Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Differences in contexts (eg, policies, healthcare organisation characteristics) may explain variations in the effects of patient safety practice (PSP) implementations. However, knowledge of which contextual features are important determinants of PSP effectiveness is limited and consensus is lacking on a taxonomy of which contexts matter.

METHODS:

Iterative, formal discussions were held with a 22-member technical expert panel composed of experts or leaders in patient safety, healthcare systems, and methods. First, potentially important contextual features were identified, focusing on five PSPs. Then, two surveys were conducted to determine the context likely to influence PSP implementations.

RESULTS:

The panel reached a consensus on a taxonomy of four broad domains of contextual features important for PSP implementations: safety culture, teamwork and leadership involvement; structural organisational characteristics (eg, size, organisational complexity or financial status); external factors (eg, financial or performance incentives or PSP regulations); and availability of implementation and management tools (eg, training organisational incentives). Panelists also tended to rate specific patient safety culture, teamwork and leadership contexts as high priority for assessing their effects on PSP implementations, but tended to rate specific organisational characteristic contexts as high priority only for use in PSP evaluations. Panelists appeared split on whether specific external factors and implementation/management tools were important for assessment or only description.

CONCLUSION:

This work can guide research commissioners and evaluators on the contextual features of PSP implementations that are important to report or evaluate. It represents a first step towards developing guidelines on contexts in PSP implementation evaluations. However, the science of context measurement needs maturing.

BACKGROUND: Safety climate refers to shared perceptions of what an organization is like with regard to safety, whereas safety culture refers to employees' fundamental ideology and orientation and explains why safety is pursued in the manner exhibited within a particular organization. Although research has sought to identify opportunities for improving safety outcomes by studying patterns of variation in safety climate, few empirical studies have examined the impact of organizational characteristics such as culture on hospital safety climate.

PURPOSE: This study explored how aspects of general organizational culture relate to hospital patient safety climate.

METHODOLOGY: In a stratified sample of 92 U.S. hospitals, we sampled 100% of senior managers and physicians and 10% of other hospital workers. The Patient Safety Climate in Healthcare Organizations and the Zammuto and Krakower organizational culture surveys measured safety climate and group, entrepreneurial, hierarchical, and production orientation of hospitals' culture, respectively. We administered safety climate surveys to 18,361 personnel and organizational culture surveys to a 5,894 random subsample between March 2004 and May 2005. Secondary data came from the 2004 American Hospital Association Annual Hospital Survey and Dun & Bradstreet. Hierarchical linear regressions assessed relationships between organizational culture and safety climate measures.

FINDINGS: Aspects of general organizational culture were strongly related to safety climate. A higher level of group culture correlated with a higher level of safety climate, but more hierarchical culture was associated with lower safety climate. Aspects of organizational culture accounted for more than threefold improvement in measures of model fit compared with models with controls alone. A mix of culture types, emphasizing group culture, seemed optimal for safety climate.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Safety climate and organizational culture are positively related. Results support strategies that promote group orientation and reduced hierarchy, including use of multidisciplinary team training, continuous quality improvement tools, and human resource practices and policies.

Why has diagnostic testing, and in particular diagnostic imaging, increased to such a high level in the United States? I would argue that it is a combination of our medical culture (and our human nature) to eliminate uncertainty, scientific and technical advances leading to new and improved noninvasive tests, substantial barriers to evaluating the value of each test, and patient preference. Combined, these factors have likely contributed to an exponential growth in testing (particularly imaging) in recent years and are the areas that must be addressed if we wish to provide more efficient care.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening hospital safety culture offers promise for reducing adverse events, but efforts to improve culture may not succeed if hospital managers perceive safety differently from frontline workers.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether frontline workers and supervisors perceive a more negative patient safety climate (ie, surface features, reflective of the underlying safety culture) than senior managers in their institutions. To ascertain patterns of variation within management levels by professional discipline.

RESEARCH DESIGN: A safety climate survey was administered from March 2004 to May 2005 in 92 US hospitals. Individual-level cross sectional comparisons related safety climate to management level. Hierarchical and hospital-fixed effects modeling tested differences in perceptions.

SUBJECTS: Random sample of hospital personnel (18,361 respondents).

MEASURES: Frequency of responses indicating absence of safety climate (percent problematic response) overall and for 8 survey dimensions.

