Healthcare Consulting Services
PO Box 1230
Grantham, NH 03753
ph: 716-550-1106
btruax
April 3, 2012
New Risk for Postoperative Delirium: Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Our multiple previous columns on delirium (see list at the end of this column) have mentioned multiple risk factors for the development of delirium in hospitalized patients. But a new risk factor for postoperative delirium has just been uncovered: obstructive sleep apnea (Flink 2012). The authors prospectively evaluated 106 nondemented elderly patients undergoing elective knee arthroplasty for delirium and found delirium in 25% of cases. The incidence of delirium in the 15 patients who had known obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was 53%, compared with 20% in those without known OSA. In fact, in multivariate analyses, the only independent risk factor that emerged for delirium in this population was OSA. Patients with OSA were more than 4 times more likely to develop delirium. It was a well-done study in which the CAM (Confusion Assessment Method) and the DRS-R-98 (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98) were utilized on post-op days #2 and #3 (most patients were discharged by day #3) to identify patients with delirium and measure its severity. The incidence was highest on post-op day #2 as has been seen in prior studies and two-thirds of the cases had improved by post-op day #3.
The authors readily state that this study should be hypothesis-generating rather than showing a definitive cause and effect relationship between OSA and delirium but the findings are nevertheless striking and thought provoking.
The authors speculate on the potential mechanisms linking OSA and delirium. Obviously hypoxemia is suspected as a major factor and they speculate it might reduce ATP and synthesis of cholinergic precursors (reduced cholinergic activity has been supported as a mechanism of delirium in research settings). The accompanying editorial (Bateman 2012) notes that patients with OSA are most vulnerable to hypoxia on postoperative nights 2 and 3. Flink and colleagues also raise the possibility that inflammatory factors might play a role. Given the slight delay in the appearance of postoperative delirium one might also wonder about the possible role that REM rebound might play and its relationship to both OSA and postoperative delirium.
Recently, a clinical research group in the Netherlands had developed and validated a risk model for predicting delirium in hip fracture patients (Moerman 2012). Items considered in that model included prior episodes of delirium, presence of dementia, age, clock drawing, hearing and vision impairments, problems with ADLs, and alcohol or substance abuse. The tool was pretty good at predicting delirium in this patient population. This population was clearly different from that in the Flink study but it would be interesting to go back and see whether OSA might have been identified in the Netherlands population.
In our August 17, 2010 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Preoperative Consultation Time to Change we noted the relative ineffectiveness of the typical preoperative assessments done today. Instead of the intense focus on potential cardiac complications, we instead advocated for more focus on identifying frailty and risk factors for things like postoperative delirium and obstructive sleep apnea. Little did we know that those two might be interrelated! Admittedly there are a whole host of risk factors for delirium that should be considered in many patient populations. But now it makes sense to also screen for OSA, particularly in nondemented patient cohorts about to undergo elective surgical procedures. Screening for OSA is doubly important, given all the attention weve given to managing opiate therapy in the postoperative period (see links below).
Given the simplicity of screening for OSA with tools like the STOP-Bang questionnaire, there is really no good reason that such screening should not be part of the preoperative assessment, whether being done by an anesthesiologist, internist, hospitalist, or surgeon. It is incredible how often we send patients for cardiac stress testing preoperatively despite lack of clearcut evidence for its utility and cost-effectiveness in this population. Yet simple tests that can be done in a few minutes in the office, like the STOP-Bang questionnaire or the Timed-Up-And-Go Test (see our November 2011 Whats New in the Patient Safety World column Timed Up-and-Go Test and Surgical Outcomes), that are highly predictive of postoperative complications are seldom part of the preoperative evaluation.
Some of our prior columns on delirium assessment and management:
See some of our prior columns on obstructive sleep apnea in the perioperative period:
Patient Safety Tips of the Week:
June 10, 2008 Monitoring the Postoperative COPD Patient
August 18, 2009 Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the Perioperative Period
August 17, 2010 Preoperative Consultation Time to Change
July 13, 2010 Postoperative Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression
February 22, 2011 Rethinking Alarms
November 22, 2011 Perioperative Management of Sleep Apnea Disappointing
Whats New in the Patient Safety World columns:
July 2010 Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the General Inpatient Population
November 2010 More on Preoperative Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
March 2012 Postoperative Complications with Obstructive Sleep Apnea
References:
Flink BJ, Rivelli SK, Cox EA, et al. Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Incidence of Postoperative Delirium after Elective Knee Replacement in the Nondemented Elderly. Anesthesiology 2012; 116(4): 788-796, April 2012.
Bateman BT, Eikermann M. Obstructive Sleep Apnea Predicts Adverse Perioperative Outcome: Evidence for an Association between Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Delirium. Anesthesiology 2012: 116(4): 753-755, April 2012.
Moerman S, Tuinebreijer WE, de Boo M, et al. Validation of the Risk Model for Delirium in hip fracture patients. Original Research Article. Gen Hosp Psychiatr 2012; 34(2): 153-159
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834311003690
Print New Risk for Postoperative Delirium: Obstructive Sleep Apnea
April 10, 2012
Error Disclosure by Surgeons
Weve done several columns promoting disclosure and apology after medical errors as being the right thing to do. One of the gray zones has always been in deciding which errors to disclose and whether to disclose errors in which no harm came to patients. An excellent paper (Chamberlain 2012) appeared last month in the surgery literature about disclosure of nonharmful medical errors and other events. We all have a tendency not to disclose near-misses to patients. But the Chamberlain article rightly points out that determination of harm is not a straightforward issue. What may not seem to have caused harm currently may, in fact, lead to harm in the future. The article discusses the ethical issues involved and advocates for taking view from the patients perspective. Research shows that most patients want to be made aware of mistakes and potential mistakes and that such disclosure usually improves the patient/physician relationship. Moreover, physicians who disclose the error to the patient/family are also then likely to report the error to the organization, perhaps leading to lessons learned that can help prevent future occurrences that might cause harm.
The article then has several practical recommendations about how to disclose medical errors to patients:
We, of course, advocate that the apology should really be the initial part of the discussion. It sets the tone for the remainder of the discussion and is critical in maintaining trust in the physician/patient relationship.
The article also notes that informed consent done before surgery also sets the tone for any subsequent disclosure. Informed consent should provide the patient with both the potential benefits and risks of surgery and a discussion of what would ensure if any of the risks came to pass.
But in reality there is a gap between the intent a physician has regarding error disclosure and the actual act of disclosure. A new paper (Ghalandarpoorattar 2012) reported the results of a survey given to surgical attendings and residents. Two error scenarios were presented, one a relatively minor one and the other major, and respondents were asked a series of questions about their attitude toward disclosure and their actual practices. Though the study was done in Iran we suspect that the results would probably not differ a whole lot if the survey were given in multiple sites in the US. About half said they would disclose the error in the major scenario and about 40% in the minor scenario, though almost 2/3 would disclose if asked by the patient about the event. Over half admitted they had made mistakes in the past year but only 16.7% had disclosed that error to the patient. The four top barriers to disclosure were: (1) fear of malpractice lawsuit (2) fear of loss of the patients trust (3) fear of the patients family members emotional response and (4) fear of losing professional fame among colleagues. And despite the fact that the literature suggests that disclosure and apology mitigate at least the first three outcomes, very few of the respondents actually believed what the literature says. Interestingly, those that did do disclosure were very satisfied with doing so, even those that eventually were involved in litigation.
Interestingly, in a survey of clinical pathologists and laboratory directors in the US (Dintzis 2011) results were strikingly similar (See our March 6, 2012 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Lab Error). Despite widespread support for reporting errors via hospital error reporting mechanisms, only 16.2% ever disclosed a serious error to a patient. But rather than being deterred by fear of malpractice suits, their main barriers to disclosure were thoughts that the patient would not understand what he/she was being told or that the physician would not be able to explain clearly. Nevertheless, those that were involved in direct disclosure to patients were highly satisfied with the experience.
Obviously we need to do a better job making it easier for all physicians to do the right thing and do disclosure and apology in an honest and caring way.
Some of our prior columns on Disclosure & Apology:
July 24, 2007 Serious Incident Response Checklist)
June 16, 2009 Disclosing Errors That Affect Multiple Patients
June 22, 2010 Disclosure and Apology: How to Do It
September 2010 Followup to Our Disclosure and Apology Tip of the Week
November 2010 IHI: Respectful Management of Serious Clinical Adverse Events
Other very valuable resources on disclosure and apology:
References:
Chamberlain CJ, Koniaris LG, Wu AW, Pawlik TM. Disclosure of "Nonharmful" Medical Errors and Other Events. Duty to Disclose. Arch Surg. 2012; 147(3): 282-286
http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/147/3/282
Ghalandarpoorattar SM, Kaviani A, Asghari F. Medical error disclosure: the gap between attitude and practice. Postgrad Med J 2012; 88: 130-133
http://pmj.bmj.com/content/88/1037/130.abstract
Dintzis SM, Stetsenko GY, Sitlani CM, et al. Communicating Pathology and Laboratory Errors. AJCP 2011 135:760-765
http://ajcp.ascpjournals.org/content/135/5/760.abstract
Conway J, Federico F, Stewart K, Campbell MJ. Respectful Management of Serious Clinical Adverse Events. IHI Innovations Series 2010. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2010
http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Results/WhitePapers/RespectfulManagementSeriousClinicalAEsWhitePaper.htm
Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Canadian Disclosure Guidelines. May 2008
http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/toolsResources/disclosure/Pages/default.aspx
Massachusetts Coalition for the Prevention of Medical Errors. When Things Go Wrong. Responding to Adverse Events. A Consensus Statement of the Harvard Hospitals. 2006
http://www.macoalition.org/documents/respondingToAdverseEvents.pdf
The American College of Physician Executives. Disclosure and Apology Toolkit.
http://www.acpe.org/acpehome/toolkit/apology.aspx
Print Error Disclosure by Surgeons
April 17, 2012
10x Dose Errors in Pediatrics
A new study (Doherty 2012) has again raised awareness of the problem of 10-fold medication errors. Several of our previous columns (see our Patient Safety Tips of the Week for March 12, 2007 10x Overdoses, September 9, 2008 Less is More.and Do You Really Need that Decimal?, and January 18, 2011 More on Medication Errors in Long-Term Care) provided examples of how 10-fold overdoses occur in a variety of settings.
Everyone knows the classic scenario where the abbreviation U for units gets misinterpreted as a zero and leads to a 10-fold overdose. Another example is when a drug ending in the letter L appears without sufficient space between it and the subsequent dose numbers. For example propranolol10mg gets interpreted as propranolol 110 mg.
We pointed out potential problems with misprogramming PCA (or other infusion) pumps. The data entry person may double press a key (or the key may become stuck) resulting in, for example, 88 instead of 8. Also, during data entry it is possible to think one hit a decimal point but it fails to print out. Thats why having a policy requiring a second independent observer verify the dosage or rate on such pumps makes sense (however, keep in mind that error rates from other industries tell us that one who oversees someone elses work typically does so in error up to 10% of the time!).
Another problem that occurs is when you include any digits following a decimal point. You all know you should never use a trailing zero, i.e. a zero following a decimal point, because if the decimal point is not seen there is a risk of a 10-fold (or higher) overdose. But what about other numbers following a decimal point? They are important in certain circumstances (eg. a dose of 0.3 mg or 2.7 mg). However, at higher doses they become much less relevant. For example, lets say you performed a calculation and the result was a recommended dose of a drug is 72.2 mg. Is there really a difference if the patient gets 72 mg. or 72.2 mg of most drugs? Yet ordering the latter dosage increases the risk that the decimal point may not be seen or not input into a computer or missed in a faxed order and the patient gets a 10x overdose. So we strongly recommend that in writing medication orders one specifically decides whether such fractional doses are important or merely place the patient at increased risk of an error.
We also pointed out the ease with which decimal points can be missed on faxed or photocopied orders or on carbon-copy sheets from triplicate order forms. And verbal orders are also prone to error (see our January 10, 2012 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Verbal Orders). For example, while it is not technically a 10-fold error look at the following scenario: certain doses, particularly those including a -teen (such as 18) may be misunderstood as having a -ty (such as 80). So spelling out the dose during read back may be appropriate (for example, one-eight).
The new study (Doherty 2012) provides a look at 10-fold dosing errors in a pediatric hospital setting over a 5-year period. It raises an issue weve previously ignored: 10x dosing errors are not always overdoses! They note that almost 30% of the 10-fold dosing errors they found would have resulted in significant underdosing with resultant loss of efficacy.
Over the 5-year period they found 252 instances of 10-fold medication errors. Though the vast majority were intercepted before reaching the patient and did not result in patient harm, 22 did result in patient harm. The overall rate of 10-fold errors was 0.062 per 100 patient days. Since this was a retrospective review taken from voluntary incident reporting the authors acknowledge that the true incidence may be higher.
They note that the errors occurred in all phases of the medication process (prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, administering, and monitoring), though the prescribing and administration phases were overrepresented. The three classes of drugs most often involved were opioids, antimicrobials, and anticoagulants. The individual drugs most often involved were headed by morphine and heparin.
The authors do a very good job identifying both sources for the errors and contributing factors. Dosage calculation errors and incorrect programming of delivery devices were the top sources for the errors. But they note that paper-based ordering was frequently an enabling factor. On the other hand, CPOE failed to block almost as many 10-fold errors. In addition, overriding of alerts on delivery devices was also a frequent enabler. Simultaneous programming of multiple intravenous pumps was another mechanism. And, as could be anticipated, urgent clinical scenarios were more prone to errors.
Where we had previously talked about sticking keys or keys that dont work on infusion pumps, they noted that the keyboard layout on many pumps may lead to errors. They point out that the zero, decimal point, and confirm or enter keys are often in close proximity on many keyboards, making it too easy to hit more than one key at the same time.
The authors put together many excellent recommendations to minimize the risk of 10-fold errors. For one thing, remove the need to do a calculation whenever possible. For instance, create order sets for fixed-dose opioids that require only input of the patients weight. Having decision support systems (tied to CPOE, barcoding systems, and automated dispensing machines) that flag doses of medications falling outside conventional dose ranges is another good way of helping avoid 10-fold medication errors. But beware that computer systems in their study were often enablers since they allowed many 10-fold errors to pass through the system. They go on to provide multiple recommendations for each of 8 areas needing the most attention. This article is definitely worth your reading.
References:
Doherty C, McDonnell C. Tenfold Medication Errors: 5 Years Experience at a University-Affiliated Pediatric Hospital. Pediatrics 2012; peds.2011-2526; Published online April 2, 2012
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/03/28/peds.2011-2526.abstract
Print 10x Dose Errors in Pediatrics
April 24, 2012
Fire Hazard of
Skin Preps, Oxygen
The UK National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has recently released a signal regarding the risk of alcohol-based skin preps in contributing to surgical fires (NPSA 2012). This Signal addresses the risk of a patient being burned when diathermy is used in the presence of alcohol-based skin preparation solutions.
They identified 23 incidents of fire in which the involvement of skin prep was clearly stated and another ten incidents where diathermy was used and the involvement of skin prep was likely but not stated. Four of these incidents were reported as resulting in death or severe harm to the patient.
Key contributing factors found include:
insufficient time for drying of the skin prep solutions before commencement of surgery
pooling of the skin preparations
They cite recommendations in the guidance in The Standards and Recommendation for Safe Perioperative Practice (2011) from The Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP) which state: Alcoholic skin preparations and other alcohol-based or aerosol products may ignite if they come into contact with sparks from electrosurgery. This can be avoided by not allowing alcoholic prep solutions to pool around the site of surgery while prepping, and allowing them to dry or be dried with a surgical swab prior to the start of any surgical procedure (MDA 2000). The practitioner should also be aware of the risk that the prep solution will not be able to evaporate if covered with impervious single use drapes.
A similar surgical fire occurred during a C-section in New Zealand. A report of that fire (Waitemata District Health Board 2002) has a very good discussion on the skin preps and their risk for fire. They pose three key questions:
1) Is it necessary to use alcohol in the skin preps for the specific procedure being performed?
2) If so, what methods/practices could be used to make it safer?
3) What volume of solution is required to make an effective skin preparation and what is the best form of application?
Note also that in our January 2011 Whats New in the Patient Safety World column Surgical Fires Not Just in High-Risk Cases pooling of the alcohol-based skin prep under the buttocks of a patient having a C-section in Israel was a key element in producing a surgical fire.
In both the New Zealand case and the Israeli case, the volume of skin prep used was an issue. Common to several of the reports of fires (including an example given in the UK NPSA signal), additional skin prep was applied after the initial prep. The volume is important because the amount of run-off is important. It is the run-off that often saturates drapes, etc. and ultimately serves as the fuel for the fire.
The importance of the applicator becomes apparent when we discuss the volume issue. In New Zealand they had, over time, switched from using a forceps to the sponge applicator because the latter allowed for speedier application of the skin prep. But the amount of run-off is considerably higher with the sponge applicator. Weve seen a similar case occur shortly after a hospital changed from a 10.5 ml sponge applicator to the same prep with a 26 ml applicator.
