Patient Handoff Among General Surgery Residents in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background Communication failure is a common cause of adverse events. An essential element of communication among healthcare providers is patient handoffs. To explore this practice, we assessed patient handoffs among general surgery residents in Saudi Arabia. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted with individuals in accredited general surgery residency programs in Saudi Arabia between 2020 to 2021. Results Participants comprised 118 general surgery residents—66 (57.3%) were females; 67 (72.8%) did not receive any formal training on patient handoff; 35 (38.8%) reported that they were sometimes interrupted during the patient handoff process. The most common reason for such interruptions was medical personnel paging. Further, 60 (68.1%) general surgery residents stated that such interruptions led to a decreased quality of effective communication, 39 (44.3%) believed it led to decreased quality of patient care, 63(71.5%) believed it led to the loss of some information related to patient handoff, and 16 (18.1%) believed it led to patient harm. Finally, 31 (34.4%) general surgery residents believed that the existing handoff system at their institutions neither adequately protected the patient’s safety nor allowed for continuity of care; and 51 (68%) reported that they did not have a standardized protocol for patients’ verbal handoff process at their institution. There were higher proportion of patients with minor harm in residents who did not, rare or some time received verbal or written hand off (67% vs 33%). Conclusion The patient handoff process among general surgery residents in Saudi Arabia is subjective, not standardized, and can contribute to patient harm. Standardizing it is paramount to improve patient safety.

Ethical dilemmas in nursing documentation

Background: Nursing documentation is an essential aspect of ethical nursing care. Lack of awareness of ethical dilemmas in nursing documentation may increase the risk of patient harm. Considering this, ethical dilemmas within nursing documentation need to be explored. Aim: To explore ethical dilemmas in nurses’ conversations about nursing documentation. Research design, participants and context: The study used a qualitative design. Participants were registered nurses from a Patient Hotel at a Danish University Hospital. Data were collected in three focus groups with a total of 12 participants. Data analysis consisted of qualitative content analysis inspired by Graneheim and Lundman. Ethical consideration: This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of research and regulations in terms of confidentiality, anonymity and provision of informed consent. Findings: Ethical dilemmas were strongly present in nurses’ conversations about nursing documentation. These dilemmas were demonstrated in two themes: (1) a dilemma between respecting patients’ autonomy and not causing harm, which was visible in nurses’ navigation between written documentation and oral tradition, and (2) a dilemma concerning justice and fair distribution of goods, which was visible in nurses’ balancing between documenting deviations and proof of nursing practice. Discussion: Ethical dilemmas in nursing documentation regarding respecting patients’ autonomy and not causing harm accentuated discussions on professional responsibility and patient participation in clinical decisions. Dilemmas in justice and fair distribution of goods emphasised discussions on trust in relationships versus trust in electronic health records. Conclusion: Actual tendencies in the healthcare system may increase ethical dilemmas in nursing documentation. Sharing otherwise invisible and individual experiences of ethical dilemmas in nursing documentation among nurses, nurse leaders and decision-makers will enable addressing these in reflections and discussions as well as in considering adjustments of conditions for nursing documentation.

Safety Events Impacting Hospitalized Patients Following Motor Vehicle Crashes: A Qualitative Study of Reports From Pennsylvania Hospitals

Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and around the world. When a patient who has experienced trauma in an MVC presents to the emergency department, they may be unable to participate in their own care due to numerous factors, such as being unconscious, physically incapacitated, or suffering from confusion. To better characterize challenges with care of these patients, we analyzed reports of patient safety events submitted to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System (PA-PSRS) related to MVCs, and we identified 282 reports for analysis that occurred from 2018–2020. Patients were more often male (58.9%; 166 of 282) than female (41.1%; 116 of 282), and they ranged in age from 1 to 93 years. A total of 13.1% (37 of 282) of reports were classified as serious events (i.e., events that resulted in patient harm), compared with 2.9% in the full acute care PA-PSRS database. Problems with monitoring or treatment were most common (43.3%; 122 of 282), followed by problems with evaluation (18.4%; 52 of 282), falls (11.7%; 33 of 282), problems with documentation (7.4%; 21 of 282), medication errors (7.4%; 21 of 282), and problems with transfers (6.4%; 18 of 282). Some potential contributing factors included communication breakdowns, lack of policies or protocols or unawareness about existing policies or protocols for treating certain patient populations, and prioritization of conditions related to an MVC over underlying health conditions.

Pharmacy student-assisted medication reconciliation: Number and types of medication discrepancies identified by pharmacy students

Background: Medication reconciliation aims to prevent unintentional medication discrepancies that can result in patient harm at transitions of care. Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation has clear benefits, however workforce limitations can be a barrier to providing this service. Pharmacy students are a potential workforce solution. Objective: To evaluate the number and type of medication discrepancies identified by pharmacy students. Methods: Fourth year pharmacy students completed best possible medication histories and identified discrepancies with prescribed medications for patients admitted to hospital. A retrospective audit was conducted to determine the number and type of medication discrepancies identified by pharmacy students, types of patients and medicines involved in discrepancies. Results: There were 294 patients included in the study. Overall, 72% (n=212/294) had medication discrepancies, the most common type being drug omission. A total of 645 discrepancies were identified, which was a median of three per patient. Patients with discrepancies were older than patients without discrepancies with a median (IQR) age of 74 (65-84) vs 68 (53-77) years (p=0.001). They also took more medicines with a median (IQR) number of 9 (6-3) vs 7 (2-10) medicines per patient (p<0.001). The most common types of medicines involved were those related to the alimentary tract and cardiovascular system. Conclusions: Pharmacy students identified medication discrepancies in over 70% of hospital inpatients, categorised primarily as drug omission. Pharmacy students can provide a beneficial service to the hospital and contribute to improved patient safety by assisting pharmacists with medication reconciliation.

