studies of the incidence and types of medication errors in Middle Eastern countries and to identify the main contributory factors involved. Methods: A systematic review of the literature related to medication errors in Middle Eastern countries was conducted in October 2011 using the following databases: Embase, Medline, Pubmed, the British Nursing Index and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature. The search strategy included all ages and languages. Inclusion criteria were that the studies assessed or discussed the incidence of medication errors and contributory factors to medication errors during the medication treatment process in adults or in children. Results: Forty-five studies from 10 of the 15 Middle Eastern countries met the inclusion criteria. Nine (20%) studies focused on medication errors in paediatric patients. Twenty-one focused on prescribing errors, 11 measured administration errors, 12 were interventional studies and one assessed transcribing errors. Dispensing and documentation errors were inadequately evaluated. Error rates varied from 7.1% to 90.5% for prescribing and from 9.4% to 80% for administration. The most common types of prescribing errors reported were incorrect dose (with an incidence rate from 0.15% to 34.8% of prescriptions), wrong frequency and wrong strength. Computerised physician rder entry and clinical pharmacist input were the main interventions evaluated. Poor knowledge of medicines was identified as a contributory factor for errors by both doctors (prescribers) and nurses (when administering drugs). Most studies did not assess the clinical severity of the medication errors. Conclusion: Studies related to medication errors in the Middle Eastern countries were relatively few in number and of poor quality. Educational programmes on drug therapy for doctors and nurses are urgently needed

Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation decisions : an evidence synthesis

Background: Cardiac arrest is the final common step in the dying process. In the right context, resuscitation can reverse the dying process, yet success rates are low. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a highly invasive medical treatment, which, if applied in the wrong setting, can deprive the patient of dignified death. Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions provide a mechanism to withhold CPR. Recent scientific and lay press reports suggest that the implementation of DNACPR decisions in NHS practice is problematic. Aims and objectives: This project sought to identify reasons why conflict and complaints arise, identify inconsistencies in NHS trusts’ implementation of national guidelines, understand health professionals’ experience in relation to DNACPR, its process and ethical challenges, and explore the literature for evidence to improve DNACPR policy and practice. Methods: A systematic review synthesised evidence of processes, barriers and facilitators related to DNACPR decision-making and implementation. Reports from NHS trusts, the National Reporting and Learning System, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Office of the Chief Coroner, trust resuscitation policies and telephone calls to a patient information line were reviewed. Multiple focus groups explored service-provider perspectives on DNACPR decisions. A stakeholder group discussed the research findings and identified priorities for future research. Results: The literature review found evidence that structured discussions at admission to hospital or following deterioration improved patient involvement and decision-making. Linking DNACPR to overall treatment plans improved clarity about goals of care, aided communication and reduced harms. Standardised documentation improved the frequency and quality of recording decisions. Approximately 1500 DNACPR incidents are reported annually. One-third of these report harms, including some instances of death. Problems with communication and variation in trusts’ implementation of national guidelines were common. Members of the public were concerned that their wishes with regard to resuscitation would not be respected. Clinicians felt that DNACPR decisions should be considered within the overall care of individual patients. Some clinicians avoid raising discussions about CPR for fear of conflict or complaint. A key theme across all focus groups, and reinforced by the literature review, was the negative impact on overall patient care of having a DNACPR decision and the conflation of ‘do not resuscitate’ with ‘do not provide active treatment’. Limitations: The variable quality of some data sources allows potential overstatement or understatement of findings. However, data source triangulation identified common issues. Conclusion: There is evidence of variation and suboptimal practice in relation to DNACPR decisions across health-care settings. There were deficiencies in considering, discussing and implementing the decision, as well as unintended consequences of DNACPR decisions being made on other aspects of patient care. Future work: Recommendations supported by the stakeholder group are standardising NHS policies and forms, ensuring cross-boundary recognition of DNACPR decisions, integrating decisions with overall treatment plans and developing tools and training strategies to support clinician and patient decision-making, including improving communication. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002669. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Issues in applying multi-arm multi-stage methodology to a clinical trial in prostate cancer: the MRC STAMPEDE trial