Allowing sufficient time for the skin prep to dry and any alcohol vapors to disperse is critical. We know of some hospitals that use a timer to ensure that sufficient time is allowed for that drying to occur.
In New Zealand the hospital(s) abandoned the use of alcohol-based skin preps for ob/gyn procedures, moving instead to aqueous-based skin preps, especially in view of lack of a clearcut difference in surgical site infections by skin prep type for such ob/gyn procedures.
The New Zealand report also makes mention that the colorless nature of some of the alcohol-based skin preps may make it difficult to identify run-off. Apparently manufacturers had, over time, removed the coloring from these preps because of allergies. The investigators of the surgical fire noted that having some coloring would likely help staff identify any run-off. Tinted preparations are commonly used in the US.
The debate over which skin prep is the safest and most effective is not yet fully answered. While there is some data suggesting that alcohol-based chlorhexidine preparations may be superior to povidone-iodine in preventing SSIs (Keller 2011), the fire risk associated with the alcohol-based preps must be considered as well. Particularly if the surgery is one in which the risk of SSI is generally low, it may make more sense to use povidone-iodine. Remember, we are dealing with relatively low risks in either case (but you sure dont want either an SSI or a surgical fire).
Oxygen is the other key factor in many OR fires. In our December 13, 2011 Surgical Fires Again we noted two cases of surgical fires occurring in patients having minor surgical procedures on the head. Though the surgical prep does not appear to have been a contributing factor, the report of the investigation done on one of those surgical fires provides some other insights (Chasteen 2012). In this case, a young woman was having sebaceous cysts removed from the back of her head. The procedure was being done with her in a prone position. Moderate sedation was used with fentanyl, versed and ketamine intravenously. Oxygen was being delivered via a face mask at 10 L/min. The skin was prepped with betadine and apparently no alcohol-based skin prep was used. Upon the third activation of the Bovie a flash fire was noted from under the surgical drape covering the operative site on her head, followed by a swoosh and flames between the patients oxygen mask and her face. The patient suffered first and second degree burns of the face in the area under the mask and a single spot of a third degree burn on the exterior portion of a nostril. Photos of the charred mask appear in the report.
The investigation included interviews of all parties, collection of multiple items from the OR, review of the literature, and two experiments to try to recreate the circumstances (which did not result in fire). They discuss multiple theoretical scenarios that might have led to this surgical fire but dismiss most of them as improbable.
Probably most important is the discussion of the type of face mask used to administer oxygen. This was a rather loosely-fitting mask that allowed oxygen to escape through holes in the connector and sides and edges of the mask. It was apparently not the oxygen delivery method usually used in this OR and was apparently chosen because they were concerned that nasal prongs might become dislodged with her in the prone position.
Though in their recommendations they suggest against use of such a face mask and recommend use of room air unless necessary to use a higher concentration of oxygen, they dont go into much detail. But those are the key points in this case. In our November 2009 Whats New in the Patient Safety World column ECRI: Update to Surgical Fire Prevention we discussed the 2009 ECRI update of its New Clinical Guide to Surgical Fire Prevention. The 2009 key change in clinical practice is discontinuing the open delivery of 100% oxygen during procedures done during sedation and where high concentrations of oxygen are needed the airway should be secured. They discuss ways to minimize the concentration of oxygen being used in a variety of scenarios. The APSF recently highlighted the importance of this in their Winter 2012 newsletter (APSF 2012) and provide an algorithm regarding use of oxygen. Perhaps the most important question to ask is: does the patient need supplemental oxygen? Most probably do not, in which case room air should be used. But if greater than 30% oxygen concentration is needed to maintain oxygenation, the airway should be secured with an endotracheal tube or supraglottic device. In cases where supplemental oxygen at less than 30% is medically necessary they recommend use of a delivery device such as a blender or common gas outlet to maintain concentration below 30%.
However, just as important is timely communication between the surgeon and the anesthesiologist. As the surgeon plans to use the Bovie (or other potential heat source) he/she needs to let the anesthesiologist know and then the oxygen flow may be reduced or stopped temporarily. A period of time for allowing dispersal of oxygen should then pass before the surgeon uses the Bovie.
Please also see our prior columns on surgical fires:
Patient Safety Tips of the Week:
Whats New in the Patient Safety World columns:
References:
NPSA (UK). Risk of skin-prep related fire in operating theatres | Signal. 28 February 2012
http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/resources/?entryid45=132981
Nishihara Y, Kajiura T, Yokota K, Kobayashi H, Okubo T. A comparative clinical study focusing on the antimicrobial efficacies of chlorhexidine gluconate alcohol for patient skin preparations. J Infus Nurs 2012; 35: 44-50
Keller DM. Preoperative Chlorhexidine Wash Superior to Povidone-Iodine.
Medscape News. September 30, 2011
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/750716
51st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC): Abstract K-480. Presented September 18, 2011
Waitemata District Health Board. Report into the Operating Theatre Fire Accident 17 August 2002. Final Report. 29 September 2002
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/downloads/alertWaitemata.pdf
Chasteen CE, Traylor J, Fiedor K, et al. A Report On Potential Causes Of A Fire In An Operating Room At North Okaloosa Medical Center. November 29, 2011
http://richmedia.onset.freedom.com/nwfdn/m2dxmm-13northokaloosafirereport.pdf
ECRI Institute. New clinical guide to surgical fire prevention. Health Devices.
ECRI Institute. October 2009: 314-332 (www.ecri.org).
https://www.ecri.org/Products/Pages/Surgical_Fires.aspx
Stoelting RK, Feldman JM, Cowles CE, Bruley ME. Surgical Fire Injuries Continue to Occur. Prevention May Require More Cautious Use of Oxygen. Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF). APSF Newsletter 2012; 26(3): 41,43 Winter 2012
http://www.apsf.org/newsletters/pdf/winter_2012.pdf
Print Fire Hazard of Skin Preps Oxygen
May 1, 2012
More LEAN Successes
LEAN, borrowed largely from Taiichi Ohno and Kiichiro Toyoda and the Toyota Production System, is both a performance improvement tool and a unique culture. Our October 11, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week LEAN in the Lab described how one organization used LEAN principles to improve lab safety and efficiency. That article nicely described most of the principles used in LEAN.
A new study (Hydes 2012) shows how LEAN principles helped improve efficiency in a GI endoscopy unit. The organization had been managing upper GI endoscopy patients who did not require sedation in the same manner they handled all their colonoscopy patients who did require sedation. They employed some key concepts from LEAN thinking to redesign their processes and workflows. Those principles included viewing the process from the patients value perspective, removing steps that did not add value from the patient perspective, value stream mapping, removal of bottlenecks or other rate-limited steps, and improved handoffs.
They began with a value stream map of the current state. In the article they actually show a picture of the handwritten flow diagram. That is an early step not only in LEAN projects but also in FMEAs (failure mode and effects analyses) or many other performance improvement projects. Only by doing that do you get a good feel for where your opportunities to remove unnecessary or wasteful steps (muda) are. Part of that process includes determining movement of the patient and staff as they are going through the process. And dont forget to begin your map well before arrival of the patient at the GI unit, since many of the wasteful parts of your process may involve pre-procedure paperwork or other things that take place in preparation for the visit. They identified 22 steps in their current state process, 19 after arrival of the patient. And they found that the total patient journey ranged from 52 to 375 minutes. They identified 5 bottlenecks in their process and 3 handoffs. Of those steps they identified only 9 that added value from the patient perspective. Cuttting out those steps that did not add value reduced the total time necessary considerably. Ultimately they were able to reduce the total number of steps from time of arrival to discharge from 19 to 11 steps. Importantly, they reduced the number of bottlenecks from 5 to 3 and eliminated all 3 handoffs. This resulted in considerable reduction of wasted time from the patient perspective and an increase in the amount of valued time (eg. time spent with the endoscopist).
Two of the bottlenecks they eliminated were pre-procedure checks in the recovery unit and findings discussed with the nurse. Both of those steps would have been necessary in cases with sedation but were no longer necessary in this patient population. Because the patients were not sedated, the need for a post-procedure recovery unit and its staffing were no longer needed. So the project resulted not only in an improved process from a patient satisfaction perspective but also resulted in economic savings from improved efficiency. Patient satisfaction with the new redesigned process was good and they piloted the redesigned process at another site with similar good results.
Emergency Departments have also had considerable experience with LEAN. One study (Dickson 2009) analyzed LEAN implementations in EDs at 4 different hospitals. They found that the closer hospitals followed the original Toyota production system principles, the more successful they were in achieving improvements. Keys to success were active participation and ownership by frontline staff combined with continuous support and commitment to LEAN by leadership. They also noted that improvements in patient satisfaction typically lagged behind LEAN implementation by a year. That paper stresses that LEAN is a tool and that the culture of the organization and individual area are critical to the success or failure of any performance improvement project regardless of the tools used.
Another LEAN project improved turnaround times (TAT) for CT scans in the ED (Humphries 2011). That project reduced such TAT by 20 minutes. It involved allowing the CT technologists to actively pull patient through the ED, reduced use of oral contrast for abdominal CT scans, matched technologist working hours to ED volume surge, use of wireless devices to improve communication between the ED and the radiology department, and provided active feedback to technologists.
A critical review of ED LEAN projects (Holden 2011) identified 18 published articles from 15 ED LEAN implementations. It is an excellent review of the principles of LEAN and reiterates some of the success factors and barriers noted above. Though it concludes that all studies basically showed some improvement after implementation of LEAN projects, it points out that many of the outcome measures were more anecdotal rather than hard patient quality outcome measures or patient safety measures and that some degree of publication bias likely exists. It points out the real need to also have more formal measures of effects of LEAN on staff.
The accompanying editorial (Dart 2011) highlights the success of LEAN thinking at Denver Health. It stresses the disparity between the way the customer (patient) perceives the system and the way the healthcare system sees itself. Muda, the waste or non-value-adding steps in processes, both infuriates patients and frustrates healthcare workers. He stresses that the keys to success are the insights of frontline staff combined with the executive power to authorize change. Though LEAN is a bottom-up revolution it unites frontline staff, middle management, and executive leadership.
LEAN has also been used to improve efficiency and efficacy in systems for cataract surgery (van Vliet 2010) and Mark Graban in his book Lean Hospitals (Graban 2011) gives numerous examples of success stories of LEAN in healthcare.
We, of course, always caution you with any redesign project to anticipate possible unintended consequences and make sure your outcome measures include hard patient outcomes. Improved patient satisfaction could be easily offset by just a few significant avoidable complications. So make sure that you look at multiple quality measures as outcome variables, not just your satisfaction and financial variables. Our biggest criticism of studies on LEAN in healthcare has been the tendency to focus metrics on soft outcomes such as process measures and measures of satisfaction rather than on hard patient outcomes.
LEAN implementation is not always easy. William Millard, in a perspective on LEAN from an emergency department view (Millard 2011), notes the many barriers and facilitators important at some of the healthcare pioneers in LEAN such as Virginia Mason, University of Colorado, and Parkland/University of Texas Southwest. He ends with a description of how LEAN principles in CVS Pharmacys MinuteClinic chain have resulted in concepts that now represent challenges to traditional hospital EDs.
For those of you new to the LEAN world, the Serrano article (Serrano 2010) highlighted in our October 11, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week LEAN in the Lab and the Holden paper (Holden 2011) noted today provide a great introduction to basic concepts and principles of LEAN. For those of you who are looking for more detail on LEAN in healthcare the second edition of Mark Grabans book Lean Hospitals is now available.
References:
Hydes T, Hansi N, Trebble TM. Lean thinking transformation of the unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy pathway improves efficiency and is associated with high levels of patient satisfaction. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21: 63-69 Published Online First: 13 September 2011 doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000173
http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/21/1/63.full.pdf+html?sid=65415bc6-3e53-47d1-a88b-e428a1b0c101
Dickson EW, Anguelov Z, Vetterick D, et al. Use of Lean in the Emergency Department: A Case Series of 4 Hospitals. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2009; 54(4): 504-510
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2809%2900287-X/abstract
Humphries R, Russell PM, Pennington RJ, Colwell KD. Utilizing Lean Management Techniques to Improve Emergency Department Radiology CT Turnaround Times (Abstract). Annals of Emergency Medicine 2011; 58(4): S248
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0196-0644/PIIS0196064411009395.pdf
Holden RJ. Lean Thinking in Emergency Departments: A Critical Review. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2011; 57(3): 265-278
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0196-0644/PIIS0196064410013223.pdf
Dart RC. Can Lean Thinking Transform American Health Care? Annals of Emergency Medicine 2011; 57(3): 279-281
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2810%2901824-X/fulltext
van Vliet EJ, Sermeus W, van Gaalen CM, et al. Efficacy and efficiency of a lean cataract pathway: a comparative study. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19: 1-6 Published Online First: 22 April 2010 doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.02873
Graban M. Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Engagement. Second Edition. Productivity Press 2011
Millard WB. If Toyota Ran the ED: What Lean Management Can and Can't Do. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2011; 57(6): A13-A17
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0196-0644/PIIS0196064411003775.pdf
Serrano L, Hegge P, Sato B, et al. Using LEAN Principles to Improve Quality, Patient Safety, and Workflow in Histology and Anatomic Pathology. Advances in Anatomic Pathology 2010; 17(3): 215-221
Print More LEAN Successes
May 8, 2012
Importance of Non-Technical Skills in Healthcare
Non-technical skills are as important or even more important than technical skills in a variety of fields of healthcare, just as they are in aviation, the military, or a variety of high-risk industries. Especially in areas where events are rapidly evolving, skills such as situational awareness and ability to communicate and work in teams are critically important. So it should be no surprise that these non-technical skills have been studied most often in the OR and ER.
In our March 2012 Whats New in the Patient Safety World column Human Factors and Operating Room Safety we noted an article on surgeons non-technical skills (Yule 2012) which provides excellent insight into key skills such as situational awareness, decision-making, leadership, communication and teamwork.
So what do we mean by non-technical skills? These are the more cognitive and social skills that are key elements in fostering good teamwork and collaboration and include some of the following:
Non-technical skills become even more important in teams that come together on a temporary basis (Flin 2004). Those authors point out that, unlike military teams that often train together and work together as a unit for long periods, pilots in commercial aviation often come together with other members of the flight crew on a more temporary basis. The aviation industry has long recognized that problems in non-technical skills, rather than knowledge or flying ability, are significant factors contributing to crashes. They highlight the similarities between aviation and areas in healthcare such as the OR, ICU, and ER and stress how the principles used in crew resource management (CRM) can be applied equally to medicine. They describe how systems were developed to measure non-technical skills in anesthesia (ANTS or the Anesthetists Non-Technical Skills, CARMa or Crisis Avoidance and Resource Management) modeled on the NOTECHS system that had been established for measuring non-technical skills in pilots. Such systems may be used on either videotapes of real OR cases or used on simulations done with teams.
Most studies on non-technical skills in surgery have come from simulated environments (Hull 2012). They point out that there is a high correlation between technical error and teamwork failure.
Two articles in the May 2012 issue of the Annals of Emergency Medicine identify the importance of non-technical skills in emergency department physicians.
Emergency physicians probably have to deal with more interruptions and do more multitasking than physicians in other venues (Flowerdew 2012a). They have to deal with multiple patients simultaneously, some of whom have not even yet arrived at the emergency department. So anticipation, situational awareness, and workload management are crucial non-technical skills for an effective emergency physician. Similarly, communication skills during handoffs are extremely important. In our February 14, 2012 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Handoffs More Than Battle of the Mnemonics we focused on the unique context of handoffs in the ED and discussed the ABC of handover tool for ED handoffs (Farhan 2012). Rather than focusing on just the transfer of information and responsibility for single patients, they focus on the transfer of responsibility of a whole department, the ED, at change of shift. That includes knowledge of all the patients in the ED, prioritization of risks, pending tests and other issues, patient flow and waiting time issues, staffing patterns, equipment issues, planned patient dispositions (admissions, transfers, discharges), and even events taking place in the community that might impact the ED, and sometimes teaching responsibilities.
In the second article by the same group (Flowerdew 2012b) a tool for assessing non-technical skills of emergency physicians was developed and validated. A copy of that tool is available in the article.
The importance of non-technical skills has also been studied for cardiac arrest teams (Anderson 2010). The authors identified some barriers to good team function that were based in non-technical skills. Such barriers included inexperienced leadership, task overload, and hierarchical structure. They recommended training should include structured communication, use of cognitive aids, mutual performance monitoring, and avoidance of task overload.
Assertiveness is often a double-edged sword in team situations. Dominating a team can become dangerous but appropriate assertiveness is important. Communication obviously takes place between and among numerous individuals in settings such as the OR. Not being afraid to buck the authority gradient or hierarchy is critical and assertive communication is a key component of good teamwork. One example of escalating assertive communication is the CUSS tool (Yule 2012):
C Im concerned and need clarification
U I am uncomfortable and dont understand
S Im seriously worried here
S Stop
Attempts to improve non-technical skills via simulation have had mixed results. Anesthesiology residents (Yee 2005) participated in 3 simulated cases and were videotaped and provided feedback. After the first simulation and feedback there was significant improvement in non-technical skills. But there was no further improvement after subsequent simulated cases. However, a similar trial in practicing anesthesiologists (Morgan 2011) was not successful in improving non-technical skills.
