Cargando…

Comparing the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop with an established incident reporting system: Study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Incident reporting is widely used in hospitals to improve patient safety, but current reporting systems do not function optimally. The utility of incident reports is limited because hospital staff may not know what to report, may fear retaliation, and may doubt whether administrators wil...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berdahl, Carl T., Henreid, Andrew J., Cohen, Tara N., Coleman, Bernice L., Seferian, Edward G., Leang, Donna, Kim, Sungjin, Diniz, Marcio A., Grissinger, Matthew, Kaiser, Karen, McCleskey, Sara, Zhu, Xi, Nuckols, Teryl K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10393596/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538195
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101192
_version_ 1785083194575421440
author Berdahl, Carl T.
Henreid, Andrew J.
Cohen, Tara N.
Coleman, Bernice L.
Seferian, Edward G.
Leang, Donna
Kim, Sungjin
Diniz, Marcio A.
Grissinger, Matthew
Kaiser, Karen
McCleskey, Sara
Zhu, Xi
Nuckols, Teryl K.
author_facet Berdahl, Carl T.
Henreid, Andrew J.
Cohen, Tara N.
Coleman, Bernice L.
Seferian, Edward G.
Leang, Donna
Kim, Sungjin
Diniz, Marcio A.
Grissinger, Matthew
Kaiser, Karen
McCleskey, Sara
Zhu, Xi
Nuckols, Teryl K.
author_sort Berdahl, Carl T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Incident reporting is widely used in hospitals to improve patient safety, but current reporting systems do not function optimally. The utility of incident reports is limited because hospital staff may not know what to report, may fear retaliation, and may doubt whether administrators will review reports and respond effectively. METHODS: This is a clustered randomized controlled trial of the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop, an intervention designed to transform hospital incident reporting systems into effective tools for improving patient safety. The SAFE Loop has six key attributes: obtaining nurses' input about which safety problems to prioritize on their unit; focusing on learning about selected high-priority events; training nurses to write more informative event reports; prompting nurses to report high-priority events; integrating information about events from multiple sources; and providing feedback to nurses on findings and mitigation plans. The study will focus on medication errors and randomize 20 nursing units at a large academic/community hospital in Los Angeles. Outcomes include: (1) incident reporting practices (rates of high-priority reports, contributing factors described in reports), (2) nurses' attitudes toward incident reporting, and (3) rates of high-priority events. Quantitative analyses will compare changes in outcomes pre- and post-implementation between the intervention and control nursing units, and qualitative analyses will explore nurses’ experiences with implementation. CONCLUSION: If effective, SAFE Loop will have several benefits: increasing nurses’ engagement with reporting, producing more informative reports, enabling safety leaders to understand problems, designing system-based solutions more effectively, and lowering rates of high-priority patient safety events.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10393596
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103935962023-08-03 Comparing the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop with an established incident reporting system: Study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial Berdahl, Carl T. Henreid, Andrew J. Cohen, Tara N. Coleman, Bernice L. Seferian, Edward G. Leang, Donna Kim, Sungjin Diniz, Marcio A. Grissinger, Matthew Kaiser, Karen McCleskey, Sara Zhu, Xi Nuckols, Teryl K. Contemp Clin Trials Commun Article BACKGROUND: Incident reporting is widely used in hospitals to improve patient safety, but current reporting systems do not function optimally. The utility of incident reports is limited because hospital staff may not know what to report, may fear retaliation, and may doubt whether administrators will review reports and respond effectively. METHODS: This is a clustered randomized controlled trial of the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop, an intervention designed to transform hospital incident reporting systems into effective tools for improving patient safety. The SAFE Loop has six key attributes: obtaining nurses' input about which safety problems to prioritize on their unit; focusing on learning about selected high-priority events; training nurses to write more informative event reports; prompting nurses to report high-priority events; integrating information about events from multiple sources; and providing feedback to nurses on findings and mitigation plans. The study will focus on medication errors and randomize 20 nursing units at a large academic/community hospital in Los Angeles. Outcomes include: (1) incident reporting practices (rates of high-priority reports, contributing factors described in reports), (2) nurses' attitudes toward incident reporting, and (3) rates of high-priority events. Quantitative analyses will compare changes in outcomes pre- and post-implementation between the intervention and control nursing units, and qualitative analyses will explore nurses’ experiences with implementation. CONCLUSION: If effective, SAFE Loop will have several benefits: increasing nurses’ engagement with reporting, producing more informative reports, enabling safety leaders to understand problems, designing system-based solutions more effectively, and lowering rates of high-priority patient safety events. Elsevier 2023-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10393596/ /pubmed/37538195 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101192 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Berdahl, Carl T.
Henreid, Andrew J.
Cohen, Tara N.
Coleman, Bernice L.
Seferian, Edward G.
Leang, Donna
Kim, Sungjin
Diniz, Marcio A.
Grissinger, Matthew
Kaiser, Karen
McCleskey, Sara
Zhu, Xi
Nuckols, Teryl K.
Comparing the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop with an established incident reporting system: Study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title Comparing the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop with an established incident reporting system: Study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_full Comparing the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop with an established incident reporting system: Study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Comparing the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop with an established incident reporting system: Study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop with an established incident reporting system: Study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_short Comparing the Safety Action Feedback and Engagement (SAFE) Loop with an established incident reporting system: Study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_sort comparing the safety action feedback and engagement (safe) loop with an established incident reporting system: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10393596/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538195
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101192
work_keys_str_mv AT berdahlcarlt comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT henreidandrewj comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT cohentaran comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT colemanbernicel comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT seferianedwardg comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT leangdonna comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kimsungjin comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT dinizmarcioa comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT grissingermatthew comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kaiserkaren comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mccleskeysara comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT zhuxi comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT nuckolsterylk comparingthesafetyactionfeedbackandengagementsafeloopwithanestablishedincidentreportingsystemstudyprotocolforapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial