Jane Kathryn O'Hara1,2, Gerry Armitage2,3, Caroline Reynolds2, Claire Coulson4, Liz Thorp2, Ikhlaq Din2, Ian Watt5, John Wright2,6. 1. Leeds Institute of Medical Education, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 2. Quality & Safety Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK. 3. School of Health, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK. 4. Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK. 6. Royal Infirmary Bradford, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Bradford, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Emergent evidence suggests that patients can identify and report safety issues while in hospital. However, little is known about the best method for collecting information from patients about safety concerns. This study presents an exploratory pilot of three mechanisms for collecting data on safety concerns from patients during their hospital stay. METHOD: Three mechanisms for capturing safety concerns were coproduced with healthcare professionals and patients, before being tested in an exploratory trial using cluster randomisation at the ward level. Nine wards participated, with each mechanism being tested over a 3-month study period. Patients were asked to feed back safety concerns via the mechanism on their ward (interviewing at their bedside, paper-based form or patient safety 'hotline'). Safety concerns were subjected to a two-stage review process to identify those that would meet the definition of a patient safety incident. Differences between mechanisms on a range of outcomes were analysed using inferential statistics. Safety concerns were thematically analysed to develop reporting categories. RESULTS: 178 patients were recruited. Patients in the face-to-face interviewing condition provided significantly more safety concerns per patient (1.91) compared with the paper-based form (0.92) and the patient safety hotline (0.43). They were also significantly more likely to report one or more concerns, with 64% reporting via the face-to-face mechanism, compared with 41% via the paper-based form and 19% via the patient safety hotline. No mechanism differed significantly in the number of classified patient safety incidents or physician-rated preventability and severity. DISCUSSION: Interviewing at the patient's bedside is likely to be the most effective means of gathering safety concerns from inpatients, potentially providing an opportunity for health services to gather patient feedback about safety from their perspective. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
INTRODUCTION: Emergent evidence suggests that patients can identify and report safety issues while in hospital. However, little is known about the best method for collecting information from patients about safety concerns. This study presents an exploratory pilot of three mechanisms for collecting data on safety concerns from patients during their hospital stay. METHOD: Three mechanisms for capturing safety concerns were coproduced with healthcare professionals and patients, before being tested in an exploratory trial using cluster randomisation at the ward level. Nine wards participated, with each mechanism being tested over a 3-month study period. Patients were asked to feed back safety concerns via the mechanism on their ward (interviewing at their bedside, paper-based form or patient safety 'hotline'). Safety concerns were subjected to a two-stage review process to identify those that would meet the definition of a patient safety incident. Differences between mechanisms on a range of outcomes were analysed using inferential statistics. Safety concerns were thematically analysed to develop reporting categories. RESULTS: 178 patients were recruited. Patients in the face-to-face interviewing condition provided significantly more safety concerns per patient (1.91) compared with the paper-based form (0.92) and the patient safety hotline (0.43). They were also significantly more likely to report one or more concerns, with 64% reporting via the face-to-face mechanism, compared with 41% via the paper-based form and 19% via the patient safety hotline. No mechanism differed significantly in the number of classified patient safety incidents or physician-rated preventability and severity. DISCUSSION: Interviewing at the patient's bedside is likely to be the most effective means of gathering safety concerns from inpatients, potentially providing an opportunity for health services to gather patient feedback about safety from their perspective. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Incident reporting; Patient safety; Patient-centred care
Authors: Jane K O'Hara; Rebecca J Lawton; Gerry Armitage; Laura Sheard; Claire Marsh; Kim Cocks; Rosie R C McEachan; Caroline Reynolds; Ian Watt; John Wright Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Andrea L Hernan; Kate Kloot; Sally J Giles; Hannah Beks; Kevin McNamara; Marley J Binder; Vincent Versace Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kathleen M Mazor; Aruna Kamineni; Douglas W Roblin; Jane Anau; Brandi E Robinson; Benjamin Dunlap; Cassandra Firneno; Thomas H Gallagher Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Rebecca Lawton; Jane Kathryn O'Hara; Laura Sheard; Gerry Armitage; Kim Cocks; Hannah Buckley; Belen Corbacho; Caroline Reynolds; Claire Marsh; Sally Moore; Ian Watt; John Wright Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Jane K O'Hara; Caroline Reynolds; Sally Moore; Gerry Armitage; Laura Sheard; Claire Marsh; Ian Watt; John Wright; Rebecca Lawton Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 7.035