Programs such as the TeamSTEPPS training program (see our May 22, 2007 Patient Safety Tip of the Week More on TeamSTEPPS and our March 2009 Whats New in the Patient Safety World column Surgical Team Training) are very useful at developing non-technical skills that are crucial to good teamwork.
Formal CRM training programs are also good ways to develop non-technical skills. Most studies looking at CRM training have looked only at short-term outcomes. But our January 2010 Whats New in the Patient Safety World column Crew Resource Management Training Produces Sustained Results highlighted a study (Sax et al 2009) that demonstrated improved outcomes that have been sustained over the long run. Outcomes included increased use of preoperative checklists, increased self reporting, more reporting of near misses and environmental conditions, and several measures indicative of a culture of safety.
Many of you have heard the adage Hire for attitudeTrain for Skills. That, of course, means that having in your organization people with good non-technical skills may be more important that having those who have good technical skills but lack the other important traits we have discussed in todays column. But, fortunately, there is hope that even though some of those non-technical skills are innate there may be opportunities to improve them through identification, feedback and training.
References:
Yule S, Paterson-Brown S. Surgeons Non-technical Skills. Surgical Clinics of North America 2012; 92(1): 37-50
http://www.surgical.theclinics.com/article/S0039-6109%2811%2900152-6/abstract
Flin R, Maran N. Identifying and training non-technical skills for teams in acute medicine. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13(Suppl 1): i80-i84
http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/13/suppl_1/i80.full
Hull L, Arora S, Aggarwal R et al. The Impact of Nontechnical Skills on Technical Performance in Surgery: A Systematic Review. J Am Coll Surg 2012; 214(2): 214-230
http://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515%2811%2901228-2/abstract
Flowerdew F, Brown R, Vincent C, Woloshynowych M. Identifying Nontechnical Skills Associated With Safety in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Ann Emerg Med 2012; 59(5): 386-394
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2811%2901806-3/abstract
Farhan M, Brown R, Woloshynowych M, Vincent C. The ABC of handover: a qualitative study to develop a new tool for handover in the emergency department. Emerg Med J 2012; Published Online First: 3 January 2012 http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/2012/01/03/emermed-2011-200199.full.pdf+html?sid=4b3509fa-c354-42cb-a27c-b80721ddeec5
Flowerdew F, Brown R, Vincent C, Woloshynowych M. Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess Emergency Physicians' Nontechnical Skills. Ann Emerg Med 2012; 59(5): 376-385
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2811%2901807-5/abstract
Andersen PO, Jensen MK, Lippert A, stergaard D. Identifying non-technical skills and barriers for improvement of teamwork in cardiac arrest teams. Resuscitation 2010; 81(6): 695-702
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20304547
Yee B, Naik VN, Joo HS, et al. Nontechnical Skills in Anesthesia Crisis Management with Repeated Exposure to Simulation-based Education. Anesthesiology 2005; 103(2): 241-248
Morgan, Pamela J. MD, FRCPC; Kurrek, Matt M. MD, FRCPC; Bertram, Susan MD, FRCPC; LeBlanc, Vicki PhD; Przybyszewski, Teresa RRT
Nontechnical Skills Assessment After Simulation-Based Continuing Medical Education
Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare:
October 2011 - Volume 6 - Issue 5 - pp 255-259
Sax HC, Browne P, Mayewski RJ, et al. Can Aviation-Based Team Training Elicit Sustainable Behavioral Change? Arch Surg. 2009; 144(12): 1133-1137
http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/144/12/1133
Print Importance of Nontechnical Skills in Healthcare
May 15, 2012
Diagnostic Error
Chapter 3
As we have tried to cover more patient safety topics related to ambulatory care we keep coming back to diagnostic error. Note that we try to avoid the term cognitive error that often appears in the literature as synonymous with diagnostic error. But cognitive error implies human error whereas diagnostic error is much more encompassing of the interaction between system-related factors and human-related factors. And well see that system-related errors are just as important in leading to errors that result in adverse patient outcomes. Care in the ambulatory setting differs greatly from that in inpatient and long-term care settings because ambulatory care is typically disseminated in both time and place. That is, the interaction with the typical patient takes place over weeks or months in the outpatient setting whereas it takes place over several days in the hospital. And, whereas in the hospital most of the players are co-located within the walls of the hospital, on the outpatient side the various caregivers are seldom in one location. Add to that the fact that medical record systems on the outpatient side are often not interconnected with each other or with the hospital IT systems. And further add to that patient-level factors. Remember, the patient is captive while an inpatient and cant fail to keep an appointment like they can on the ambulatory side. Also, research has shown that patients are more likely to be compliant with statin therapy (and other medications) when it is begun in a hospital after an acute event (the teachable moment) than they are if it is started in ambulatory care for primary prevention. So ambulatory care presents its own set of barriers and challenges that can enable diagnostic errors.
Weve already done several columns on diagnostic error, including our Patient Safety Tips of the Week for September 28, 2010 Diagnostic Error and November 29, 2011 More on Diagnostic Error (hence todays title Diagnostic Error Chapter 3). But several outstanding resources have become available since our last column in November 2011.
The ECRI Institute put on a great webinar in December 2011 on best practices for preventing missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnoses and makes it available for free on their website (ECRI 2011a). They confirm that diagnostic errors rank second in malpractice claims (after obstetrical events) and stress the importance of breakdowns in communication in most such events. They use case examples to illustrate many of the major factors contributing to diagnostic errors and provide solid recommendations to help minimize the risk of such events.
For missed diagnoses, cancer or cardiovascular diseases predominate. They present a case of missed breast cancer in a patient who had presented with breast pain and discharge and another about a missed colon cancer. Lessons learned include the need to take all symptoms seriously, follow them up to resolution, and consider rare presentations. They highlight the problem of missed appointments and stress documentation issues, including the importance of documenting family history and documenting all the systems reviewed and their findings. They note you should train your staff to stress the importance of cancer screening. They also stress the importance of revisiting diagnosis if a patients symptoms have failed to resolve.
Continuity of care issues are often problematic, particularly in teaching hospital settings. They discuss a case where a patient with a superficial arterial occlusion was seen by 7 different providers over a 5-week period before the correct diagnosis was made. In this case a resident originally focused on the patients prior history of lumbar disc disease. Subsequent residents seeing the patient probably relied on that initial evaluation rather than using their own history and revisiting the diagnosis.
They also provide the classic case of the missed aortic dissection, misdiagnosed as acute coronary syndrome. Avoiding premature closure, where one diagnosis is settled on before others have been adequately excluded, is of paramount importance.
When it comes to test tracking, one of our most frequent topics, they refer back to a webinar they had done in April 2011 (ECRI 2011b). In test tracking it is important to determine who is accountable for following up on test results, making sure the patient is compliant with getting the testing, and documenting all interventions or attempts to intervene.
Especially important is not leaving test results on voicemail. Though that was in the context of critical abnormal test results, that applies equally to all test results. HIPAA issues aside, you may not be able to verify that the patient ever actually heard the voicemail message or understood it. You also should have policies in place dealing with what to do if a patient cannot be reached (such as knowing when to contact police or other parties to help locate the patient).
During follow-up visits it is important to go back and inquire about symptoms discussed on prior visits and ensure they have resolved. Making sure patients keep follow-up visits or attend any referrals is very important. You should always document any communications that take place, even when there is no face-to-face visit.
And what about the rare diagnosis? They note failure to consider a diagnosis is one of the main causes of missed diagnosis. Using clinical decision support tools may be helpful in at least considering unusual or rare diagnoses. A second review of test results may be useful. And always considering the worst case scenario is a good practice.
Engaging the patient is important. Making sure they know why you are ordering a test or making a referral and emphasizing the need for follow-up are important considerations. Documenting such discussions and informed consent discussions are also important. Phone calls, particularly those after hours or on weekends, often go undocumented so having systems in place to capture those conversations are critical. They also provide examples of things you might say to help facilitate patient compliance with testing and referrals and follow-ups.
Another example case involves an on-call physician receiving a call from a patient who had been started on a new antihypertensive medication now complaining of weakness. Three days later the patient had an embolic stroke from atrial fibrillation. Even if the complaints on the phone call were unrelated to the subsequent stroke, the immediate attribution of symptoms to the new medication without subsequent questioning put this physician at-risk for the subsequent events.
The last case was one of a missed cervical cancer in which several issues, including failure to follow-up an inadequate Pap smear, contributed.
A recent paper on diagnostic errors in primary care (Ely 2012) also noted that diagnostic errors were often preceded by common symptoms and common, relatively benign initial diagnoses. The three most common lessons learned in their review were (1) consider diagnosis X in patients presenting with symptom Y (2) look beyond the initial, most obvious diagnosis and (3) be alert to atypical presentations of disease. The authors note how mental shortcuts and cognitive biases such as anchoring, premature closure, and diagnostic momemtum frequently lead to diagnostic errors. Broadening the differential diagnosis and always considering the dont miss diagnoses were important themes. They recommend de-biasing strategies (see Croskerry discussion below) such as diagnostic timeouts and use of checklists, noting that these strategies have still not been well developed with an evidence base.
Pat Croskerry, whose work we highlighted in our November 29, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week More on Diagnostic Error points out a host of reasons that diagnostic error has not been a prime focus of the patient safety movement (Croskerry 2012). He again emphasizes that we spend most of our time in the intuitive rather than the rational decision-making mode. In the intuitive mode failed heuristics and cognitive and affective biases are widespread. He points to numerous studies that have demonstrated most diagnostic errors occur in relation to common, well-known illnesses and thus lack of knowledge is not the most likely cause. He provides a clinical example of a case of missed pulmonary embolism in which both emotional and cognitive biases prevented the clinician from recognizing the correct diagnosis. The gist of his arguments to reduce diagnostic error is therefore to focus on ways to debias or thinking.
Situational awareness (see our May 8, 2012 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Importance of Nontechnical Skills in Healthcare) is also important in avoiding diagnostic errors or delays in diagnosis. While we most often discuss situational awareness in rapidly evolving situations, it is also important in more chronic circumstances and settings. Hardeep Singh and colleagues (Singh 2012a) reviewed a population of patients with colorectal and lung cancers and found errors in about a third of cases of both types of cancer. They applied a framework of situational awareness and noted one of four levels of situational awareness often lacking: information perception, information comprehension, forecasting future events, and choosing the appropriate action based on the above three. An example under information perception might be that a positive fecal occult blood test was missed so a colonoscopy was not scheduled. At the information comprehension level, a positive fecal occult blood test may have been ascribed to other reasons (eg. hemorrhoids). At the forecasting level, a provider failed to foresee that a patient might fail to keep an appointment before the provider left for an extended leave. And under choosing appropriate action, an example was lack of a sense of urgency in responding to a clue like microcytic anemia. The authors discuss some potential interventions that might be helpful, both at the individual provider level and at the system level. One is fostering a sense of dynamic skepticism, a term borrowed from aviation, that is continuous questioning of the validity of previous assumptions based on constantly evaluating incoming data. At the system level, putting data in a format that might better highlight clues may help (eg. putting weights in graphic form so that the EHR might help a provider notice weight loss).
Another recent paper (Zwaan 2012) looked at diagnostic reasoning in five Dutch hospitals. They used the term suboptimal cognitive acts (SCAs) rather than cognitive errors to identify faults in diagnostic reasoning that had a low threshold and correlated these with diagnostic error and patient harm. They found an average of 2.6 SCAs per patient record reviewed and found that SCAs were more frequent in cases with diagnostic error and those with patient harm. However, they did note that in almost 20% of cases with diagnostic error or patient harm, there were no SCAs. They classified SCAs in Reasons taxonomy of unsafe acts and found 62% of SCAs were intended acts, 58% mistakes, and 49% violations. Unintended actions accounted for 26% of SCAs, with 14% being slips and 12% lapses. They found that most SCAs occurred during data gathering stages and in cases where patient harm occurred the SCAs were often related to laboratory testing (including unnecessary testing). Harm, generally, was not severe. The article provides lots of good examples of the SCAs, with examples in each of the Reason taxonomy categories. They also have a discussion of why no harm occurred in some cases despite SCAs.
Another study from the Netherlands (Mamede 2012) looked at diagnostic reasoning in medical students and internal medicine residents. They had previously noted that salient distracting features are a major contributor to diagnostic errors, particularly when in the non-analytic reasoning mode. They showed that reflective reasoning led to significantly more correct diagnoses. Interestingly, students did not benefit from reflective reasoning. The implication is that certain salient features may attract a physicians attention and misdirect the diagnostic reasoning process. Reflective reasoning may help overcome the influence of these distracting features.
Patient-level factors frequently contribute to diagnostic errors as well. Assessment of a patients health literacy is also important since we need to make sure our patients (or their caregivers) understand the importance of the test, the referral, or the treatment.
Identification of diagnostic errors remains problematic for a number of reasons Singh and colleagues (Singh 2012b) used the trigger tool concept in attempt to identify diagnostic errors in primary care practices. Trigger #1 was a primary care visit followed by an unplanned hospitalization within 14 days. Trigger #2 was a primary care visit followed by one or more unplanned visits within 14 days. In charts identified by Trigger #1 the positive predictive value for diagnostic error was 20.9% and for Trigger #2 5.4%. Both were higher than the PPV for control charts (2.1%). Though these are modest values, they are obviously better at identifying charts having diagnostic errors than would be obtained from random chart review, thus constituting a promising methodology for future study of diagnostic error.
As before, there has been little in the way of rigorous evaluation of suggested interventions to minimize diagnostic error. A recent review of over 140 articles in the literature on cognitive interventions (Graber 2012) noted that most had either not been formally tested or have only been tested in artificial settings. A companion article by the same group (Singh 2012c) looked at system-related interventions to reduce cognitive errors and noted a lack of scientific rigor in most studies. In our November 29, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week More on Diagnostic Error we noted an article by Ely and colleagues (Ely 2011) suggesting use of checklists to help avoid diagnostic errors and an article by Schiff and Bates (Schiff 2010) proposing a number of ways that electronic health records might be used to improve diagnostic accuracy and prevent diagnostic error.
Given the rapid increase in the number of publications on diagnostic error in recent years, you can expect some of the potential interventions noted above will begin to be tested in more rigorous studies in the near future.
Some of our prior Patient Safety Tips of the Week on diagnostic error:
References:
ECRI Institute. Best Practices For Preventing Missed, Delayed, or Incorrect Diagnoses (webinar). December 2011.
http://bphc.hrsa.gov/ftca/riskmanagement/webinars/webinarbestpractices.html
ECRI Institute Webinar: Getting on the Right Track: Tracking Test Results, No-Show Appointments, and Hospital Visits.
April 13 & 14, 2011
http://bphc.hrsa.gov/ftca/riskmanagement/webinars/getting_on_the_right_track.html
Ely JW, Kaldjian LC, D'Alessandro DM. Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care: Lessons Learned. J Am Board Fam Med 2012; 25: 87-97
http://www.jabfm.org/content/25/1/87.full.pdf+html?sid=4db5c429-f3a7-4d3e-9488-8d9a15ed64eb
Croskerry P. Perspectives on Diagnostic Failure and Patient Safety. Healthcare Quarterly 2012; 15(Special Issue): 50-56
http://www.longwoods.com/content/22841
Singh H, Giardina TD, Petersen LA, et al. Exploring situational awareness in diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21: 30-38 Published Online First: 2 September 2011 doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000310
http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/21/1/30.full.pdf+html?sid=5d081594-73af-4b7b-9bee-653649a42a84
Zwaan L, Thijs A, Wagner C, et al. Relating Faults in Diagnostic Reasoning With Diagnostic Errors and Patient Harm. Academic Medicine 2012; 87(2): 149-156, February 2012
MamedeS, Splinter TAW, van Gog T, et al. Exploring the role of salient distracting clinical features in the emergence of diagnostic errors and the mechanisms through which reflection counteracts mistakes. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21:295-300 doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000518
http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/21/4/295.abstract
Singh H, Giardina TD, Forjuoh SN, et al. Electronic health record-based surveillance of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21: 93-100 Published Online First: 13 October 2011 doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000304
http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/21/2/93.full.pdf+html
Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL, et al. Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; published online ahead of print 27 April 2012 doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000149
http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early/2012/04/26/bmjqs-2011-000149.short?g=w_qshc_ahead_tab
Singh H, Graber ML, Kissam SM, et al. System-related interventions to reduce diagnostic errors: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21: 160-170 Published Online First: 30 November 2011 doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000150
http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/21/2/160.abstract?sid=5d081594-73af-4b7b-9bee-653649a42a84
Ely JW, Graber M, Croskerry P. Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Academic Medicine 2011; 86(3): 307-313
Schiff GD, Bates DW. Can Electronic Clinical Documentation Help Prevent Diagnostic Errors? NEJM 2010; 362(12): 1066-1069
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp0911734
Print Diagnostic Error Chapter 3
May 22, 2012
Update on Preoperative Screening for Sleep Apnea
We have been advocates for screening for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) preoperatively (see links to prior columns listed below). This month there are 2 new papers on this topic from Frances Chung and her group in Toronto. One is further validation of the utility of the STOP-Bang questionnaire in predicting OSA. The other is one that looked at simple nocturnal oximetry and found that an oxygen desaturation index (ODI) >10 would predict most cases of moderate and severe OSA (though not good at picking up central apnea). Since delaying surgery to get formal polysomnographic studies might not be feasible in many cases, having alternative means of identifying high-risk patients is very desirable.