Background: The multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) trial is a new paradigm for conducting randomised controlled trials that allows the simultaneous assessment of a number of research treatments against a single control arm. MAMS trials provide earlier answers and are potentially more cost-effective than a series of traditionally designed trials. Prostate cancer is the most common tumour in men and there is a need to improve outcomes for men with hormone-sensitive, advanced disease as quickly as possible. The MAMS design will potentially facilitate evaluation and testing of new therapies in this and other diseases.Methods: STAMPEDE is an open-label, 5-stage, 6-arm randomised controlled trial using MAMS methodology for men with prostate cancer. It is the first trial of this design to use multiple arms and stages synchronously.Results: The practical and statistical issues faced by STAMPEDE in implementing MAMS methodology are discussed and contrasted with those for traditional trials. These issues include the choice of intermediate and final outcome measures, sample size calculations and the impact of varying the assumptions, the process for moving between trial stages, stopping accrual to each trial arm and overall, and issues around perceived trial complexity.Conclusion: It is possible to use the MAMS design to initiate and undertake large scale cancer trials. The results from STAMPEDE will not be known for some years but the lessons learned from running a MAMS trial are shared in the hope that other researchers will use this exciting and efficient method to perform further randomised controlled trials

Towards improved decision support in the assessment and management of pain for people with dementia in hospital: a systematic meta-review and observational study

BackgroundPain and dementia are common in older people, and impaired cognitive abilities make it difficult for them to communicate their pain. Pain, if poorly managed, impairs health and well-being. Accurate pain assessment in this vulnerable group is challenging for hospital staff, but essential for appropriate management. Robust methods for identifying, assessing and managing pain are needed.Aims and objectivesTwo studies were undertaken to inform the development of a decision support tool to aid hospital staff in the recognition, assessment and management of pain. The first was a meta-review of systematic reviews of observational pain assessment instruments with three objectives: (1) to identify the tools available to assess pain in adults with dementia; (2) to identify in which settings they were used and with what patient populations; and (3) to assess their reliability, validity and clinical utility. The second was a multisite observational study in hospitals with four objectives: (1) to identify information currently used by clinicians when detecting and managing pain in patients with dementia; (2) to explore existing processes for detecting and managing pain in these patients; (3) to identify the role (actual/potential) of carers in this process; and (4) to explore the organisational context in which health professionals operate. Findings also informed development of health economics data collection forms to evaluate the implementation of a new decision support intervention in hospitals.MethodsFor the meta-review of systematic reviews, 12 databases were searched. Reviews of observational pain assessment instruments that provided psychometric data were included. Papers were quality assessed and data combined using narrative synthesis. The observational study used an ethnographic approach in 11 wards in four UK hospitals. This included non-participant observation of 31 patients, audits of patient records, semistructured interviews with 52 staff and four carers, informal conversations with staff and carers and analysis of ward documents and policies. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken by the project team.ResultsData from eight systematic reviews including 28 tools were included in the meta-review. Most tools showed moderate to good reliability, but information about validity, feasibility and clinical utility was scarce. The observational study showed complex ward cultures and routines, with variations in time spent with patients, communication patterns and management practices. Carer involvement was rare. No pain decision support tools were observed in practice. Information about pain was elicited in different ways, at different times, by different health-care staff and recorded in separate documents. Individual staff made sense of patients’ pain by creating their own ‘overall picture’ from available information.LimitationsGrey literature and non-English-language papers were excluded from the meta-review. Sample sizes in the observational study were smaller than planned owing to poor documentation of patients’ dementia diagnoses, gatekeeping by staff and difficulties in gaining consent/assent. Many patients had no or geographically distant carers, or a spouse who was too unwell and/or reluctant to participate.ConclusionsNo single observational pain scale was clearly superior to any other. The traditional linear concept of pain being assessed, treated and reassessed by single individuals did not ‘fit’ with clinical reality. A new approach enabling effective communication among patients, carers and staff, centralised recording of pain-related information, and an extended range of pain management interventions is proposed [Pain And Dementia Decision Support (PADDS)]. This was not tested with users, but a follow-on study aims to codesign PADDS with carers and clinicians, then introduce education on staff/patient/carer communications and use of PADDS within a structured implementation plan. PADDS will need to be tested in differing ward contexts