Back to the Basics—Is Comfort Care the Same as Do Not Resuscitate? How Misinterpreting Code Status May Lead to Potential Patient Harm

Several research studies have shown that code status documentation is misinterpreted or incorrectly defined by a significant number of medical professionals. This misinterpretation among the medical team (i.e. equating Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) with comfort care measures only) may lead to false reporting, poor symptom management, and potentially adverse clinical outcomes. Most Hospice and Palliative Care providers are aware of these distinctions, however a shortage (and continued foreseen shortage) of Hospice and Palliative Care providers may mean these conversations and distinctions will fall to non-subspecialists, or providers of other medical specialties or degrees. The literature has demonstrated that these shortfalls and misinterpretations are present and constitute potential harm to our patients.

Therapeutic duplication on the general surgical wards

Therapeutic duplication is the practice of prescribing multiple medications for the same indication or purpose without a clear distinction of when one agent should be administered over another. This is a problem that occurs frequently, especially on electronic prescribing records (EPR) as the medication chart is not always reviewed before prescribing. The aim of this Quality Improvement Project (QIP) was to reduce therapeutic duplication to 0% through educating the general surgical team. Prescriptions of all general surgical patients in the surgical wards were reviewed daily for a month. EPR was used to check if there were any duplications or identical class of drug prescribed. Patient documentation was thoroughly checked to rule out if the duplication was intentional. Following this, if duplication was still unclear, the relevant teams would be contacted for clarification. Any unintentional error was removed, and data was collected. The QIP results were presented to the local general surgical meeting and our fellow colleagues were educated on the importance of safe prescribing and on how to prevent prescribing errors. The baseline of therapeutic duplications on the general surgical wards was 9% prior to our first cycle. Following the presentation of data and educating the surgical team at the surgical meeting, the number of errors seemingly reduced, however, there was a jump to 22% of therapeutic duplication on a particular Friday which brought the average of therapeutic duplication to 8.77%. The team was reminded again about the importance of correct prescribing and after the second cycle, the number of errors reduced to 5.29%. For the third audit cycle, the team was presented with the reaudited data and following this, the number of errors dropped down to 3.12%. Therapeutic duplication should never occur as this could cause a risk to patient harm. Through educating the surgical team and reminding our team regularly, the average number of errors reduced by more than half of the original number. In our hospital, the main source of safety net is through pharmacists and nurses, however as shown, this is not enough to prevent all therapeutic errors. A more sustainable intervention such as an alert on EPR prior to prescribing may be required to maintain a low therapeutic duplication average and prevent patient harm.

680 Excelling in Adversity - Maximising Training Opportunities by Reducing Cancelled Operations

Aim Viral swabs for Covid-19 are an essential part of a patient’s pre-operative checklist. Patients require negative swabs before proceeding to theatre. Delay in this process may lead to a cancelled operation with physical and mental health implications for the patient. There is a knock-on effect on surgical training, with fewer procedures and operations for teaching. Method Previous guidance required 2 staggered swabs prior to admission. This was simplified on 19th August 2020 to a single pre-operative swab. A retrospective audit was established within the Otolaryngology department at the Royal Gwent Hospital to assess whether the simplification of guidance reduced the rate of cancellations and the number of same-day swabs needed to maintain operating. Results In a 4-week period prior to the simplification in guidance there were 34 listed procedures, 3 of which were cancelled due to swab related issues. 1 patient required a same-day swab to facilitate surgery. In a 4-week period after the simplification in guidance there were 48 listed operations and no cancellations due to swab issues. 6 patients required same-day swabs to facilitate surgery. Conclusions Whilst the simplification of swab guidance has improved the rate of operations cancelled, the reliance on same-day swabs to maintain operating has increased. This could reflect better availability of same-day swabs. It is in the interest of trainees to ensure that patients are fully prepared for operations pre-operatively to minimise unplanned cancellations, associated patient harm and loss of training opportunities.

Implementing A Human Factors Approach To Rca2: Analysis Of Resultant Safety Recommendations

Root Cause Analysis and Action (RCA2) guidelines offer fundamental improvements to traditional RCA. Yet, these guidelines lack robust methods to support a human factors analysis of patient harm events and the development of systems-level interventions. We previously described how human factors tools can be integrated into RCA2 to create a robust process called HFACS-RCA2. Prior analyses of qualitative data associated with an 18-month implementation project at a large academic health center indicated that HFACS-RCA2 fosters a more comprehensive human factors analysis of serious patient harm events and the identification of broader system interventions. The present study builds on this prior research by presenting the analysis of actual recommendations extracted from RCA reports. Results corroborate qualitative stakeholder findings that HFACS-RCA2 produced recommendations that were stronger and included more substantive changes compared to former RCA methods.