The first paper (Chung 2012a) extended their previous work on using the STOP-Bang questionnaire to predict OSA. 746 patients scheduled for inpatient surgery underwent both the STOP-Bang questionnaire and polysomnography (lab-based or home-based). Overall, OSA was present in 68.4% of patients (note that it is highly likely that patients having symptoms of OSA may have been more likely to consent to this study). They then looked at the sensitivities and specificities and positive and negative predictive values of various STOP-Bang scores to predict moderate or severe OSA and concluded that a STOP-Bang score of 5-8 identified a population with a high probability of moderate/severe OSA.
In the second study (Chung 2012b) 475 patients scheduled for inpatient surgery underwent home-base polysomnography and nocturnal oximetry with a wristwatch-based oximeter. Compared to those patients having an oxygen desaturation index (ODI) less than 5, those with an ODI greater than 5 had a significant increase in frequency of sleep disordered breathing. Using a cutoff ODI >10 had a sensitivity of 93% to detect moderate or severe OSA. The nocturnal ODI was not as sensitive in identifying central apnea.
Taking the two studies together leads to a potential strategy for identifying patients with OSA preoperatively without having to do a formal polysomnogram, that is using the STOP-Bang questionnaire followed by nocturnal oximetry in appropriate cases.
Though we dont know whether CPAP is effective perioperatively in this population (the only study showed no benefit), knowing that someone has OSA has perioperative implications in airway management, opiate and other drug selection, post-op monitoring, pulmonary complications, overall complications and LOS. A previous study (Kaw 2012) found that patients with OSA undergoing cardiac surgery were almost 7 times more likely to have overall complications, 8 times more likely to have postoperative hypoxemia, and over 4 times more likely to require transfer to an ICU. They also had longer lengths of stay. Another study (Memtsoudis 2011) had also shown about a 5-fold increase in respiratory failure in patients with OSA undergoing noncardiac surgery. The latter study showed patients with OSA developed pulmonary complications more frequently than their matched controls after both orthopedic and general surgical procedures.
However, what we need to do now is demonstrate that outcomes can be improved by doing such preoperative screening and then implementing care management programs for this high-risk population.
A recent review of sleep disorders in hospitalized patients (Venkateshiah 2012) describes the physiology of sleep disturbances in this population and the factors contributing to disturbed sleep in the hospital. It also summarizes the ASA recommendations for perioperative management of OSA. Pain is the most common cause of disturbed sleep. One of the key occurrences in the immediate post-surgical period is a suppression of REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. This may be related to factors such as catecholamine levels and treatment with opioids. Then, on the second and third post-op days there is a REM rebound. During this period there is a significant increase in episodic oxygen desaturations due to disordered breathing.
Venkateshiah and Collop go on to summarize the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) practice guidelines for the perioperative management of patients with OSA (ASA 2006). Like other reviews of the perioperative management of patients with OSA (Chung 2008, Adesanya 2010) they readily admit there is a paucity of evidence-based recommendations for care of surgical patients with suspected or known OSA.
There are obviously many reasons to identify patients preoperatively who are at high risk for OSA. Such patients are at greater risk for difficult intubation and are at risk for multiple post-operative complications. Anesthesiologists would like to use local anesthesia or peripheral nerve blocks where appropriate or otherwise use short-acting anesthetic agents in such patients and completely reverse the effects of neuromuscular blocking agents. Avoidance of the supine position as much as possible is recommended since some OSA is position-dependent.
Monitoring of the patient with OSA is obviously a key consideration. But Venkateshiah and Collop are quick to point out that there is a lack of an evidence base that monitoring with either pulse oximetry or capnography improves outcomes in this population.
Our February 22, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Rethinking Alarms highlighted an excellent study by Lynn and Curry (Lynn 2011) who describe 3 patterns of unexpected in-hospital deaths and demonstrate the problems with threshold-based alarms (almost all currently used alarm systems use threshold-based principles) in detecting early deterioration. Indeed, they posit that threshold-based alarms themselves often cause us to miss signs of early deterioration. Even systems using continuous pulse oximetry and end-tidal CO2 monitoring may fail to adequately identify these patients. Nevertheless, we recommend monitoring with oximetry, capnography, and a rate/apnea monitor post-operatively. And while the first 12-hours post-operatively is a vulnerable period, the REM rebound and REM-associated hypoxemic events may increase 3-fold on the second and third postoperative nights, with associated risk of complications. Thus, monitoring should not be stopped before this period
Similarly, most of the recommendations for management of OSA in the post-op patient are consensus recommendations, as there has been a paucity of evidence. So most recommendations remain based on consensus opinion.
In patients with known OSA who are on CPAP at home, it is usually recommended that you have the patient bring in their CPAP machine from home. But in patients with suspected OSA or just recently diagnosed OSA who have not yet been on CPAP the effectiveness of CPAP in the hospital has not been demonstrated. In our November 22, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Perioperative Management of Sleep Apnea Disappointing we noted one of the few randomized controlled studies of surgical patients deemed at high risk of OSA had disappointing results (OGorman 2011). That study showed that autotitrating positive airway pressure (APAP) failed to prevent obstructive apnea in surgical patients deemed high risk for the disorder. They did find that patients deemed to be at high risk for OSA had longer lengths of stay and more complications than those deemed to be at low risk. They randomized 85 patients deemed at high risk for OSA to standard postoperative care or standard care plus APAP but found no significant difference in LOS or complications between the two groups. Admittedly, the number of patients studied was small and further research is needed. But it leaves one more gap of evidence-based recommendations.
Many of the recommendations are to minimize the use of opioids. These would include using regional analgesic techniques or use of NSAIDs where possible. Most also recommend avoiding continuous background opioid infusions in patients on PCA pumps.
The guidelines recommend continuous oxygen supplementation until the patient has been shown to maintain adequate baseline oxygen saturation on room air. When to stop oxygem supplementation is less clear. Weve cautioned on numerous occasions the possibility that oxygen supplementation in patients receiving systemic opioids may actually mask impending respiratory failure.
So, once again, we recommend you consider setting up a screening program for likely OSA prior to scheduled surgery. The STOP-Bang questionnaire is easy to administer in a few minutes and could be done at the time of surgical booking or other time the surgical team contacts the patient. Having a clinical guideline for dealing with those who score high on the STOP-Bang would be wise, keeping in mind that most of those recommendations will be consensus-based rather than evidence-based.
Our prior columns on obstructive sleep apnea in the perioperative period:
Patient Safety Tips of the Week:
June 10, 2008 Monitoring the Postoperative COPD Patient
August 18, 2009 Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the Perioperative Period
August 17, 2010 Preoperative Consultation Time to Change
July 13, 2010 Postoperative Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression
February 22, 2011 Rethinking Alarms
November 22, 2011 Perioperative Management of Sleep Apnea Disappointing
Whats New in the Patient Safety World columns:
July 2010 Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the General Inpatient Population
November 2010 More on Preoperative Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
March 2012 Postoperative Complications with Obstructive Sleep Apnea
References:
Chung F, Subramanyam R, Liao P, Sasaki E, Shapiro C, Sun Y. High STOP-Bang score indicates a high probability of obstructive sleep apnoea. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2012; 108 (5): 76875 (2012)
http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/108/5/768.full.pdf+html
Chung F, Liao P, Elsaid H, et al. Oxygen Desaturation Index from Nocturnal Oximetry: A Sensitive and Specific Tool to Detect Sleep-Disordered Breathing in Surgical Patients. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2012; 114(5): 993-1000 Published online before print February 24, 2012
http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/114/5/993
Venkateshiah SB, Collop NA. Sleep and Sleep Disorders in the Hospital. CHEST 2012; 141(5): 1337-1345
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/141/5/1337.abstract
American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Management of Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. A Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Management of Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Anesthesiology 2006; 104: 108193
Chung SA, Yuan H, Chung F. A Systemic Review of Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Its Implications for Anesthesiologists. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2008; 107(5): 1543-1563
http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/107/5/1543.short
Adesanya AO, Lee W, Greilich NB, Joshi GP. Perioperative Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Chest December 2010; 138(6): 1489-1498
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/138/6/1489.abstract
Lynn LA, Curry JP. Patterns of unexpected in-hospital deaths: a root cause analysis. Patient Safety in Surgery 2011, 5:3 (11 February 2011)
http://www.pssjournal.com/content/pdf/1754-9493-5-3.pdf
O'Gorman S, Horlocker T, Huddleston J, et al. Does Self-Titrating CPAP Therapy Improve Postoperative Outcome in Patients at Risk for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome? A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Chest 2011; 140: 4 Meeting Abstracts 1071A; doi:10.1378/chest.1119434
also reported in: Harrison L. Postop APAP Fails in High-Risk Sleep Apnea Patients. Medscape Medical News. November 3, 2011
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752859
Print Update on Preoperative Screening for Sleep Apnea
May 29, 2012
Falls, Fractures, and Fatalities
One of the purposes of the ongoing switch to ICD-10 coding is to provide much greater detail about medical illnesses and issues from administrative databases. The US ICD-10 CM has some 68,000 codes and the ICD-10 PCS, a procedure code system not used by other countries, contains 76,000 codes. One of the areas in which ICD-10 coding provides considerably more detail that ICD-9 coding is related to cause of death. Hu and Baker (Hu 2012) recently analyzed ICD-10 coding and demonstrated a significant relationship between falls and death. In the old system we might sign a death certificate with a cause of death something like pneumonia or pulmonary embolism and there would be no way to show that the patient really suffered these events after being hospitalized for a fall that resulted in a hip fracture. They found in seniors a 42% increase in falls as a cause of death between 1999 (when the ICD-10 was first implemented in their study) and 2007. They are quick to point out that this likely reflects an improvement in coding rather than an actual increase in falls leading to death. Nevertheless, it highlights how important falls are in relation to people dying.
Weve discussed in previous columns fall risk and prevention on med/surg units and rehab units (see our October 7, 2008 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Lessons from Falls....from Rehab Medicine). Weve also stressed the multiple substantial risks that occur in the radiology suite. One of those risks in radiology is that of patients falling from tables or gurneys or when they try to walk to a bathroom (January 2010 Whats New in the Patient Safety World column Falls in the Radiology Suite). Thats the reason we have strongly recommended that one of the items on your Ticket to Ride (or other structured tool you use to communicate various risks and concerns when you send a patient off to another part of the hospital) needs to be a flag for fall risk. Note also that some of the other items youll put on your Ticket to Ride (such as altered mental status, certain medications, etc.) may also infer an increased risk of falling (see our November 18, 2008 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Ticket to Ride: Checklist, Form, or Decision Scorecard?). And, as a recent malpractice claim alleged (Christoffersen 2012) falls off any table where procedures being done are possible, particularly when patients get medicated for the procedure.
Another area where attention to fall risk tends to be less than optimal is the behavioral health unit. Yet the risks on such units may be as great or greater than on even med/surg units or rehab units. Fortunately the VA National Patient Safety Center, which does a great job of aggregating lessons learned from RCAs across the VA system, recently put together such lessons learned as they pertain to falls on behavioral health units (Lee 2012). They noted that falls most often occurred as patients were getting up from bed or a chair or wheelchair, walking/running, bathroom-related, or behavior-related. The most common root causes they identified were environmental hazards, poor communication of fall risk, lack of suitable equipment, and a need to improve the system of falls assessment.
Lee et al. point out that patients on behavioral health units are at risk for falls for a number of reasons. Most importantly, they are on a variety of medications that may increase the fall risk (antipsychotics, antidepressants, sedative/hypnotics, and others). Some may be confused or agitated. Others may have impaired gait or balance, sometimes as a result of extrapyramidal side effects of their medications. Many of the medications cause orthostatic hypotension. The elderly patient on the behavioral health unit is especially at risk for falls with injury. They also note that sometimes behavioral health units restrict use of canes or other devices that could assist ambulation because such might also be used as weapons.
The authors have numerous recommendations for ways to improve fall prevention on such units. One is assessing the environmental risks, using a checklist. Quite frankly wed like to see a checklist-like audit tool for assessing all the risks they have pointed out, not just the environmental ones. This topic is also a good one for a FMEA (failure mode and effects analysis) if you have a behavioral health unit.
Lastly, many of you are familiar with the QFracture algorithms. These were developed and validated to provide a prediction of the risk of osteoporotic fracture or hip fracture in primary care settings based upon data elements easily obtainable from the medical record or directly from the patient without the need to rely on special testing. Though the original algorithms worked well, a guidance from NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) had suggested additional risk variables might improve the tools. So multiple new potential variables were considered in a derivation population to develop new algorithms and validated in separate populations (Hippisley-Cox 2012). While many of the variables that proved to have predictive ability do impact osteroporosis per se, many probably exert their influence by increasing the risk of falls. We suspect that to be the case for variables such as diabetes and Parkinsons disease. All classes of antidepressants increased the fracture risk. Epilepsy or treatment with anticonvulsants also increased the risk (not just those anticonvulsants known to promote osteoporosis). The updated QFracture-2012 risk calculator is available online and allows you to predict the fracture risk over defined periods of time (1-10 years).
References:
Hu G, Baker SP. An Explanation for the Recent Increase in the Fall Death Rate Among Older Americans: A Subgroup Analysis. Public Health Reports 2012; 275-281
http://www.publichealthreports.org/issuecontents.cfm?Volume=127&Issue=3
Christoffersen J. Woman sues hospital over fall off operating table. Associated Press May 22, 2012
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OPERATING_TABLE_FALL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Lee A, Mills PD, Watts BV. Using root cause analysis to reduce falls with injury in the psychiatric unit. General Hospital Psychiatry 2012; 34(3): 304-311
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163834311004117
Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Derivation and validation of updated QFracture algorithm to predict risk of osteoporotic fracture in primary care in the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344:e3427 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3427 (Published 22 May 2012)
http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/586007/field_highwire_article_pdf/0.pdf
QFracture-2012 risk calculator: http://qfracture.org
Print Falls, Fractures, and Fatalities
June 5, 2012
Minor Head Trauma in the Anticoagulated Patient
In our April 16, 2007 Tip of the Week Falls With Injury we discussed falls with injury, with particular emphasis on what the first responder to a fall needs to do. We pointed out that the responder needs not only to assess the patient for injuries but also to do an assessment of the reason for the fall. Having a checklist to help the medical responder is a good way to ensure that the injuries are attended to and the cause of the fall is considered.
But the medical provider responding also needs to assess the patient for injuries related to the fall. That includes looking for lacerations, soft tissue injuries, internal injuries and head injuries. In our July 17, 2007 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Falls in Patients on Coumadin or Heparin or Other Anticoagulants we highlighted the problem of delayed hemorrhage after falls in patients on anticoagulants. Specifically we discussed the patient who falls and has minor head trauma, has a negative CT scan of the head, and then later develops a subdural hematoma (or other intracranial hemorrhage). The example we gave was an elderly patient with a cardiac condition on full-dose heparinization while an inpatient who had an unwitnessed fall in the hospital one evening. He did not lose consciousness and was alert and fully oriented when the medical resident examined him after the fall. He had a mild ecchymosis on his right forehead but no focal neurological signs and no evidence of trauma elsewhere on the body. Because the patient was fully anticoagulated, the resident ordered an emergency head CT scan, which was normal. No changes were made in his heparin regimen. The following morning the patient was more somnolent than usual and a repeat CT scan showed a sizeable subdural hematoma that required surgical evacuation.
Many good clinical decision rules for minor head injury already used in your emergency rooms, such as the Canadian CT Head Rule (Stiell 2001), do not apply to patients who have a bleeding disorder or who are on anticoagulants.
So the timing of a CT scan may be important in the patient who is anticoagulated. The accumulation of a subdural hematoma after minor head trauma may be slow in a patient on anticoagulants. But the optimal time to scan such patients remains unclear.
Some new studies from the emergency medicine literature shed some light on the risks of delayed hemorrhage after minor head trauma in patients taking anticoagulants. A study from Italy (Menditto 2012) reported on implementation of recommendations from the 2002 guideline from the European Federation of Neurological Societies. That protocol called for an initial CT scan on anticoagulated patients with minor head trauma, admission for 24 hours of close neurologic observation, then a second CT scan before discharge.