RESULTS: Frontline workers' safety climate perceptions were 4.8 percentage points (1.4 times) more problematic than were senior managers', and supervisors' perceptions were 3.1 percentage points (1.25 times) more problematic than were senior managers'. Differences were consistent among 7 safety climate dimensions. Differences by management level depended on discipline: senior manager versus frontline worker discrepancies were less pronounced for physicians and more pronounced for nurses, than they were for other disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS: Senior managers perceived patient safety climate more positively than nonsenior managers overall and across 7 discrete safety climate domains. Patterns of variation by management level differed by professional discipline. Continuing efforts to improve patient safety should address perceptual differences, both among and within groups by management level.

Background: The United States (U.S.) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) has implemented economic analyses in single-site and multi-site clinical trials. To date, no one has reviewed whether the QUERI Centers are taking an optimal approach to doing so. Consistent with the continuous learning culture of the QUERI Program, this paper provides such a reflection.

Methods: We present a case study of QUERI as an example of how economic considerations can and should be integrated into implementation research within both single and multi-site studies. We review theoretical and applied cost research in implementation studies outside and within VA. We also present a critique of the use of economic research within the QUERI program.

Results: Economic evaluation is a key element of implementation research. QUERI has contributed many developments in the field of implementation but has only recently begun multi-site implementation trials across multiple regions within the national VA healthcare system. These trials are unusual in their emphasis on developing detailed costs of implementation, as well as in the use of business case analyses (budget impact analyses).

Conclusion: Economics appears to play an important role in QUERI implementation studies, only after implementation has reached the stage of multi-site trials. Economic analysis could better inform the choice of which clinical best practices to implement and the choice of implementation interventions to employ. QUERI economics also would benefit from research on costing methods and development of widely accepted international standards for implementation economics.

Patient safety has been a priority in health care since Hippocrates admonished physicians to "first do no harm." Even so, the Institute of Medicine found in 2000 that approximately 98 000 patients die from preventable medical errors each year. Recent US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates project that 270 individuals die each day from hospital-acquired infections. Despite substantial efforts and investments, widespread and substantial improvement is not evident.

The problem is not in knowing what to do. Techniques, tools, and some best practices are available, and many health care organizations are making efforts to apply them. The importance of creating a "culture of safety" has also been noted. This involves continuous vigilance or mindfulness, learning, and accountability. A greater emphasis on safety over productivity and on teamwork over individual autonomy, increased standardization and simplification, and the implementation of an environment in which personnel are encouraged and feel comfortable to report errors and mistakes are needed.

Although creating a culture of safety is important, creating a culture of systems is a more fundamental challenge. In this Commentary, the term systems means systems of care that occur both within and across organizations. For example, in studies involving causes of adverse events in cardiac surgery, more than two-thirds were classified as nontechnical or systems-oriented issues including delays and missing equipment, and more of these problems occurred in cases with adverse outcomes than in successful cases. The greatest barrier to patient safety and safety culture is the inherent fragmentation of the US system of care. Safety will improve when the underlying system of care improves.

Objective: To systematically review all published case reports of children with anthrax to evaluate the predictors of disease progression and mortality.

Data Sources: Fourteen selected journal indexes (1900-1966), MEDLINE (1966-2005), and the bibliographies of all retrieved articles.

Study Selection: Case reports (any language) of anthrax in persons younger than 18 years published between January 1, 1900, and December 31, 2005. Main Exposures Cases with symptoms and culture or Gram stain or autopsy evidence of anthrax infection.

Main Outcome Measures: Disease progression, treatment responses, and mortality.

Results: Of 2499 potentially relevant articles, 73 case reports of pediatric anthrax (5 inhalational cases, 22 gastrointestinal cases, 37 cutaneous cases, 6 cases of primary meningoencephalitis, and 3 atypical cases) met the inclusion criteria. Only 10% of the patients were younger than 2 years, and 24% were girls. Of the few children with inhalational anthrax, none had nonheadache neurologic symptoms, a key finding that distinguishes adult inhalational anthrax from more common illnesses, such as influenza. Overall, observed mortality was 60% (3 of 5) for inhalational anthrax, 65% (13 of 20) for gastrointestinal anthrax, 14% (5 of 37) for cutaneous anthrax, and 100% (6 of 6) for primary meningoencephalitis. Nineteen of the 30 children (63%) who received penicillin-based antibiotics survived, and 9 of the 11 children (82%) who received anthrax antiserum survived.

Conclusions: The clinical presentation of children with anthrax is varied. The mortality rate is high in children with inhalational anthrax, gastrointestinal anthrax, and anthrax meningoencephalitis. Rapid diagnosis and effective treatment of anthrax in children requires recognition of the broad spectrum of clinical presentations of pediatric anthrax.