Harms from discharge to primary care:mixed methods analysis of incident reports

Background Discharge from hospital presents significant risks to patient safety, with up to one in five patients experiencing adverse events within 3 weeks of leaving hospital. Aim To describe the frequency and types of patient safety incidents associated with discharge from secondary to primary care, and commonly described contributory factors to identify recommendations for practice. Design and setting A mixed methods analysis of 598 patient safety incident reports in England and Wales related to ‘Discharge’ from the National Reporting and Learning System. Method Detailed data coding (with 20% double-coding), data summaries generated using descriptive statistical analysis, and thematic analysis of special-case sample of reports. Incident type, contributory factors, type, and level of harm were described, informing recommendations for future practice. Results A total of 598 eligible reports were analysed. The four main themes were: errors in discharge communication (n = 151; 54% causing harm); errors in referrals to community care (n = 136; 73% causing harm); errors in medication (n = 97; 87% causing harm); and lack of provision of care adjuncts such as dressings (n = 62; 94% causing harm). Common contributory factors were staff factors (not following referral protocols); and organisational factors (lack of clear guidelines or inefficient processes). Improvement opportunities include developing and testing electronic discharge methods with agreed minimum information requirements and unified referrals systems to community care providers; and promoting a safety culture with ‘safe discharge’ checklists, discharge coordinators, and family involvement. Conclusion Significant harm was evident due to deficits in the discharge process. Interventions in this area need to be evaluated and learning shared widely

Characterising the nature of primary care patient safety incident reports in the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System: a mixed-methods agenda-setting study for general practice

Background There is an emerging interest in the inadvertent harm caused to patients by the provision of primary health-care services. To date (up to 2015), there has been limited research interest and few policy directives focused on patient safety in primary care. In 2003, a major investment was made in the National Reporting and Learning System to better understand patient safety incidents occurring in England and Wales. This is now the largest repository of patient safety incidents in the world. Over 40,000 safety incident reports have arisen from general practice. These have never been systematically analysed, and a key challenge to exploiting these data has been the largely unstructured, free-text data. Aims To characterise the nature and range of incidents reported from general practice in England and Wales (2005–13) in order to identify the most frequent and most harmful patient safety incidents, and relevant contributory issues, to inform recommendations for improving the safety of primary care provision in key strategic areas. Methods We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods evaluation of general practice patient safety incident reports. We developed our own classification (coding) system using an iterative approach to describe the incident, contributory factors and incident outcomes. Exploratory data analysis methods with subsequent thematic analysis was undertaken to identify the most harmful and most frequent incident types, and the underlying contributory themes. The study team discussed quantitative and qualitative analyses, and vignette examples, to propose recommendations for practice. Main findings We have identified considerable variation in reporting culture across England and Wales between organisations. Two-thirds of all reports did not describe explicit reasons about why an incident occurred. Diagnosis- and assessment-related incidents described the highest proportion of harm to patients; over three-quarters of these reports (79%) described a harmful outcome, and half of the total reports described serious harm or death (n = 366, 50%). Nine hundred and ninety-six reports described serious harm or death of a patient. Four main contributory themes underpinned serious harm- and death-related incidents: (1) communication errors in the referral and discharge of patients; (2) physician decision-making; (3) unfamiliar symptom presentation and inadequate administration delaying cancer diagnoses; and (4) delayed management or mismanagement following failures to recognise signs of clinical (medical, surgical and mental health) deterioration. Conclusions Although there are recognised limitations of safety-reporting system data, this study has generated hypotheses, through an inductive process, that now require development and testing through future research and improvement efforts in clinical practice. Cross-cutting priority recommendations include maximising opportunities to learn from patient safety incidents; building information technology infrastructure to enable details of all health-care encounters to be recorded in one system; developing and testing methods to identify and manage vulnerable patients at risk of deterioration, unscheduled hospital admission or readmission following discharge from hospital; and identifying ways patients, parents and carers can help prevent safety incidents. Further work must now involve a wider characterisation of reports contributed by the rest of the primary care disciplines (pharmacy, midwifery, health visiting, nursing and dentistry), include scoping reviews to identify interventions and improvement initiatives that address priority recommendations, and continue to advance the methods used to generate learning from safety reports

AgedCare+GP: description and evaluation of an in-house model of general practice in a residential aged-care facility