Menditto et al. enrolled 97 consecutive patients on anticoagulation who had minor head trauma and had an initial negative CT scan and observed them for 24 hours. 10 refused a second CT scan and were discharged and did well. Of the remaining 87 patients 5 had intracranial hemorrhage on their second CT scan. In addition, 2 patients who were discharged after two negative CT scans returned within 8 days with subdural hematomas.
The biggest predictor of delayed intracranial hemorrhage was an INR > 3.
The second study (Nishijima 2012) looked at over 1000 patients who were on either warfarin or clopidogrel and had minor head trauma. The prevalence of intracranial hemorrhage on immediate CT scan was 12% in those on clopidogrel and 5.1% in those on warfarin. However, none of the clopidogrel patients developed delayed intracranial bleeding compared to 0.6% of patients on warfarin. They suspect one reason for the higher prevalence of intracranial bleeding in the clopidogrel patients may have been more frequent aspirin use compared to those on warfarin. They conclude that since the overall risk of delayed intracranial hemorrhage in patients on warfarin or clopidogrel is low, discharge of such patients after a negative CT scan is reasonable but appropriate instructions regarding possible delayed bleeding are required. However, it should be noted that 2 of the 4 patients on warfarin with delayed intracranial hemorrhage died as the result of massive intracranial hemorrhages within one week.
A previous study (Kaen 2010), using basically the same guidelines as the Menditto study, found only 2 cases of delayed intracranial hemorrhage in 137 consecutive mostly elderly patients on either warfarin or heparin who had minor head trauma. Neither needed neurosurgical intervention. Both were also on antiplatelet agents and both had lost consciousness at the time of head trauma. They provided references to the case reports and small case series in the literature of anticoagulated patients with delayed intracranial hemoorhage after minor head trauma and noted that neurological deterioration in most such cases takes place in the first few hours after the injury. They argued that the need for the control (i.e. the second) CT scan before discharge is unnecessary in patients who remain neurologically intact.
Note that none of these studies answers the question What is the optimal timing of imaging in anticoagulated patients with minor head trauma?. When Menditto et al. put their series together they excluded 16 patients who had intracranial hemorrhage on the initial CT scan. We are not told how those patients did clinically. But one might make an argument in this patient population, assuming they will indeed get close neurological checks while under observation, to simply hold off on the first CT scan until 24 hours if they are initially neurologically intact. That might be more cost-effective. But keep in mind that deterioration can take place rapidly. The editorial accompanying the Mendtto study (Li 2012) describes a case in which such a patient went from neurologically normal with a normal CT scan to having a massive subdural hematoma requiring surgical evacuation in a 3-hour time span.
So we also emphasize the need for good instructions for the patient (and perhaps more importantly for the caregivers) when such patients are to be discharged. The major initial symptoms and signs of subdural hematomas are usually related to changes in the level of consciousness or cognition rather than focal neurological signs. These can be subtle. Thats why we previously warned in our July 17, 2007 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Falls in Patients on Coumadin or Heparin or Other Anticoagulants that the neuro checks must be carried out as ordered. Weve often seen in that past that there is a tendency for neuro checks to be overlooked when the patient is asleep which is exactly when neuro checks are most important!
Note also that none of the studies includes patients on the new generation of oral anticoagulants that have just begun being used in the last year or so. Also we suspect the same may apply to bleeding in other spaces in patients fully anticoagulated. A good example is retroperitoneal bleeding, which may present with no signs until a drop in hemoglobin is found or flank ecchymoses are noted.
So when you put together your checklist for the medical provider who responds to a hospitalized patient with a fall, make sure you include some guidance on what to do in the patient who is anticoagulated.
References:
Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, et al. for the CCC Study Group. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet 2001; 357: 139196
http://www.mcgill.ca/files/emergency/CCHR.pdf
Menditto VG, Lucci M, Polonara S, Pomponio G, et al. Management of Minor Head Injury in Patients Receiving Oral Anticoagulant Therapy: A Prospective Study of a 24-Hour Observation Protocol. Ann Emerg Med 2012; 59(6): 451-455
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2811%2901887-7/abstract
Nishijima DK, Offerman SR, Ballard DW, Vinson DR, et al. Immediate and Delayed Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage in Patients With Head Trauma and Preinjury Warfarin or Clopidogrel Use. Ann Emerg Med 2012; 59(6): 460-468
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2812%2900373-3/abstract
Kaen A, Jimenez-Roldan L, Arrese I, et al. The Value of Sequential Computed Tomography Scanning in Anticoagulated Patients Suffering From Minor Head Injury.
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care 2012; 68(4): 895-898
Li J. Admit All Anticoagulated Head-Injured Patients? A Million Dollars Versus Your Dime. You Make the Call. Ann Emerg Med 2012; 59(6): 457-459
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2812%2900038-8/fulltext
Print Minor Head Trauma in the Anticoagulated Patient
June 12, 2012
Lessons Learned from the CDPH: Retained Foreign Bodies
Each year the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issues reports detailing fines levied against California facilities. We look for them each year, not because they identify hospitals or note fines, but rather because they usually provide root cause analyses that contain very valuable lessons.
Last year we found very helpful lessons learned about infant abduction (see our December 20, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Infant Abduction) and safety issues related to fentanyl patches (see our September 13, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Do You Use Fentanyl Transdermal Patches Safely?).
This years group includes 5 instances of retained foreign bodies and each case brings unique aspects that should be important to all facilities. They illustrate several very interesting ways in which foreign bodies get into body cavities and elude detection. Well bet your policy on preventing retention of foreign bodies probably does not address all these!
When you read the RCAs you see many of the predisposing factors previously identified by Gawande et al. (Gawande 2003) or the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority (PPSA 2009). These, of course, include such risk factors as:
But some surprising circumstances contributed to the CDPH cases. In one, a Kerlix gauze bandage that had been applied to a wound preoperatively may have contributed to a false correct sponge count. In another a non-radiopaque towel (typical blue towel often used on mayo stands, etc.) got into the operative field and was not accounted for. In yet another a cautery tip was unaccounted for. And in yet another a sponge that had been soaked in local anesthetic in attempt to facilitate wound analgesia was retained. So these are not your usual suspects!
So collectively there are several valuable lessons learned in these RCAs regarding prevention of retained foreign bodies:
In the plans of correction, when policies were revised the facilities ensured inservicing of all appropriate personnel, added such education to initial orientation and annual inservicing/competency assessments, and put in place plans to audit the processes.
While sponges remain the most commonly retained foreign objects, there are more reports of things like displaced or broken parts of equipment or devices. The cautery tip noted above is one such example. Such fragments may migrate or embolize. They may also heat up during MRIs and cause tissue damage.
Most facilities have probably modeled their policies on prevention of RFOs on the AORN (Association of periOperative Registered Nurses) guidelines (Goldberg 2012). In addition to the AORN guidelines on preventing retained foreign objects, there are other extremely valuble resources out there. The NoThing Left Behind campaign is a long-running national surgical patient safety project focused on preventing RFOs (known as RSIs or retained surgical items in their parlance). Their resources include an outstanding comprehensive Preventing Retained Surgical Items Policy (Gibbs 2011) that can be modified for individual facility use. It nicely describes the roles and responsibilities of all the relevant parties nurses and surgical techs, surgeons, anesthesiologists, radiology technicians, and radiologists.
The NoThing Left Behind policy has some very good discussions about details of individual components of the policy. We noted above that one of the CDPH plans of correction recommended use of red medical waste bags for dressings or other items are removed prior to opening. The NoThing Left Behind policy has a good discussion of how bloody sponges may escape detection if they are in a red medical waste bag (or how white unused sponges can be missed in white bags). This policy stresses use of clear bags so the staff can easily see what is inside. They note that it is okay to put those sponges in non-red bags because that is only temporary storage. Ultimately, for disposal, they need to be put in red medical waste bags. But during the procedure the clear bags are preferred.
The NoThing Left Behind policy also has a good discussion on the color of towels. It notes that all cotton gauze disposables placed in the patient will be white surgical sponges or white radiopaque towels (and may contain a separate identifiable label or tag). White radiopaque towels are easier to separate from blue or green drape towels (which may not be radiopaque). Perhaps this might have prevented one of the events in the CDPH report. Ensuring you have radiopaque white towels available so your surgeons do not grab a non-radiopaque blue or green towel is important.
The NoThing Left Behind policy also does not like surgeons doing a sweep. Rather they make the distinction that the methodical wound exam (MWE) relies on two important sensory modalities sight and touch. They note that looking requires active thought, visualization of the item being sought, and focused attention. They point out that the MWE occurs at a natural pause in the operation and is not a time out. The MWE should be done in every case and should not just include the operative site because sponges placed under retractors might be missed. The MWE should be done in every case, not just when told something is missing. The objective of the MWE is to remove all the items so that nurses can perform the closing count. So the MWE is done before the closing count.
Existing guidelines all stress that the count is not the only important thing. Because the count may be correct in 88% of cases of retained surgical items, it remains critical that the surgeon perform a thorough methodical wound exam. Discrepancies in the surgical count are very common (Greenberg 2008), occurring in one of every 8 cases. They found an average of 16.6 counting episodes in 148 general surgery cases and each count averaged 8.6 minutes. In 59% of the discrepancies they found the missing item, thereby avoiding a potential RFO. Such discrepancies took, on average, 13 minutes to resolve. Discrepancies were 3 times more frequent in cases where personnel changed.
So manual counts remain important and are still key to avoiding retained foreign objects. Nevertheless, the fact that counts may still be erroneous simply shows the importance of human factors in such incidents. Hence, the continued search for technological solutions, such as use of RFID technology, barcoding, etc.
References:
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). CDPH Issues Penalties to 13 Hospitals.
Date: 6/1/2012
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR12-023.aspx
Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, et al. Risk factors for retained foreign bodies after surgery. N Eng J Med 2003; 348(3): 229-35
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa021721
Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority (PPSA). Beyond the Count: Preventing the Retention of Foreign Objects.Pa Patient Saf Advis 2009; 6(2): 39-45
http://patientsafetyauthority.org/ADVISORIES/AdvisoryLibrary/2009/Jun6%282%29/Pages/39.aspx
Goldberg JL, Feldman DL. Implementing AORN Recommended Practices for Prevention of Retained Surgical Items. AORN Journal 2012; 95(2): 205-219
http://www.aornjournal.org/article/S0001-2092%2811%2901244-0/abstract
NoThing Left Behind Campaign.
Gibbs VC. POLICY: NoThing Left Behind: Prevention of Retained Surgical Items Multistakeholder Policy. NoThing Left Behind. February 2011
http://nothingleftbehind.org/uploads/NoThing_Left_Behind_Policy.pdf
Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR, et al. The Frequency and Significance of Discrepancies in the Surgical Count. Ann Surg 2008; 248(2): 337-341
Print Lessons Learned from the CDPH: Retained Foreign Bodies
June 19, 2012
More Problems with Faxed Orders
Sometimes when we come to a hospital well wager a friendly bet that we will find certain things (we only bet on things we know are sure winners!). One of those is that we will find alarms that have either been disabled or had their volume altered to make them poorly audible or their parameters have been set so wide that they are unlikely to alarm for important occurrences. Another is that we will find several risk factors for patient suicide. And a third is that we will find examples of problems related to sending or receiving faxed orders or other patient-related material.
On multiple occasions we have noted problems related to faxed orders. The one we have mentioned most often is the missed decimal point (where lines or smudge during fax transmission and printing obscures a decimal point) and the patient receives a 10x overdose of the medication. (In our September 9, 2008 Patient Safety Tip of the Week Less is More.and Do You Really Need that Decimal? we cautioned against even using a decimal point when the fraction following the decimal point is clinically irrelevant because that decimal point may be overlooked, especially in faxed orders.) The opposite, of course, may also occur where a smudge on the fax looks like a decimal point (the phantom decimal point) so the patient receives one-tenth the intended amount.
But weve also mentioned the case where 2 sheets put into a fax machine stick together and thus only one sheet gets transmitted (see our January 18, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week More on Medication Errors in Long-Term Care where we cited such an example from ISMP 2010). Unless you have a cover fax sheet that says 3 pages (cover sheet plus 2 others) the receiving party may not realize that they are missing a page.
Weve also seen cases where faxes on multiple patients are sent out at the same time and the receiving party does not recognize that the second sheet is actually for a different patient (see our January 18, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week More on Medication Errors in Long-Term Care).
Just as with handwritten orders, on a faxed order with a drug ending in the letter L if there is insufficient space between the L and the next number, the receiver may think the L is actually a 1 (one) and give a dose 10 times too high. And dangerous abbreviations may show up even more frequently on faxed orders than orders written on-site because the provider is more likely to have access to the do not use abbreviation list when on-site.
Another mistake is when a person faxes documents that have information on both sides and does not realize that only one side of each page is being faxed.
And remember when you are sending a fax that some elements (eg. text in a different color) may fail to be seen when transmitted. Or that highlighted items (eg. items you tied to stress with a yellow highlighter) may appear blacked out on the received fax! (Reminds me of the time in college when I asked a friend to send me his notes from a class I had missed so I could study for a test the next day. He faxed them and all the important stuff was blacked out!!!).
And one of the most egregious errors of all faxing to the wrong phone number (the misdirected fax). Ever get a call from the local supermarket that you faxed them a sheet with PHI on it? Your HIPAA compliance officer and risk manager will turn gray when that call comes in! See the discussion at the end of this column.
Now ISMP Canada (ISMP Canada 2012) has come up with a new fax error the truncation error. They provide a great example of a faxed order for dalteparin where the da gets cut off in the fax and the lt looks like an H on the fax, resulting in what clearly looks like an order for Heparin. Click on the link above and youll see both the faxed prescription and the original.
Note that prescription has lots of other bad errors on it. It uses the do-not-use abbreviation U (for units) as well as 2 other abbreviations that should be avoided (SQ for subcutaneous and QD for once daily). It has a different dose written above and crossed out. And it does not have listed the indication for the drug. It also has an illegible word following the QD (is it nitely? or is it a providers signature?). And there is nothing on the prescription to indicate the duration of therapy, amount to be dispensed, whether it should be refilled, etc. Who would have thought one prescription could be used as a primer for medication errors!
ISMP Canada notes the importance of reviewing copies of the fax you send or the one you receive. For instance, in the case given one might have noticed that the name of the hospital was also truncated, which might have been a clue that the medication name was truncated. They also note in the example given that the dosing frequency would have been unusual for heparin (it is usually given twice daily or three times daily rather than once daily), perhaps being another clue to the receiver that there was an error. They also note that including both the generic and brand names on the prescription would have provided another clue to the error. They note the importance of engaging the patient to be on the lookout for errors as well.
ISMP Canada lists multiple good recommendations for dealing with faxed orders in their alert. Well add some of our own recommendations:
You should have an educational program for all your staff involved in sending and receiving faxed orders (nurses, physicians, clerical staff, etc.). Remember, telling stories about real-life cases where such errors led to bad outcomes is much more effective than just telling them facts and statistics. Tell them one of the stories about a patient getting a 10-fold overdose or the one where a patient got 26 medications (13 of her own and 13 from the sheet faxed in the same batch on a different patient as in our January 18, 2011 Patient Safety Tip of the Week More on Medication Errors in Long-Term Care).
And dont forget that faxing errors dont just apply to medication orders. Most of the same concerns apply to any patient related material that may be faxed.
There are numerous examples of misdirected fax transmissions containing personal health information. These are often one-time errors but amazingly there are numerous examples in the media of continued recurrences over long periods of time. In one instance (ANewsVanIsland 2011) a person has received at least one such fax per week for over 10 years!!! That persons phone number was one digit different than the fax number for a medical clinic. Think of all the times you have dialed the wrong phone number and how easy that would be to do when sending a fax.
One of the typical recommendations for avoiding staff keying in the wrong fax number is to use pre-programmed fax numbers. However, that practice has its own set of unintended consequences in that those fax numbers need to be up to date. Weve seen faxes sent to old fax numbers after a physician has moved to a new office and even faxes sent to physicians who have been deceased for four years! And hospital computer systems often have the wrong physician listed as primary care physician, often leading to faxes being sent to the wrong PCP.
Both AHIMA (Davis 2006) and HIMSS (Demster 2007) have guidelines on sending and receiving personal health information via fax. Some of the highlights:
And often not mentioned is the fact that copies of what you copied or faxed may remain in the memory or hard drive of your fax machine. We remember a situation where the local police department donated some old fax machines to charity and confidential police records were found in the memory of those machines!
