scholarly journals Desirable Features of an Interdisciplinary Handoff

JMIR Nursing ◽  
10.2196/18914 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e18914
Author(s):  
Anupam Ashutosh Sule ◽  
Dean Caputo ◽  
Jaskaren Gohal ◽  
Doug Dascenzo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Information ◽  
Patient Handoffs ◽  
Nursing Teams

Failure of communication of critical information during handoffs is one of the leading causes of medical errors, resulting in serious, yet preventable, adverse events in hospitals across the United States. Recent studies have shown that a majority of these errors occur during patient handoffs, with notable communication gaps in interdisciplinary handoffs. We suggest some features that would improve the handoff usability and effectiveness for interdisciplinary medical and nursing teams while potentially improving patient safety.

scholarly journals Desirable Features of an Interdisciplinary Handoff (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupam Ashutosh Sule ◽  
Dean Caputo ◽  
Jaskaren Gohal ◽  
Doug Dascenzo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Information ◽  
Patient Handoffs ◽  
Nursing Teams

UNSTRUCTURED Failure of communication of critical information during handoffs is one of the leading causes of medical errors, resulting in serious, yet preventable, adverse events in hospitals across the United States. Recent studies have shown that a majority of these errors occur during patient handoffs, with notable communication gaps in interdisciplinary handoffs. We suggest some features that would improve the handoff usability and effectiveness for interdisciplinary medical and nursing teams while potentially improving patient safety.

How will state medical boards handle cases involving disclosure and apology for medical errors?

2022 ◽  
pp. 251604352110700
Author(s):  
Doug Wojcieszak
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Completion Rate ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
State Medical Boards ◽  
American State

Surveys were sent to 68 American state medical boards, including territories of the United States, inquiring how they handle—or will handle—cases involving disclosure and apology after medical errors. Surveys were not sent to specialty boards. Thirty-eight state medical boards ( n  =  38, 56%) responded to the survey, with 31 completing the survey (46% completion rate) and seven boards ( n  =  7) providing explanations for nonparticipation and other thoughts; 30 boards did not respond in any manner. Boards that completed the survey indicated that disclosure and apology and other positive post-event behavior by physicians are likely to be viewed favorably and disclosing physicians will not be easy targets for disciplinary measures, though boards also stressed they view each case on the merits and patient safety is their top priority. Recommendations are made for policy makers and other stakeholders.

scholarly journals Common Barriers to Reporting Medical Errors

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Salim Aljabari ◽  
Zuhal Kadhim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Cause Of Death ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Work Climate ◽  
The Third ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Common Barriers

Background. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States. Reporting of all medical errors is important to better understand the problem and to implement solutions based on root causes. Underreporting of medical errors is a common and a challenging obstacle in the fight for patient safety. The goal of this study is to review common barriers to reporting medical errors. Methods. We systematically reviewed the literature by searching the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases for studies on barriers to reporting medical errors. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guideline was followed in selecting eligible studies. Results. Thirty studies were included in the final review, 8 of which were from the United States. The majority of the studies used self-administered questionnaires (75%) to collect data. Nurses were the most studied providers (87%), followed by physicians (27%). Fear of consequences is the most reported barrier (63%), followed by lack of feedback (27%) and work climate/culture (27%). Barriers to reporting were highly variable between different centers.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab in patients with migraine and inadequate response to prior preventive treatment: subgroup analyses by country of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Egilius L. H. Spierings ◽  
Mikko Kärppä ◽  
Xiaoping Ning ◽  
Joshua M. Cohen ◽  
Verena Ramirez Campos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Least Squares ◽  
The United States ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Monthly Average ◽  
Preventive Medication ◽  
Subgroup Analyses

Abstract Background The FOCUS study evaluated the efficacy of migraine preventive medications across different countries within the same patient population, particularly for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine. These prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated efficacy by country in the FOCUS study of fremanezumab in adults with episodic migraine or chronic migraine and documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication classes. Methods Overall, 838 participants were enrolled in the FOCUS study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b study performed at 104 sites. For 12 weeks of double-blind treatment, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in monthly average migraine days over 12 weeks of double-blind treatment, evaluated by country in these subgroup analyses. Results Of 14 countries contributing data, the Czech Republic (n = 188/838; 22%), the United States (n = 120/838; 14%), and Finland (n = 85/838; 10%) enrolled the most patients. Changes from baseline in monthly average migraine days over 12 weeks were significantly greater with fremanezumab versus placebo for patients in these countries: Czech Republic (least-squares mean difference versus placebo [95% confidence interval]: quarterly fremanezumab, − 1.9 [− 3.25, − 0.47]; P = 0.009; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.0 [− 4.39, − 1.59]; P < 0.001), the United States (quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.7 [− 5.77, − 1.58]; P < 0.001; monthly fremanezumab, − 4.2 [− 6.23, − 2.13]; P < 0.001), and Finland (quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.0 [− 5.32, − 0.63]; P = 0.014; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.9 [− 6.27, − 1.44]; P = 0.002). Results were comparable for the remaining 9 countries, with the least-squares mean difference versus placebo ranging from – 5.6 to – 2.4 with quarterly fremanezumab and from − 5.3 to − 1.5 with monthly fremanezumab. Incidences of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were low and comparable across countries and treatment groups. Conclusions Monthly and quarterly fremanezumab significantly reduced the monthly average number of migraine days versus placebo regardless of country and continent (North America versus Europe) in migraine patients with documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication classes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03308968.

Narrowing the mindware gap in medicine

Diagnosis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pat Croskerry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cognitive Performance ◽  
Clinical Reasoning ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
Medical Error ◽  
Causes Of Death ◽  
The United States ◽  
Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
Medical Educators ◽  
High Degree

Abstract Medical error is now recognized as one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Of the medical errors, diagnostic failure appears to be the dominant contributor, failing in a significant number of cases, and associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. One of the significant contributors to diagnostic failure is the cognitive performance of the provider, how they think and decide about the process of diagnosis. This thinking deficit in clinical reasoning, referred to as a mindware gap, deserves the attention of medical educators. A variety of specific approaches are outlined here that have the potential to close the gap.

Serious Adverse Events Reported with Dietary Supplement Use in the United States: A 2.5 Year Experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Schmitz ◽  
Hector L. Lopez ◽  
Douglas Mackay ◽  
Haiuyen Nguyen ◽  
Paula E. Miller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Dietary Supplement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Supplement Use ◽  
Dietary Supplement Use

scholarly journals Association of Gabapentinoids With the Risk of Opioid-Related Adverse Events in Surgical Patients in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (12) ◽  
pp. e2031647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsiaryna Bykov ◽  
Brian T. Bateman ◽  
Jessica M. Franklin ◽  
Seanna M. Vine ◽  
Elisabetta Patorno
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
The United States ◽  
Surgical Patients

Research Methods, Statistics, Patient Safety, and Quality Improvement

2020 ◽  
pp. 521-530
Author(s):  
Carlos Lerner
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
Likelihood Ratios ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Analysis Of Variation ◽  
Answer Format

The chapter on research methods, statistics, patient safety, and quality improvement (QI) uses a question-and-answer format to make concepts in these areas relevant and accessible to general pediatricians. Research topics covered include study design and study types, validity, sources of bias, types of errors, sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios, incidence and prevalence, p values and confidence intervals. The patient safety questions focus on medical errors and adverse events, including their categorization, detection, prevention, and disclosure. Finally, the QI questions address key QI principles and methods, including tools to understand systems (e.g. fishbone diagrams and Pareto charts), analysis of variation, and the Langley Model for Improvement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document