This paper describes a medical model to provide in-house GP services to residents of aged-care facilities. Access to GP services for aged-care residents is decreasing, partially due to the changing demographic of the Australian GP workforce. The model we have developed is an in-house GP (AgedCare+GP) trialled in a publicly funded residential aged-care facility (RACF). The service model was based on the GP cooperative used in our after-hours general practice (AfterHours+GP). Briefly, the service model involves rostering a core group of GPs to provide weekly sessional clinics at the RACF. Financial contributions from appropriate Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items for aged-care planning (including chronic conditions) provided adequate funds to operate the clinic for RACF residents. Evaluation of the service model used the number of resident transfers to the local emergency department as the primary outcome measure. There were 37 transfers of residents in the 3 months before the commencement of the AgedCare+GP and 11 transfers over a 3-month period at the end of the first year of operation; a reduction of almost 70%. This project demonstrates that AgedCare+GP is a successful model for GP service provision to RACF residents, and it also reduces the number of emergency department transfers

Matched comparison of GP and consultant rating of electronic discharge summaries

Queensland Health is implementing a state-wide system to electronically generate and distribute discharge summaries. Previously, general practitioners (GPs) have indicated that the quality of the discharge summary does not support clinical handover. While the electronic system will address some issues (e.g. legibility and timeliness), the quality of the discharge summary content is predominantly independent of method of generation. As discharge summaries are usually generated by interns, we proposed that improvement in the quality of the summary may be achieved through education. This project aimed to compare the perceptions of hospital-based consultant educators and recipient GPs regarding discharge summary content and quality. The discharge summary and audit tool were sent to the recipient GP (n=134) and a hospital consultant (n=14) for satisfaction rating, using a 5- point Likert scale for questions relating to diagnosis, the listing of clinical management, medication, pathology, investigations, and recommendations to GP. Sampling was performed by selecting up to 10 discharge summaries completed by each first-year intern (n=36) in 2009, during the second, third and fourth rotations at the Townsville Hospital until a total of 403 was reached. Matched responses were compared using the Kappa statistic. The response rate was 93% (n=375) and 63% (n=254) for consultants and GPs respectively. Results from this study demonstrated that GPs were more satisfied with discharge summaries than were consultants. An anomaly occurred in three questions where, despite the majority of GPs rating satisfied or very satisfied, a small but proportionally greater number of GPs were very dissatisfied when compared with consultants. Poor or fair agreement between GPs and consultants was demonstrated in medications, pathology results, investigations and recommendations to GP, with GPs rating higher satisfaction in all questions. Lower consultant satisfaction ratings compared with GP ratings suggest that consultants can evaluate discharge summary content to the level required by GPs for clinical handover. Therefore, consultants can appropriately educate interns on discharge summary content for GP needs

The challenge of long waiting lists: how we implemented a GP referral system for non-urgent specialist' appointments at an Australian public hospital

Our Problem\ud The length of wait lists to access specialist clinics in the public system is problematic for Queensland Health, general practitioners and patients. To address this issue at The Townsville Hospital, the GP Liaison Officer, GPs and hospital staff including specialists, collaborated to develop a process to review patients waiting longer than two years. GPs frequently send referrals to public hospital specialist clinics. Once received, referrals are triaged to Category A, B or C depending on clinical criteria resulting in appointment timeframes of 30, 90 or 365 days for each category, respectively. However, hospitals often fail to meet these targets, creating a long wait list. These wait listed patients are only likely to be seen if their condition deteriorates and an updated referral upgrades them to Category A.\ud \ud Process to Address the Problem\ud A letter sent to long wait patients offered two options 1) take no action if the appointment was no longer required or 2) visit their GP to update their referral on a clinic specific template if they felt the referral was still required. Local GPs were advised of the trial and provided education on the new template and minimum data required for specialist referrals.\ud \ud What Happened\ud In 2008, 872 letters were sent to long wait orthopaedic patients and 101 responded. All respondents were seen at specially arranged clinics. Of these, 16 patients required procedures and the others were discharged. In 2009 the process was conducted in the specialties of orthopaedics, ENT, neurosurgery, urology, and general surgery. Via this new process 6885 patients have been contacted, 633 patients have been seen by public hospital specialists at specially arranged clinics and 197 have required a procedure.\ud \ud Learnings\ud Since the start of this process in 2008, the wait time to access a specialist appointment has reduced from eight to two years. The process described here is achievable across a range of specialties, deliverable within the routine of the referral centre and identifies the small number of people on the long wait list in need of a procedure