Reference:
ISMP (Institute for Safe Medication Practices). Order scanning systems (and fax machines) may pull multiple pages through the scanner at the same time, leading to drug omissions. ISMP Medication Safety Alert (Nurse Advise-ERR) 2010; 8(11): 1-2
http://www.ismp.org/newsletters/nursing/default.asp
ISMP Canada. ALERT: Medication Mix-up with a Faxed Prescription. ISMP Canada Safety Bulletin 2012; 12(6): 1-3 June 5, 2012
ANewsVanIsland. Medical Records Shared with Roofer. Mar 1, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z0eIs8LaxM
Davis, Nancy, et al.. "Facsimile Transmission of Health Information." (AHIMA Practice Brief, updated August 2006).
http://library.ahima.org/xpedio/groups/public/documents/ahima/bok1_031811.hcsp?dDocName=bok1_031811
Demster B. HIMSS Privacy and Security Toolkit. Managing Information Privacy & Security in Healthcare. Communication Tools. January 2007
http://www.himss.org/content/files/CPRIToolkit/version6/v7/D80_Communication_Tools.pdf
Print More Problems with Faxed Orders
June 26, 2012
Using Patient Photos to Reduce CPOE Errors
When we were involved in a CPOE implementation in 2008 we speculated that wrong patient errors would be more likely to occur via CPOE than conventional written orders (see our May 20, 2008 Patient Safety Tip of the Week “CPOE Unintended Consequences: Are Wrong Patient Errors More Common?”). We discussed the need to clearly identify patients on all order entry screens. Then in our January 12, 2010 Patient Safety Tip of the Week “Patient Photos in Patient Safety” we discussed patient photographs as potential tools in patient safety as a concept that had attracted surprisingly little attention to date. We’ve often thought that inclusion of patient photographs would be a logical tool to use in avoiding wrong patient surgeries or mixups in medication administration. And we were surprised to see that many hospital electronic medical record programs lacked standardized fields for such photographs.
In that column we did note some programs that successfully used patient photographs to reduce the risk of patient misidentification during medication administration (AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange). But there have been few other published accounts of use of photographs in the patient safety literature.
Recently, Children’s Hospital of Colorado published results of their successful implementation of patient photographs to reduce CPOE errors (Hyman 2012). Beginning with a nice review of the literature on patient-note mismatches, they implemented tools to help avoid such mismatches during CPOE. First they modified their CPOE workflow to include a verification screen asking the provider to verify that this is the patient on whom he/she intends to enter orders. They then began taking photographs of patients at admission or registration and including these on the above noted verification screen. They found a dramatic reduction in the number of events of actual ordering on the wrong patient or near-misses. And when such events or near-misses did occur, it was usually in charts that did not have a photograph of the patient. While they could not separate out the impact of the verification screen from that of the photograph, they felt that the photographs played a large role in reducing the number of orders placed in the records of wrong patients.
They note that, unlike other CPOE alerts that have a high likelihood of being ignored, the presence of the large centrally placed photograph is effective in capturing the attention of the CPOE user. They do note that photographs have limitations, particularly for newborns and when pictures are poorly exposed. And they note that photographs need to be updated at appropriate times.
There are, of course, other advantages to using patient photographs in healthcare (aside from those that are used for clinical activities such as tracking wound healing, etc.). In our December 2008 What’s New in the Patient Safety World “Patient Photographs Improve Radiologists’ Performance” we noted a paper presented at the Radiological Society of North America’s annual meeting (RSNA 2008) showing that inclusion of photographs of patients improved accuracy of radiologists’ reports. Putting a photograph of the patient aside their images on a PAC screen resulted not only in the radiologists feeling more empathy toward the patient but they also identified more incidental findings (the files were chosen because of incidental findings in this randomized study) without taking more time to review the images.
Another study just recently presented (Ridley 2012) also demonstrated that including patient photographs in PACS systems likely leads to fewer misidentification errors. Researchers at Emory University developed a low-cost system for obtaining patient photographs at the time an imaging procedure was being done and integrating them via wireless connection with the images going to their PACS system. They then gave radiologists imaging studies to read that purposefully including some instances of misidentification. Those reading without patient photographs picked up only 12.5% of the misidentified patients. Those reading with the patient photographs detected 64% of the errors.
The American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC April 2009) reports some healthcare organizations are attaching patient photos to requisitions for Pap smears or other specimens that are being examined.
In our July 28, 2009 Patient Safety Tip of the Week “Wandering, Elopements, and Missing Patients” we briefly mentioned using photographs of patients when broadcasting an alert for a missing patient. We recommend that you include in your IT system a digital photograph of patients you identify as being at risk for wandering and elopement. Many communities, often in conjunction with their local chapter of the Alzheimer Association, have programs where families provide photos of their relatives with Alzheimer’s Disease or other dementia to the local police department to facilitate searches when such individuals go missing.
Patient photographs might also be used on patient identification cards issued by a healthcare system. This might help avoid “medical identify theft” or other fraudulent use of identification. Also, you’d be surprised at how issuing identity cards for your health system fosters loyalty to your system. We recall many years ago when our health system stopped issuing patient cards. The patients complained! They liked having them to carry around. It gave them a measure of security and sense of belonging. So don’t underestimate the potential value of such cards.
But are there downsides to using patient photographs? Though there is a paucity of literature on use of patient photographs for patient safety, we can certainly anticipate there might be unintended consequences. Just like many other examples we have seen, it could happen that photographs of two patients get mixed up. For example, one might anticipate two patients being admitted around the same time. Each would get photographed. It is conceivable that someone might print out both photographs and erroneously transpose them into the charts or IT system. That is one reason you should never do anything intended for more than one patient simultaneously.
And what about those patients (eg. trauma patients) whose faces may not be recognizeable on admission? And all those babies in the nursery look the same to me! And some patients, particularly those with long stays, may have considerable changes in appearance over time.
And how do you ensure that your staff actually use the photos to aid in patient identification? In a FMEA performed at one institution (Skibinski et al 2007) it was found that in those patients with a wristband present and checked, a second form of patient verification (photograph, verification of birthdate, positive response to stated name, etc.) was not checked 30% of the time. So not only is training and reinforcement necessary but some audit function would be appropriate.
We did find a real example of a downside to patient photographs in the literature. In our March 2010 What’s New in the Patient Safety World article “More on Radiation Safety” we reported on an outstanding article that appeared in the journal Radiotherapy & Oncology (Scorsetti et al 2010). Italian researchers performed a FMEA (failure mode and effects analysis) of their entire process of radiation therapy. During their focus on potential misidentification of patients they noted that a photo of each patient had been added to the medical record. However, these photos were often not representative of the patient’s appearance at the time of treatment so staff tended not to rely on the photographs.
Nevertheless, we think that using patient photographs makes a lot of sense in trying to avoid patient misidentification errors. One other common scenario where we think having patient photographs may be very important is the multiple applications/multiple windows scenario. Most health systems still do not have full integration of all their HIT systems. For example, you may be viewing the hospital electronic record for most patient data but may be viewing a radiologic image on the separate PACS system. Particularly if you have been looking through records on multiple patients it is easy to lose synchronization between the two applications so that you may be viewing the EHR on one patient and the PACS images of a different patient. We suspect that having patient photographs, rather than simply name and DOB, on every page in both systems would help avoid this mismatch.
The results of the Children’s Hospital of Colorado study and the Emory University study are very encouraging. We personally think that the addition of photographs to the EHR represent an important patient safety feature. Hopefully, concerns about HIPAA, privacy, and logistical issues can be overcome to apply the concept to multiple areas of patient safety.
References:
AHRQ Health Care. Innovations Exchange. Innovation Profile: Use of Photographs as Second Means of Identifying Patients on Psychiatry Units Virtually Eliminates Medication Errors Related to Misidentification.
http://www.innovations.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?id=2626
Hyman D, Laire M, Redmond D, Kaplan DW. The Use of Patient Pictures and Verification Screens to Reduce Computerized Provider Order Entry Errors. Pediatrics 2012; 130: 1-9 Published online June 4, 2012 (10.1542/peds.2011-2984)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/05/29/peds.2011-2984.abstract
RSNA. RSNA Press Release. Patient Photos Spur Radiologist Empathy and Eye for Detail. December 2, 2008
http://www2.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/pr_target.cfm?ID=389
Ridley EL. Integrating digital photos within PACS may cut ID errors. AuntMinnie.com June 20, 2012
http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=pac&pag=dis&ItemID=99747
AACC. Clinical Laboratory News. April 2009. Patient Safety Focus: Disconnection from Patients and Care Providers. A Latent Error in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. An Interview with Stephen Raab, MD
http://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/2009/april/Pages/safety0409.aspx
Skibinski KA, White BA, Lin LI, et al. Effects of technological interventions on the safety of a medication-use system. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., Jan 2007; 64: 90 – 96
http://www.ajhp.org/content/64/1/90.abstract?sid=ff5fbec8-741a-43a0-85f5-9c63476df1b6
Scorsetti M, Signori C, Lattuada P, Urso G, Bignardi M, Navarria P, Castiglioni S, Mancosu P, Trucco P. Applying failure mode effects and criticality analysis in radiotherapy: Lessons learned and perspectives of enhancement.
Radiother Oncol. 2010 Jan 27. [Epub ahead of print]
Print “Using Patient Photos to Reduce CPOE Errors”
Click here to leave a comment onany of these tips.
To get "Patient Safety Tip of the Week "emailed to you, click here and enter "subscribe" in the subject field.
Click on the "Contact Us" button at the left to send us your comments on our "Patient Safety Tip of the Week" cases.
To get "Patient Safety Tip of the Week "emailed to you, click here and enter "subscribe" in the subject field.
January 31, 2023
January 24, 2023
January 17, 2023
Patient Safety with NOAC’s and DOAC’s
January 10, 2023
January 3, 2023
Helping Inpatients Sleep – Failing Grades
December 27, 2022
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 20, 2022
Amazing Results from I-PASS Implementation
December 13, 2022
Surgical Teams – the “Consistency Score”
December 6, 2022
Rare Risk – Defibrillator Fires
November 29, 2022
November 22, 2022
The Apple Watch and Patient Safety
November 15, 2022
November 8, 2022
November 1, 2022
APSF on Criminalization of Medical Error
October 25, 2022
October 18, 2022
Methotrexate Again, With a Twist
October 11, 2022
Good Intentions, Unintended Consequences
October 4, 2022
Successfully Reducing OR Traffic
September 27, 2022
September 20, 2022
September 13, 2022
Smart Socks and Robots for Fall Prevention?
September 6, 2022
AORN and Others on Retained Surgical Items
August 30, 2022
August 23, 2022
Yes, There is a Proper Way to Assess Orthostatic Hypotension
August 16, 2022
August 9, 2022
Tip of the Week on Vacation
August 2, 2022
Tip of the Week on Vacation
July 26, 2022
More Risks in the Radiology Suite
July 19, 2022
Sucked Out of the Plane at 17,000 Feet
July 12, 2022
Radiologists Racked by Interruptions
July 5, 2022
Tip of the Week on Vacation
June 28, 2022
Pneumonia in Nervous System Injuries
June 21, 2022
June 14, 2022
June 7, 2022
May 31, 2022
NHS Serious Incident Response Framework
May 24, 2022
Requiring Indication for Antibiotic Prescribing
May 17, 2022
Patient Harm in Medicare Inpatients
May 10, 2022
May 3, 2022
April 26, 2022
Challenges with Early Warning Systems
April 19, 2022
April 12, 2022
A Healthcare Worker’s Worst Fear
April 5, 2022
Follow-up on Incidental Findings
March 29, 2022
Disturbing Stats on Perioperative Benzodiazepine Use in Elderly Patients
March 22, 2022
Not Just Politicians That Behave Badly
March 15, 2022
Medication Errors in Home Care
March 8, 2022
Update on Retained Surgical Items
March 1, 2022
Including the Indication on Prescriptions
February 22, 2022
Medication Reconciliation at ICU Exit
February 15, 2022
February 8, 2022
ED to Inpatient Delays Increase Mortality
February 1, 2022
Perioperative Delirium is Not Just Postoperative
January 25, 2022
More on Dental Patient Safety Issues
January 18, 2022
January 11, 2022
Documenting Distractions in the OR
January 4, 2022
Spin or Not: A Useful Secondary Finding in a Study
December 28, 2021
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 21, 2021
December 14, 2021
Delayed Hemorrhage After Head Trauma in Anticoagulated Patients
December 7, 2021
November 30, 2021
November 23, 2021
The Perils of Hypertonic Sodium Chloride
November 16, 2021
Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in the Delivery Room
November 9, 2021
November 2, 2021
Adverse Drug Events After Hospitalization
October 26, 2021
Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression Costly in Fiscal as Well as Human Terms
October 19, 2021
COVID-19 Vaccine/ Flu Vaccine Mixups
October 12, 2021
FDA Approval of Concussion Tool – Why Not a Fatigue Detection Tool?
October 5, 2021
September 28, 2021
Barcoding Better? Not So Fast!
September 21, 2021
Repeat CT in Anticoagulated Patients After Minor Head Trauma Not Cost-Effective
September 14, 2021
September 7, 2021
The Vanderbilt Tragedy Gets Uglier
August 31, 2021
The Community Pharmacy and Patient Safety
August 24, 2021
More Home Infusion Safety Issues
August 17, 2021
Tip of the Week on Vacation
August 10, 2021
Tip of the Week on Vacation
August 3, 2021
Obstetric Patients More At-Risk for Wrong Patient Orders
July 27, 2021
July 20, 2021
FDA Warning: Magnets in Consumer Electronics May Affect Medical Devices
July 13, 2021
The Skinny on Rapid Response Teams
July 6, 2021
Tip of the Week on Vacation
June 29, 2021
June 22, 2021
Remotely Monitoring Suicidal Patients in Non-Behavioral Health Areas
June 15, 2021
What’s Happened to Your Patient Safety Walk Rounds?
June 8, 2021
Cut OR Traffic to Cut Surgical Site Infections
June 1, 2021
Stronger Magnets, More MRI Safety Concerns
May 25, 2021
Yes, Radiologists Have Handoffs, Too
May 18, 2021
Medical Overuse Is Not Just An Economic Problem
May 11, 2021
How Are Alerts in Ambulatory CPOE Doing?
May 4, 2021
More 10x Dose Errors in Pediatrics
April 27, 2021
Errors Common During Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke
April 20, 2021
Taser “Slip and Capture Error” Again!
April 13, 2021
Incidental Findings – What’s Your Strategy?
April 6, 2021
March 30, 2021
Need for Better Antibiotic Stewardship
March 23, 2021
Nursing Staffing and Sepsis Outcomes
March 16, 2021
Sleep Program Successfully Reduces Delirium
March 9, 2021
Update: Disclosure and Apology: How to Do It
March 2, 2021
Barriers to Timely Catheter Removal
February 23, 2021
February 16, 2021
New Methods for QTc Monitoring
February 9, 2021
February 2, 2021
MGH Protocols Reduce Risk of Self-Harm in ED
January 26, 2021
This Freezer Accident May Cost Lives
January 19, 2021
Technology to Identify Fatigue?
January 12, 2021
January 5, 2021
Dilaudid/HYDROmorphone Still Problematic
December 29, 2019
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 22, 2019
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 15, 2020
Our Perennial Pre-Holiday Warning: “Be Careful Out There!”
December 8, 2020
Maternal Mortality: Looking in All the Wrong Places?
December 1, 2020
An Early Warning System and Response System That Work
November 24, 2020
November 17, 2020
A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words
November 10, 2020
November 3, 2020
Reminder: Infant Abduction Risk
October 27, 2020
Conflicting Studies on Technology to Reduce RSI’s
October 20, 2020
More on Post-operative Risks for Patients with OSA
October 13, 2020
October 6, 2020
Successfully Reducing Opioid-Related Adverse Events
September 29, 2020
September 22, 2020
VA RCA’s: Suicide Risks Vary by Site
September 15, 2020
September 8, 2020
Follow Up on Tests Pending at Discharge
September 1, 2020
NY State and Nurse Staffing Issues
August 25, 2020
The Off-Hours Effect in Radiology
August 18, 2020
August 11, 2020
Above-Door Alarms to Prevent Suicides
August 4, 2020
July 28, 2020
July 21, 2020
Is This Patient Allergic to Penicillin?
July 14, 2020
A Thesis on Intrahospital Transports
July 7, 2020
Another Patient Found Dead in a Stairwell
June 30, 2020
What Happens after Hospitalization?
June 23, 2020
June 16, 2020
June 9, 2020
Perioperative Medication Safety
June 2, 2020
May 26, 2020
May 19, 2020
Reminder on Telephone or Verbal Orders
May 12, 2020
May 5, 2020
COVID-19 and the Dental Office
April 28, 2020
April 21, 2020
Parenteral Nutrition Safety Issues
April 14, 2020
Patient Safety Tidbits for the COVID-19 Pandemic
April 7, 2020
From Preoperative Assessment to Preoperative Optimization
March 31, 2020
Intrahospital Transport Issues in Children
March 24, 2020
Mayo Clinic: How to Get Photos in Your EMR
March 17, 2020
March 10, 2020
Medication Harm in the Elderly
March 3, 2020
Opportunities to Reduce Unnecessary Contact Precautions
February 25, 2020
More on Perioperative Gabapentinoids
February 18, 2020
February 11, 2020
February 4, 2020
Drugs and Chronic Kidney Disease
January 28, 2020
January 21, 2020
Disruptive Behavior and Patient Safety: Cause or Effect?
