The Swiss cheese model of safety incidents: are there holes in the metaphor?

BACKGROUND: Reason's Swiss cheese model has become the dominant paradigm for analysing medical errors and patient safety incidents. The aim of this study was to determine if the components of the model are understood in the same way by quality and safety professionals. METHODS: Survey of a volunteer sample of persons who claimed familiarity with the model, recruited at a conference on quality in health care, and on the internet through quality-related websites. The questionnaire proposed several interpretations of components of the Swiss cheese model: a) slice of cheese, b) hole, c) arrow, d) active error, e) how to make the system safer. Eleven interpretations were compatible with this author's interpretation of the model, 12 were not. RESULTS: Eighty five respondents stated that they were very or quite familiar with the model. They gave on average 15.3 (SD 2.3, range 10 to 21) "correct" answers out of 23 (66.5%) – significantly more than 11.5 "correct" answers that would expected by chance (p < 0.001). Respondents gave on average 2.4 "correct" answers regarding the slice of cheese (out of 4), 2.7 "correct" answers about holes (out of 5), 2.8 "correct" answers about the arrow (out of 4), 3.3 "correct" answers about the active error (out of 5), and 4.1 "correct" answers about improving safety (out of 5). CONCLUSION: The interpretations of specific features of the Swiss cheese model varied considerably among quality and safety professionals. Reaching consensus about concepts of patient safety requires further work

Reviewing the review:a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals

Abstract Background Despite rapid growth of the scientific literature, no consensus guidelines have emerged to define the optimal criteria for editors to grade submitted manuscripts. The purpose of this project was to assess the peer reviewer metrics currently used in the surgical literature to evaluate original manuscript submissions. Methods Manuscript grading forms for 14 of the highest circulation general surgery-related journals were evaluated for content, including the type and number of quantitative and qualitative questions asked of peer reviewers. Reviewer grading forms for the seven surgical journals with the higher impact factors were compared to the seven surgical journals with lower impact factors using Fisher’s exact tests. Results Impact factors of the studied journals ranged from 1.73 to 8.57, with a median impact factor of 4.26 in the higher group and 2.81 in the lower group. The content of the grading forms was found to vary considerably. Relatively few journals asked reviewers to grade specific components of a manuscript. Higher impact factor journal manuscript grading forms more frequently addressed statistical analysis, ethical considerations, and conflict of interest. In contrast, lower impact factor journals more commonly requested reviewers to make qualitative assessments of novelty/originality, scientific validity, and scientific importance. Conclusion Substantial variation exists in the grading criteria used to evaluate original manuscripts submitted to the surgical literature for peer review, with differential emphasis placed on certain criteria correlated to journal impact factors

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

Late symptoms in long-term gynaecological cancer survivors after radiation therapy: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We surveyed the occurrence of physical symptoms among long-term gynaecological cancer survivors after pelvic radiation therapy, and compared with population-based control women. METHODS: We identified a cohort of 789 eligible gynaecological cancer survivors treated with pelvic radiation therapy alone or combined with surgery in Stockholm or Gothenburg, Sweden. A control group of 478 women was randomly sampled from the Swedish Population Registry. Data were collected through a study-specific validated postal questionnaire with 351 questions concerning gastrointestinal and urinary tract function, lymph oedema, pelvic bones and sexuality. Clinical characteristics and treatment details were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: Participation rate was 78% for gynaecological cancer survivors and 72% for control women. Median follow-up time after treatment was 74 months. Cancer survivors reported a higher occurrence of symptoms from all organs studied. The highest age-adjusted relative risk (RR) was found for emptying of all stools into clothing without forewarning (RR 12.7), defaecation urgency (RR 5.7), difficulty feeling the need to empty the bladder (RR 2.8), protracted genital pain (RR 5.0), pubic pain when walking indoors (RR 4.9) and erysipelas on abdomen or legs at least once during the past 6 months (RR 3.6). Survivors treated with radiation therapy alone showed in general higher rates of symptoms. CONCLUSION: Gynaecological cancer survivors previously treated with pelvic radiation report a higher occurrence of symptoms from the urinary and gastrointestinal tract as well as lymph oedema, sexual dysfunction and pelvic pain compared with non-irradiated control women. Health-care providers need to actively ask patients about specific symptoms in order to provide proper diagnostic investigations and management

Effects of laterally wedged insoles on symptoms and disease progression in medial knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Whilst laterally wedged insoles, worn inside the shoes, are advocated as a simple, inexpensive, non-toxic self-administered intervention for knee osteoarthritis (OA), there is currently limited evidence to support their use. The aim of this randomised, double-blind controlled trial is to determine whether laterally wedges insoles lead to greater improvements in knee pain, physical function and health-related quality of life, and slower structural disease progression as well as being more cost-effective, than control flat insoles in people with medial knee OA.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Two hundred participants with painful radiographic medial knee OA and varus malalignment will be recruited from the community and randomly allocated to lateral wedge or control insole groups using concealed allocation. Participants will be blinded as to which insole is considered therapeutic. Blinded follow up assessment will be conducted at 12 months after randomisation. The outcome measures are valid and reliable measures recommended for OA clinical trials. Questionnaires will assess changes in pain, physical function and health-related quality-of-life. Magnetic resonance imaging will measure changes in tibial cartilage volume. To evaluate cost-effectiveness, participants will record the use of all health-related treatments in a log-book returned to the assessor on a monthly basis. To test the effect of the intervention using an intention-to-treat analysis, linear regression modelling will be applied adjusting for baseline outcome values and other demographic characteristics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence regarding the effectiveness of laterally wedged insoles for the management of medial knee OA.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ACTR12605000503628; NCT00415259.</p

Atmospheric electrification in dusty, reactive gases in the solar system and beyond

Detailed observations of the solar system planets reveal a wide variety of local atmospheric conditions. Astronomical observations have revealed a variety of extrasolar planets none of which resembles any of the solar system planets in full. Instead, the most massive amongst the extrasolar planets, the gas giants, appear very similar to the class of (young) Brown Dwarfs which are amongst the oldest objects in the universe. Despite of this diversity, solar system planets, extrasolar planets and Brown Dwarfs have broadly similar global temperatures between 300K and 2500K. In consequence, clouds of different chemical species form in their atmospheres. While the details of these clouds differ, the fundamental physical processes are the same. Further to this, all these objects were observed to produce radio and X-ray emission. While both kinds of radiation are well studied on Earth and to a lesser extent on the solar system planets, the occurrence of emission that potentially originate from accelerated electrons on Brown Dwarfs, extrasolar planets and protoplanetary disks is not well understood yet. This paper offers an interdisciplinary view on electrification processes and their feedback on their hosting environment in meteorology, volcanology, planetology and research on extrasolar planets and planet formation