Literature DB >> 16715029

How will we know patients are safer? An organization-wide approach to measuring and improving safety.

Peter Pronovost1, Christine G Holzmueller, Dale M Needham, J Bryan Sexton, Marlene Miller, Sean Berenholtz, Albert W Wu, Trish M Perl, Richard Davis, David Baker, Laura Winner, Laura Morlock.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our institution, like many, is struggling to develop measures that answer the question, How do we know we are safer? Our objectives are to present a framework to evaluate performance in patient safety and describe how we applied this model in intensive care units.
DESIGN: We focus on measures of safety rather than broader measures of quality. The measures will allow health care organizations to evaluate whether they are safer now than in the past by answering the following questions: How often do we harm patients? How often do patients receive the appropriate interventions? How do we know we learned from defects? How well have we created a culture of safety? The first two measures are rate based, whereas the latter two are qualitative. To improve care within institutions, caregivers must be engaged, must participate in the selection and development of measures, and must receive feedback regarding their performance. The following attributes should be considered when evaluating potential safety measures: Measures must be important to the organization, must be valid (represent what they intend to measure), must be reliable (produce similar results when used repeatedly), must be feasible (affordable to collect data), must be usable for the people expected to employ the data to improve safety, and must have universal applicability within the entire institution.
SETTING: Health care institutions.
RESULTS: Health care currently lacks a robust safety score card. We developed four aggregate measures of patient safety and present how we applied them to intensive care units in an academic medical center. The same measures are being applied to nearly 200 intensive care units as part of ongoing collaborative projects. The measures include how often do we harm patients, how often do we do what we should (i.e., use evidence-based medicine), how do we know we learned from mistakes, and how well do we improve culture. Measures collected by different departments can then be aggregated to provide a hospital level safety score card.
CONCLUSION: The science of measuring patient safety is immature. This article is a starting point for developing feasible and scientifically sound approaches to measure safety within an institution. Institutions will need to find a balance between measures that are scientifically sound, affordable, usable, and easily applied across the institution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16715029     DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000226412.12612.B6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  15 in total

1.  Viewing health care delivery as science: challenges, benefits, and policy implications.

Authors:  Peter J Pronovost; Christine A Goeschel
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  Achieving the National Quality Forum's "Never Events": prevention of wrong site, wrong procedure, and wrong patient operations.

Authors:  Robert K Michaels; Martin A Makary; Yasser Dahab; Frank J Frassica; Eugenie Heitmiller; Lisa C Rowen; Richard Crotreau; Henry Brem; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Defining, treating and preventing hospital acquired pneumonia: European perspective.

Authors:  Antoni Torres; Santiago Ewig; Harmut Lode; Jean Carlet
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-11-07       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Advancing measurement of patient safety culture.

Authors:  Liane Ginsburg; Debra Gilin; Deborah Tregunno; Peter G Norton; Ward Flemons; Mark Fleming
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Association of nurse work environment and safety climate on patient mortality: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Danielle M Olds; Linda H Aiken; Jeannie P Cimiotti; Eileen T Lake
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 5.837

6.  Creating high reliability in health care organizations.

Authors:  Peter J Pronovost; Sean M Berenholtz; Christine A Goeschel; Dale M Needham; J Bryan Sexton; David A Thompson; Lisa H Lubomski; Jill A Marsteller; Martin A Makary; Elizabeth Hunt
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 7.  Improving cardiac surgical care: a work systems approach.

Authors:  Douglas A Wiegmann; Ashley A Eggman; Andrew W Elbardissi; Sarah Henrickson Parker; Thoralf M Sundt
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  2010-03-03       Impact factor: 3.661

8.  Patient Safety Events and Harms During Medical and Surgical Hospitalizations for Persons With Serious Mental Illness.

Authors:  Gail L Daumit; Emma E McGinty; Peter Pronovost; Lisa B Dixon; Eliseo Guallar; Daniel E Ford; Elizabeth K Cahoon; Romsai T Boonyasai; David Thompson
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2016-05-16       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 9.  Highly reliable procedural teams: the journey to spread the universal protocol in diagnostic imaging.

Authors:  Julie Ross; Debby Wolf; Kimberly Reece
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2014

10.  Evaluating Safety Initiatives in Healthcare.

Authors:  Asad Latif; Christine G Holzmueller; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  Curr Anesthesiol Rep       Date:  2014-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.