January 14, 2020
January 7, 2020
Even More Concerns About MRI Safety
December 31, 2019
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 14, 2019
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 17, 2019
December 10, 2019
December 3, 2019
Overlapping Surgery Back in the News
November 26, 2019
Pennsylvania Law on Notifying Patients of Test Results
November 19, 2019
An Astonishing Gap in Medication Safety
November 12, 2019
Patient Photographs Again Help Radiologists
November 5, 2019
October 29, 2019
Tip of the Week on Vacation
October 22, 2019
Tip of the Week on Vacation
October 15, 2019
October 8, 2019
October 1, 2019
Electronic Medication Reconciliation: Glass Half Full or Half Empty?
September 24, 2019
EHR-related Malpractice Claims
September 17, 2019
American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification Program
September 10, 2019
Joint Commission Naming Standard Leaves a Gap
September 3, 2019
Lessons from an Inpatient Suicide
August 27, 2019
August 20, 2019
Yet Another (Not So) Unusual RSI
August 13, 2019
Betsy Lehman Center Report on Medical Error
August 6, 2019
July 30, 2019
Lessons from Hospital Suicide Attempts
July 23, 2019
Order Sets Can Nudge the Right Way or the Wrong Way
July 16, 2019
July 9, 2019
Spinal Injection of Tranexamic Acid
July 2, 2019
Tip of the Week on Vacation
June 25, 2019
June 18, 2019
June 11, 2019
ISMP’s Grissinger on Overreliance on Technology
June 4, 2019
Medication Errors in the OR – Part 3
May 28, 2019
May 21, 2019
Mixed Message on Number of Open EMR Records
May 14, 2019
Wrong-Site Surgery and Difficult-to-Mark Sites
May 7, 2019
Simulation Training for OR Fires
April 30, 2019
Reducing Unnecessary Urine Cultures
April 23, 2019
In and Out the Door and Other OR Flow Disruptions
April 16, 2019
AACN Practice Alert on Alarm Management
April 9, 2019
Handoffs for Every Occasion
April 2, 2019
Unexpected Events During MRI
March 26, 2019
March 19, 2019
March 12, 2019
Update on Overlapping Surgery
March 5, 2019
Infusion Pump Problems
February 26, 2019
Vascular Access Device Dislodgements
February 19, 2019
Focus on Pediatric Patient Safety
February 12, 2019
From Tragedy to Travesty of Justice
February 12, 2019
2 ER Drug Studies: Reassurances and Reservations
February 5, 2019
Flaws in Our Medication Safety Technologies
January 29, 2018
National Patient Safety Goal for Suicide Prevention
January 22, 2019
Wandering Patients
January 15, 2019
Another Plus for Prehabilitation
January 8, 2019
Maternal Mortality in the Spotlight
January 1, 2019
More on Automated Dispensing Cabinet (ADC) Safety
December 25, 2018
Happy Holidays!
December 18, 2018
Great Recommendations for e-Prescribing
December 11, 2018
December 4, 2018
Don’t Use Syringes for Topical Products
November 27, 2018
November 20, 2018
November 13, 2018
Antipsychotics Fail in ICU Delirium
November 6, 2018
More on Promoting Sleep in Inpatients
October 30, 2018
October 23, 2018
Lessons From Yet Another Aviation Incident
October 16, 2018
October 9, 2018
October 2, 2018
Speaking Up About Disruptive Behavior
September 25, 2018
Foley Follies
September 18, 2018
September 11, 2018
September 4, 2018
The 12-Hour Nursing Shift: Another Nail in the Coffin
August 28, 2018
Thought You Discontinued That Medication? Think Again
August 21, 2018
Delayed CT Scan in the Anticoagulated Patient
August 14, 2018
ISMP Canada’s Updated “Do Not Use” Abbreviation List
August 7, 2018
Tip of the Week on Vacation
July 31, 2018
Surgery and the Opioid-Tolerant Patient
July 24, 2018
More on Speech Recognition Software Errors
July 17, 2018
OSA Screening in Stroke Patients
July 10, 2018
Another Jump from a Hospital Window
July 3, 2018
Tip of the Week on Vacation
June 26, 2018
Infection Related to Colonoscopy
June 19, 2018
June 12, 2018
Adverse Events in Cancer Patients
June 5, 2018
Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority on Iatrogenic Burns
May 29, 2018
More on Nursing Workload and Patient Safety
May 22, 2018
Hazardous Intrahospital Transport
May 15, 2018
May 8, 2018
May 1, 2018
April 24, 2018
April 17, 2018
More on Tests Pending at Discharge
April 10, 2018
Prepping the Geriatric Patient for Surgery
April 3, 2018
March 27, 2018
March 20, 2018
Minnesota Highlights Lost Tissue Samples
March 13, 2018
March 6, 2018
February 27, 2018
Update on Patient Safety Walk Rounds
February 20, 2018
February 13, 2018
February 6, 2018
Adverse Events in Inpatient Psychiatry
January 30, 2018
January 23, 2018
Unintentional Hypothermia Back in Focus
January 16, 2018
January 9, 2018
More on Fire Risk from Surgical Preps
January 2, 2018
Preventing Perioperative Nerve Injuries
December 26, 2017
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 19, 2017
December 12, 2017
Joint Commission on Suicide Prevention
December 5, 2017
Massachusetts Initiative on Cataract Surgery
November 28, 2017
More on Dental Sedation/Anesthesia Safety
November 21, 2017
OSA, Oxygen, and Alarm Fatigue
November 14, 2017
Tracking C. diff to a CT Scanner
November 7, 2017
Perioperative Neuropathies
October 31, 2017
Target Drugs for Deprescribing
October 24, 2017
Neurosurgery and Time of Day
October 17, 2017
Progress on Alarm Management
October 10, 2017
More on Torsade de Pointes
October 3, 2017
Respiratory Compromise: One Size Does Not Fit All
September 26, 2017
Tip of the Week on Vacation
September 19, 2017
Tip of the Week on Vacation
September 12, 2017
Can You Hear Me Now?
September 5, 2017
Another Iatrogenic Burn
August 29, 2017
Suicide in the Bathroom
August 22, 2017
August 15, 2017
Delayed Emergency Surgery and Mortality Risk
August 8, 2017
Sedation for Pediatric MRI Rising
August 1, 2017
Progress on Wrong Patient Orders
July 25, 2017
Can We Influence the “Weekend Effect”?
July 18, 2017
Another Hazard from Alcohol-Based Hand Gels
July 11, 2017
The 12-Hour Shift Takes More Hits
July 4, 2017
Tip of the Week on Vacation
June 27, 2017
June 20, 2017
June 13, 2017
June 6, 2017
NYS Mandate for Sepsis Protocol Works
May 30, 2017
Errors in Pre-Populated Medication Lists
May 23, 2017
May 16, 2017
Are Surgeons Finally Ready to Screen for Frailty?
May 9, 2017
Missed Nursing Care and Mortality Risk
May 2, 2017
Anatomy of a Wrong Procedure
April 25, 2017
April 18, 2017
Alarm Response and Nurse Shift Duration
April 11, 2017
Interruptions: The Ones We Forget About
April 4, 2017
Deprescribing in Long-Term Care
March 28, 2017
More Issues with Dental Sedation/Anesthesia
March 21, 2017
Success at Preventing Delirium
March 14, 2017
More on Falls on Inpatient Psychiatry
March 7, 2017
February 28, 2017
February 21, 2017
Yet More Jumps from Hospital Windows
February 14, 2017
February 7, 2017
January 31, 2017
More Issues in Pediatric Safety
January 24, 2017
Dexmedetomidine to Prevent Postoperative Delirium
January 17, 2017
January 10, 2017
The 26-ml Applicator Strikes Again!
January 3, 2017
What’s Happening to “I’m Sorry”?
December 27, 2016
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 20, 2016
End-of-Rotation Transitions and Mortality
December 13, 2016
More on Double-Booked Surgery
December 6, 2016
Postoperative Pulmonary Complications
November 29, 2016
Doubling Down on Double-Booked Surgery
November 22, 2016
Leapfrog, Picklists, and Healthcare IT Vulnerabilities
November 15, 2016
November 8, 2016
Managing Distractions and Interruptions
November 1, 2016
CMS Emergency Preparedness Rule
October 25, 2016
Desmopressin Back in the Spotlight
October 18, 2016
Yet More Questions on Contact Precautions
October 11, 2016
New Guideline on Preop Screening and Assessment for OSA
October 4, 2016
September 27, 2016
September 20, 2016
Downloadable ABCDEF Bundle Toolkits for Delirium
September 13, 2016
Vanderbilt’s Electronic Procedural Timeout
September 6, 2016
August 30, 2016
Can You Really Limit Interruptions?
August 23, 2016
ISMP Canada: Automation Bias and Automation Complacency
August 16, 2016
How Is Your Alarm Management Initiative Going?
August 9, 2016
August 2, 2016
Drugs in the Elderly: The Goldilocks Story
July 26, 2016
Confirmed: Keep Your OR Doors Closed
July 19, 2016
Infants and Wrong Site Surgery
July 12, 2016
Forget Brexit – Brits Bash the RCA!
July 5, 2016
Tip of the Week on Vacation
June 28, 2016
Culture of Safety and Catheter-Associated Infections
June 21, 2016
Methotrexate Errors in Australia
June 14, 2016
Nursing Monitoring of Patients on Opioids
June 7, 2016
CPAP for Hospitalized Patients at High Risk for OSA
May 31, 2016
More Frailty Measures That Predict Surgical Outcomes
May 24, 2016
Texting Orders – Is It Really Safe?
May 17, 2016
Patient Safety Issues in Cataract Surgery
May 10, 2016
Medical Problems in Behavioral Health
May 3, 2016
Clinical Decision Support Malfunction
April 26, 2016
Lots More on Preventing Readmissions But Where's the Beef?
April 19, 2016
Independent Double Checks and Oral Chemotherapy
April 12, 2016
April 5, 2016
Workarounds Overriding Safety
March 29, 2016
March 22, 2016
Radiology Communication Errors May Surprise You
March 15, 2016
March 8, 2016
Tip of the Week on Vacation
March 1, 2016
February 23, 2016
February 16, 2016
February 9, 2016
February 2, 2016
January 26, 2016
More on Frailty and Surgical Morbidity and Mortality
January 19, 2016
Patient Identification in the Spotlight
January 12, 2016
New Resources on Improving Safety of Healthcare IT
January 5, 2016
Lessons from AirAsia Flight QZ8501 Crash
December 29, 2015
More Medical Helicopter Hazards
December 22, 2015
The Alberta Abbreviation Safety Toolkit
December 15, 2015
Vital Sign Monitoring at Night
December 8, 2015
Danger of Inaccurate Weights in Stroke Care
December 1, 2015
TALLman Lettering: Does It Work?
November 24, 2015
Door Opening and Foot Traffic in the OR
November 17, 2015
Patient Perspectives on Communication of Test Results
November 10, 2015
Weighing in on Double-Booked Surgery
November 3, 2015
Medication Errors in the OR - Part 2
October 27, 2015
Sentinel Event Alert on Falls and View from Across the Pond
October 20, 2015
Updated Beers List
October 13, 2015
Dilaudid Dangers #3
October 6, 2015
Suicide and Other Violent Inpatient Deaths
September 29, 2015
More on the 12-Hour Nursing Shift
September 22, 2015
The Cost of Being Rude
September 15, 2015
Another Possible Good Use of a Checklist
September 8, 2015
TREWScore for Early Recognition of Sepsis
September 1, 2015
August 25, 2015
Checklist for Intrahospital Transport
August 18, 2015
Missing Obstructive Sleep Apnea
August 11, 2015
New Oxygen Guidelines: Thoracic Society of Australia and NZ
August 4, 2015
Tip of the Week on Vacation
July 28, 2015
July 21, 2015
Avoiding Distractions in the OR
July 14, 2015
July 7, 2015
June 30, 2015
What Are Appropriate Indications for Urinary Catheters?
June 23, 2015
Again! Mistaking Antiseptic Solution for Radiographic Contrast
June 16, 2015
June 9, 2015
Add This to Your Fall Risk Assessment
June 2, 2015
May 26, 2015
May 19, 2015
May 12, 2015
More on Delays for In-Hospital Stroke
May 5, 2015
Errors with Oral Oncology Drugs
April 28, 2015
April 21, 2015
April 14, 2015
Using Insulin Safely in the Hospital
April 7, 2015
March 31, 2015
Clinical Decision Support for Pneumonia
March 24, 2015
Specimen Issues in Prostate Cancer
March 17, 2015
March 10, 2015
FDA Warning Label on Insulin Pens: Is It Enough?
March 3, 2015
Factors Related to Postoperative Respiratory Depression
February 24, 2015
More Risks with Long-Acting Opioids
February 17, 2015
Functional Impairment and Hospital Readmission, Surgical Outcomes
February 10, 2015
The Anticholinergic Burden and Dementia
February 3, 2015
CMS Hopes to Reduce Antipsychotics in Dementia
January 27, 2015
The Golden Hour for Stroke Thrombolysis
January 20, 2015
He Didn’t Wash His Hands After What!
January 13, 2015
January 6, 2015
Yet Another Handoff: The Intraoperative Handoff
December 30, 2014
Data Accumulates on Impact of Long Surgical Duration
December 23, 2014
Iatrogenic Burns in the News Again
December 16, 2014
More on Each Element of the Surgical Fire Triad
December 9, 2014
December 2, 2014
ANA Position Statement on Nurse Fatigue
November 25, 2014
Misdiagnosis Due to Lab Error
November 18, 2014
Handwashing Fades at End of Shift, ?Smartwatch to the Rescue
November 11, 2014
Early Detection of Clinical Deterioration
November 4, 2014
Progress on Fall Prevention
October 28, 2014
RF Systems for Retained Surgical Items
October 21, 2014
The Fire Department and Your Hospital
October 14, 2014
October 7, 2014
Our Take on Patient Safety Walk Rounds
September 30, 2014
More on Deprescribing
September 23, 2014
Stroke Thrombolysis: Need to Focus on Imaging-to-Needle Time
September 16, 2014
Focus on Home Care
September 9, 2014
The Handback
September 2, 2014
Frailty and the Trauma Patient
August 26, 2014
Surgeons’ Perception of Intraoperative Time
August 19, 2014
Some More Lessons Learned on Retained Surgical Items
August 12, 2014
Surgical Fires Back in the News
August 5, 2014
Tip of the Week on Vacation
July 29, 2014
The 12-Hour Nursing Shift: Debate Continues
July 22, 2014
More on Operating Room Briefings and Debriefings
July 15, 2014
Barriers to Success of Early Warning Systems
July 8, 2014
Update: Minor Head Trauma in the Anticoagulated Patient
July 1, 2014
Interruptions and Radiologists
June 24, 2014
Lessons from the General Motors Recall Analysis
June 17, 2014
SO2S Confirms Routine Oxygen of No Benefit in Stroke
June 10, 2014
Another Clinical Decision Support Tool to Avoid Torsade de Pointes
June 3, 2014
More on the Risk of Sedative/Hypnotics
May 27, 2014
A Gap in ePrescribing: Stopping Medications
May 20, 2014
May 13, 2014
Perioperative Sleep Apnea: Human and Financial Impact
May 6, 2014
Monitoring for Opioid-induced Sedation and Respiratory Depression
April 29, 2014
More on the Unintended Consequences of Contact Isolation
April 22, 2014
Impact of Resident Workhour Restrictions
April 15, 2014
Specimen Identification Mixups
April 8, 2014
FMEA to Avoid Breastmilk Mixups
April 1, 2014
Expensive Aspects of Sepsis Protocol Debunked
March 25, 2014
March 18, 2014
Systems Approach Improving Stroke Care
March 11, 2014
We Miss the Graphic Flowchart!
March 4, 2014
Evidence-Based Prescribing and Deprescribing in the Elderly
February 25, 2014
Joint Commission Revised Diagnostic Imaging Requirements
February 18, 2014
February 11, 2014
Another Perioperative Handoff Tool: SWITCH
February 4, 2014
But What If the Battery Runs Low?
January 28, 2014
Is Polypharmacy Always Bad?
January 21, 2014
January 14, 2014
Diagnostic Error: Salient Distracting Features
January 7, 2014
Lessons From the Asiana Flight 214 Crash
December 24-31, 2013
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 17, 2013
December 10, 2013
Better Handoffs, Better Results
December 3, 2013
Reducing Harm from Falls on Inpatient Psychiatry
November 26, 2013
Missed Care: New Opportunities?
November 19, 2013
Can We Improve Dilaudid/HYDROmorphone Safety?
November 12, 2013
More on Inappropriate Meds in the Elderly
November 5, 2013
Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert: Unintended Retained Foreign Objects
October 29, 2013
PAD: The Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Care Bundle
October 22, 2013
How Safe Is Your Radiology Suite?
October 15, 2013
October 8, 2013
October 1, 2013
Fuels and Oxygen in OR Fires
September 24, 2013
Perioperative Use of CPAP in OSA
September 17, 2013
September 10, 2013
Informed Consent and Wrong-Site Surgery
September 3, 2013
Predicting Perioperative Complications: Slow and Simple
August 27 2013
Lessons on Wrong-Site Surgery
August 20 2013
Lessons from Canadian Analysis of Medical Air Transport Cases
August 13 2013
August 6, 2013
July 9-30, 2013
Tip of the Week on Vacation
July 2, 2013
June 25, 2013
June 18, 2013
DVT Prevention in Stoke – CLOTS 3
June 11, 2013
June 4, 2013
May 28, 2013
The Neglected Medications: IV Fluids
May 21, 2013
May 14, 2013
Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction (Ogilvie’s Syndrome)
May 7, 2013
April 30, 2013
Photographic Identification to Prevent Errors
April 23, 2013
Plethora of Medication Safety Studies
April 16, 2013
April 9, 2013
Mayo Clinic System Alerts for QT Interval Prolongation
April 2, 2013
Absconding from Behavioral Health Services
March 26, 2013
Failure to Recognize Sleep Apnea Before Surgery
March 19, 2013
Dealing with the Violent Patient in the Emergency Department
March 12, 2013
More on Communicating Test Results
March 5, 2013
Underutilized Safety Tools: The Observational Audit
February 26, 2013
Insulin Pen Re-Use Incidents: How Do You Monitor Alerts?
February 19, 2013
Practical Postoperative Pain Management
February 12, 2013
CDPH: Lessons Learned from PCA Incident
February 5, 2013
Antidepressants and QT Interval Prolongation
January 29, 2013
A Flurry of Activity on Handoffs
January 22, 2013
You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know
January 15, 2013
January 8, 2013
More Lessons Learned on Retained Surgical Items
January 1, 2013
Don’t Throw Away Those View Boxes Yet
December 25, 2012
Tip of the Week on Vacation
December 18, 2012
Unintended Consequences of the CAUTI Measure?
December 11, 2012
December 4, 2012
Unintentional Perioperative Hypothermia: A New Twist
November 27, 2012
November 20, 2012
Update on Perioperative Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnea
November 13, 2012
The 12-Hour Nursing Shift: More Downsides
November 6, 2012
Using LEAN to Improve Stroke Care
October 30, 2012
October 23, 2012
Latent Factors Lurking in the OR
October 16, 2012
What is the Evidence on Double Checks?
October 9, 2012
Call for Focus on Diagnostic Errors
October 2, 2012
Test Results: Everyone’s Worst Nightmare
September 25, 2012
Preoperative Assessment for Geriatric Patients
September 18, 2012
September 11, 2012
In Search of the Ideal Early Warning Score
September 4, 2012
August 28, 2012
New Care Model Copes with Interruptions Better
August 21, 2012
More on Missed Followup of Tests in Hospital
August 14, 2012
August 7, 2012
Cognition, Post-Op Delirium, and Post-Op Outcomes
July 31, 2012
Surgical Case Duration and Miscommunications
July 24, 2012
FDA and Extended-Release/Long-Acting Opioids
July 17, 2012
July 10, 2012
Tip of the Week on Vacation
July 3, 2012
Recycling an Old Column: Dilaudid Dangers
June 26, 2012
Using Patient Photos to Reduce CPOE Errors
June 19, 2012
More Problems with Faxed Orders
June 12, 2012
Lessons Learned from the CDPH: Retained Foreign Bodies
June 5, 2012
Minor Head Trauma in the Anticoagulated Patient
May 29, 2012
Falls, Fractures, and Fatalities
May 22, 2012
Update on Preoperative Screening for Sleep Apnea
May 15, 2012
May 8, 2012
Importance of Nontechnical Skills in Healthcare
May 1, 2012
April 24, 2012
Fire Hazard of Skin Preps Oxygen
April 17, 2012
April 10, 2012
April 3, 2012
New Risk for Postoperative Delirium: Obstructive Sleep Apnea
March 27, 2012
March 20, 2012
Adverse Events Related to Psychotropic Medications
March 13, 2012
Medical Emergency Team Calls to Radiology
March 6, 2012
February 28, 2012
AACN Practice Alert on Delirium in Critical Care
February 21, 2012
Improving PCA Safety with Capnography
February 14, 2012
Handoffs More Than Battle of the Mnemonics
February 7, 2012
Another Neuromuscular Blocking Agent Incident
January 31, 2012
January 24, 2012
Patient Safety in Ambulatory Care
January 17, 2012
Delirium and Contact Isolation
January 10, 2012
January 3, 2012
Unintended Consequences of Restricted Housestaff Hours
December 20, 2011
December 13, 2011
December 6, 2011
Why You Need to Beware of Oxygen Therapy
November 29, 2011
November 22, 2011
Perioperative Management of Sleep Apnea Disappointing
November 15, 2011
November 8, 2011
WHOs Multi-professional Patient Safety Curriculum Guide
November 1, 2011
So Whats the Big Deal About Inserting an NG Tube?
October 25, 2011
October 18, 2011
October 11, 2011
October 4, 2011
Radiology Report Errors and Speech Recognition Software
September 27, 2011
The Canadian Suicide Risk Assessment Guide
September 20, 2011
When Practice Changes the Evidence: The CKD Story
September 13, 2011
Do You Use Fentanyl Transdermal Patches Safely?
September 6, 2011
August 30, 2011
Unintentional Discontinuation of Medications After Hospitalization
August 23, 2011
Catheter Misconnections Back in the News
August 16, 2011
August 9, 2011
Frailty and the Surgical Patient
August 2, 2011
July 26, 2011
July 19, 2011
Communication Across Professions
July 12, 2011
Psst! Pass it onHow a kids game can mold good handoffs
July 5, 2011
Sidney Dekker: Patient Safety. A Human Factors Approach
June 28, 2011
Long-Acting and Extended-Release Opioid Dangers
June 21, 2011
June 14, 2011
June 6, 2011
May 31, 2011
Book Review Human Factors and Team Psychology in a High Stakes Environment
May 24, 2011
May 17, 2011
Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression Again!
May 10, 2011
Preventing Preventable Readmissions: Not As Easy As It Sounds
May 3, 2011
April 26, 2011
Sleeping Air Traffic Controllers: What About Healthcare?
April 19, 2011
DVT Prophylaxis in Acute Stroke: Controversy Reappears
April 12, 2011
Medication Issues in the Ambulatory Setting
April 5, 2011
March 29, 2011
The Silent Treatment:A Dose of Reality
March 22, 2011
An EMR Feature Detrimental to Teamwork and Patient Safety
March 15, 2011
March 8, 2011
Yes, Physicians Get Interrupted Too!
March 1, 2011
February 22, 2011
February 15, 2011
Controversies in VTE Prophylaxis
February 8, 2011
February 1, 2011
January 25, 2011
Procedural Sedation in Children
January 18, 2011
More on Medication Errors in Long-Term Care
January 11, 2011
NPSA (UK) How to Guide: Five Steps to Safer Surgery
January 4, 2011
December 28, 2010
HAIs: Looking In All The Wrong Places
December 21, 2010
More Bad News About Off-Hours Care
December 14, 2010
NPSA (UK): Preventing Fatalities from Medication Loading Doses
December 6, 2010
More Tips to Prevent Wrong-Site Surgery
November 30, 2010
SURPASS: The Mother of All Checklists
November 23, 2010
Focus on Cumulative Radiation Exposure
November 16, 2010
November 9, 2010
12-Hour Nursing Shifts and Patient Safety
November 2, 2010
Insulin: Truly a High-Risk Medication
October 26, 2010
Confirming Medications During Anesthesia
October 19, 2010
Optimizing Medications in the Elderly
October 12, 2010
October 5, 2010
September 28, 2010
September 21, 2010
September 14, 2010
Wrong-Site Craniotomy: Lessons Learned
September 7, 2010
Patient Safety in Ob/Gyn Settings
August 31, 2010
August 24, 2010
The BP Oil Spill Analogies in Healthcare
August 17, 2010
Preoperative Consultation Time to Change
August 10, 2010
Its Not Always About The Evidence
August 3, 2010
Tip of the Week on Vacation
July 27, 2010
EMRs Still Have A Long Way To Go
July 20, 2010
More on the Weekend Effect/After-Hours Effect
July 13, 2010
Postoperative Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression
July 6, 2010
Book Reviews: Pronovost and Gawande
June 29, 2010
Torsade de Pointes: Are Your Patients At Risk?
June 22, 2010
Disclosure and Apology: How to Do It
June 15, 2010
Dysphagia in the Stroke Patient: the Scottish Guideline
June 8, 2010
Surgical Safety Checklist for Cataract Surgery
June 1, 2010
May 25, 2010
May 18, 2010
Real-Time Random Safety Audits
May 11, 2010
May 4, 2010
More on the Impact of Interruptions
April 27, 2010
April 20, 2010
HITs Limited Impact on Quality To Date
April 13, 2010
April 6, 2010
March 30, 2010
Publicly Released RCAs: Everyone Learns from Them
March 23, 2010
ISMPs Guidelines for Standard Order Sets
March 16, 2010
A Patient Safety Scavenger Hunt
March 9, 2010
Communication of Urgent or Unexpected Radiology Findings
March 2, 2010
Alarm Sensitivity: Early Detection vs. Alarm Fatigue
February 23, 2010
Alarm Issues in the News Again
February 16, 2010
Spin/HypeKnowing It When You See It
February 9, 2010
More on Preventing Inpatient Suicides
February 2, 2010
January 26, 2010
Preventing Postoperative Delirium
January 19, 2010
January 12, 2010
Patient Photos in Patient Safety
January 5, 2010
December 29, 2009
Recognizing Deteriorating Patients
December 22, 2009
December 15, 2009
December 8, 2009
December 1, 2009
Patient Safety Doesnt End at Discharge
November 24, 2009
Another Rough Month for Healthcare IT
November 17, 2009
November 10, 2009
Conserving ResourcesBut Maintaining Patient Safety
November 3, 2009
Medication Safety: Frontline to the Rescue Again!
October 27, 2009
Co-Managing Patients: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
October 20, 2009
Radiology AgainBut This Time Its Really Radiology!
October 13, 2009
October 6, 2009
Oxygen Safety: More Lessons from the UK
September 29, 2009
Perioperative Peripheral Nerve Injuries
September 22, 2009
Psychotropic Drugs and Falls in the SNF
September 15, 2009
ETTOs: Efficiency-Thoroughness Trade-Offs
September 8, 2009
Barriers to Medication Reconciliation
September 1, 2009
The Real Root Causes of Medical Helicopter Crashes
August 25, 2009
Interruptions, Distractions, InattentionOops!
August 18, 2009
Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the Perioperative Period
August 11, 2009
August 4, 2009
July 28, 2009
Wandering, Elopements, and Missing Patients
July 21, 2009
Medication Errors in Long Term-Care
July 14, 2009
Is Your Do Not Use Abbreviations List Adequate?
July 7, 2009
Nudge: Small Changes, Big Impacts
June 30, 2009
iSoBAR: Australian Clinical Handoffs/Handovers
June 23, 2009
June 16, 2009
Disclosing Errors That Affect Multiple Patients
June 9, 2009
CDC Update to the Guideline for Prevention of CAUTI
June 2, 2009
Why Hospitals Should FlyJohn Nance Nails It!
May 26, 2009
Learning from Tragedies. Part II
May 19, 2009
May 12, 2009
May 5, 2009
Adverse Drug Events in the ICU
April 28, 2009
Ticket Home and Other Tools to Facilitate Discharge
April 21, 2009
April 14, 2009
More on Rehospitalization After Discharge
April 7, 2009
March 31, 2009
Screening Patients for Risk of Delirium
March 24, 2009
March 17, 2009
March 10, 2009
Prolonged Surgical Duration and Time Awareness
March 3, 2009
Overriding AlertsLike Surfin the Web
February 24, 2009
Discharge Planning: Finally Something That Works!
February 17, 2009
Reducing Risk of Overdose with Midazolam Injection
February 10, 2009
Sedation in the ICU: The Dexmedetomidine Study
February 3, 2009
NTSB Medical Helicopter Crash Reports: Missing the Big Picture
January 27, 2009
Oxygen Therapy: Everything You Wanted to Know and More!
January 20, 2009
The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist Delivers the Outcomes
January 13, 2009
January 6, 2009
December 30, 2008
Unintended Consequences: Is Medication Reconciliation Next?
December 23, 2008
December 16, 2008
Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert on Hazards of Healthcare IT
December 9, 2008
December 2, 2008
Playing without the ballthe art of communication in healthcare
November 25, 2008
November 18, 2008
Ticket to Ride: Checklist, Form, or Decision Scorecard?
November 11, 2008
November 4, 2008
October 28, 2008
More on Computerized Trigger Tools
October 21, 2008
October 14, 2008
October 7, 2008
Lessons from Falls....from Rehab Medicine
September 30, 2008
September 23, 2008
Checklists and Wrong Site Surgery
September 16, 2008
More on Radiology as a High Risk Area
September 9, 2008
Less is More.and Do You Really Need that Decimal?
September 2, 2008
August 26, 2008
August 19, 2008
August 12, 2008
Jerome Groopmans How Doctors Think
August 5, 2008
July 29, 2008
Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia
July 22, 2008
Lots New in the Anticoagulation Literature
July 15, 2008
July 8, 2008
July 1, 2008
WHOs New Surgical Safety Checklist
June 24, 2008
Urinary Catheter-Related UTIs: Bladder Bundles
June 17, 2008
Technology Workarounds Defeat Safety Intent
June 10, 2008
Monitoring the Postoperative COPD Patient
June 3, 2008
UK Advisory on Chest Tube Insertion
May27, 2008
If You Do RCAs or Design Healthcare ProcessesRead Gary Kleins Work
May20, 2008
CPOE Unintended Consequences Are Wrong Patient Errors More Common?
May13, 2008
Medication Reconciliation: Topical and Compounded Medications
May 6, 2008
Preoperative Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
April 29, 2008
ASA Practice Advisory on Operating Room Fires
April 22, 2008
CMS Expanding List of No-Pay Hospital-Acquired Conditions
April 15, 2008
April 8, 2008
April 1, 2008
Pennsylvania PSAs FMEA on Telemetry Alarm Interventions
March 25, 2008
March 18, 2008
Is Desmopressin on Your List of Hi-Alert Medications?
March 11, 2008
March 4, 2008
Housestaff Awareness of Risks for Hazards of Hospitalization
February 26, 2008
Nightmares.The Hospital at Night
February 19, 2008
February 12, 2008
February 5, 2008
Reducing Errors in Obstetrical Care
January 29, 2008
Thoughts on the Recent Neonatal Nursery Fire
January 22, 2008
More on the Cost of Complications
January 15, 2008
Managing Dangerous Medications in the Elderly
January 8, 2008
Urinary Catheter-Associated Infections
January 1, 2008
December 25, 2007
December 18, 2007
December 11, 2007
CommunicationCommunicationCommunication
December 4, 2007
November 27,2007
November 20, 2007
New Evidence Questions Perioperative Beta Blocker Use
November 13, 2007
AHRQ's Free Patient Safety Tools DVD
November 6, 2007
October 30, 2007
Using IHIs Global Trigger Tool
October 23, 2007
Medication Reconciliation Tools
October 16, 2007
Radiology as a Site at High-Risk for Medication Errors
October 9, 2007
October 2, 2007
Taking Off From the Wrong Runway
September 25, 2007
Lessons from the National Football League
September 18, 2007
Wristbands: The Color-Coded Conundrum
September 11, 2007
Root Cause Analysis of Chemotherapy Overdose
September 4, 2007
August 28, 2007
Lessons Learned from Transportation Accidents
August 21, 2007
Costly Complications About To Become Costlier
August 14, 2007
More Medication-Related Issues in Ambulatory Surgery
August 7, 2007
Role of Maintenance in Incidents
July 31, 2007
Dangers of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents
July 24, 2007
Serious Incident Response Checklist
July 17, 2007
Falls in Patients on Coumadin or Other Anticoagulants
July 10, 2007
Catheter Connection Errors/Wrong Route Errors
July 3, 2007
June 26, 2007
Pneumonia in the Stroke Patient
June 19, 2007
Unintended Consequences of Technological Solutions
June 12, 2007
Medication-Related Issues in Ambulatory Surgery
June 5, 2007
Patient Safety in Ambulatory Surgery
May 29, 2007
Read Anything & Everything Written by Malcolm Gladwell!
May 22, 2007
May 15, 2007
Communication, Hearback and Other Lessons from Aviation
May 8, 2007
Doctor, when do I get this red rubber hose removed?
May 1, 2007
April 23, 2007
April 16, 2007
April 9, 2007
Make Your Surgical Timeouts More Useful
April 2, 2007
March 26, 2007
Alarms Should Point to the Problem
March 19, 2007
Put that machine back the way you found it!
March 12, 2007
March 5, 2007
February 26, 2007
Copyright 2012 The Truax Group Healthcare Consulting Patient Safety Solutions Tools Tips & Resources. All rights reserved.
PO Box 1230
Grantham, NH 03753
ph: 716-550-1106
btruax