Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Christine G Holzmueller

Publications and source records attributed to Christine G Holzmueller.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Operating room teamwork among physicians and nurses: teamwork in the eye of the beholder.

BACKGROUND: Teamwork is an important component of patient safety. In fact, communication errors are the most common cause of sentinel events and wrong-site operations in the US. Although efforts to improve patient safety through improving teamwork are growing, there is no validated tool to scientifically measure teamwork in the surgical setting. STUDY DESIGN: Operating room personnel in 60 hospitals were surveyed using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. Surgeons, anesthesiologists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and operating room nurses rated their own peers and each other using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high). RESULTS: Overall response rate was 77.1% (2,135 of 2,769). Ratings of teamwork differed substantially by operating room caregiver type, with the greatest differences in ratings shown by physicians: surgeons (F[4, 2058] = 41.73, p < 0.001), and anesthesiologists (F[4, 1990] = 53.15, p < 0.001). The percent of operating room caregivers rating the quality of collaboration and communication as "high" or "very high" was different by caregiver role and whether they were rating a peer or another type of caregiver: surgeons rated other surgeons "high" or "very high" 85% of the time, and nurses rated their collaboration with surgeons "high" or "very high" only 48% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable discrepancies in perceptions of teamwork exist in the operating room, with physicians rating the teamwork of others as good, but at the same time, nurses perceive teamwork as mediocre. Given the importance of communication and collaboration in patient safety, health care organizations should measure teamwork using a scientifically valid method. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire can be used to measure teamwork, identify disconnects between or within disciplines, and evaluate interventions aimed at improving patient safety.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2006

Toward learning from patient safety reporting systems.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the frequency and type of factors involved in incidents reported to a patient safety reporting system and answer specific questions to enhance the value of PSRS data to improve patient safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study of incidents reported from adult and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) in the United States to the web-based, voluntary, and anonymous Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System. Results from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2004. Main outcome variables were incidents that could or did lead to patient harm. RESULTS: Analysis includes 2075 incidents from 23 ICUs. Median number of reports/ICU/month was 3; 5 hospitals submitted 58% of reports. Harm was reported in 42% of incidents with 18 deaths. Common event types: medication/therapeutics (42%) and incorrect/incomplete care delivery (20%); 48% of line/tube/drain incidents led to physical harm. Deficiencies in training/education contributed to 49% of incidents and teamwork issues 32%; 42% of incidents had 2 or more contributing factors. As the number of contributing factors per incident increased, so did risk of harm. CONCLUSIONS: The Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System provides a mechanism for multiple ICUs to identify hazards. Data trends show a correlation between multiple contributing factors and higher rates of harm. Further research is needed to help determine how to use PSRS data to improve patient safety.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

A web-based tool for the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP).

BACKGROUND: An organization's ability to change is driven by its culture, which in turn has a significant impact on safety. The six-step Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program (CUSP) is intended to improve local culture and safety. A Web-based project management tool for CUSP was developed and then pilot tested at two hospitals. HOW ECUSP WORKS: Once a patient safety concern is identified (step 3), a unit-level interdisciplinary safety committee determines issue criticality and starts up the projects (step 4), which are managed using project management tools within eCUSP (step 5). On a project's completion, the results are disseminated through a shared story (step 6). CASE STUDIES: OSF St. Joseph's Medical Center-The Medical Birthing Center (Bloomington, Illinois), identified 11 safety issues, implemented 11 projects, and created 9 shared stories--including one for its Armband Project. The Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore) Medical Progressive Care (MPC4) Unit identified 5 safety issues and implemented 4 ongoing projects, including the intravenous (IV) Tubing Compliance Project. DISCUSSION: The eCUSP tool's success depends on an organizational commitment to creating a culture of safety.

Health Facilities↗
PubMed2006

Operating room briefings: working on the same page.

This tool, which takes one or two minutes to use, provides a structured approach to promote effective interdisciplinary communication and teamwork in the operating room--or any other area, such as an intensive care unit, inpatient unit, or outpatient clinic.

Humans↗
PubMed2006

Operating room debriefings.

This tool helps assess factors that positively and negatively contributed to an adverse event, near miss, or inefficiency during an operation-or any procedure.

Efficiency, Organizational↗
PubMed2006

Teamwork in the operating room: frontline perspectives among hospitals and operating room personnel.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations is proposing that hospitals measure culture beginning in 2007. However, a reliable and widely used measurement tool for the operating room (OR) setting does not currently exist. METHODS: OR personnel in 60 US hospitals were surveyed using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. The teamwork climate domain of the survey uses six items about difficulty speaking up, conflict resolution, physician-nurse collaboration, feeling supported by others, asking questions, and heeding nurse input. To justify grouping individual-level responses to a single score at each hospital OR level, the authors used a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis, intraclass correlations, within-group interrater reliability, and Cronbach's alpha. To detect differences at the hospital OR level and by caregiver type, the authors used multivariate analysis of variance (items) and analysis of variance (scale). RESULTS: The response rate was 77.1%. There was robust evidence for grouping individual-level respondents to the hospital OR level using the diverse set of statistical tests, e.g., Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, root mean squared error of approximation = 0.05, and acceptable intraclasss correlations, within-group interrater reliability values, and Cronbach's alpha = 0.79. Teamwork climate differed significantly by hospital (F59, 1,911 = 4.06, P < 0.001) and OR caregiver type (F4, 1,911 = 9.96, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous assessment of teamwork climate is possible using this psychometrically sound teamwork climate scale. This tool and initial benchmarks allow others to compare their teamwork climate to national means, in an effort to focus more on what excellent surgical teams do well.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed2006

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

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.

Forecasting↗
PubMed2006

Team care: beyond open and closed intensive care units.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Evidence supporting dedicated intensivist staffing in intensive care units is growing. Despite clinical and economic benefits, medical staff politics and a shortage of intensivists impede the intensivist model. The purpose of this paper is to accelerate patient's exposure to the benefits of intensivists, and introduce team care in the intensive care unit. RECENT FINDINGS: The cost savings achieved through intensivist staffing range from $510,000 to $3.3 million. The intensivist model may only have been adopted by 4% of intensive care units. Barriers to implementing the model are shortage of intensivists, reimbursement for intensivists, and political will. Four attributes make the model ideal: physical presence, knowledge of critical care practice, coordination of team care, and unit management. It may be helpful to not label intensive care units as open or closed and consider team care, whereby hospitals seek to achieve the attributes of the model given their resources and culture. SUMMARY: Intensivists save lives and costs. By working toward team care, hospitals may achieve a successful intensivist model, and patients may realize the benefits of spending less for healthcare and living longer. To achieve this model, physician and hospital leaders must form a partnership.

Cost Savings↗
PubMed2005

Defining and measuring patient safety.

Despite the growing demand for improved safety in health care, debate remains regarding the magnitude of the problem and the degree to which harm is preventable. To a great extent, this debate stems from variation in the definition and methods for measuring safety, its "shadow" error, and the degree of preventability. This article reviews the definition of safety and error, discusses approaches to measuring safety, and provides a framework for investigating incidents that unveils how the systems under which care is delivered may contribute to adverse incidents.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

A system factors analysis of "line, tube, and drain" incidents in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the system factors related to "line, tube, and drain" (LTD) incidents in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Voluntary, anonymous Web-based patient safety reporting system. SETTING: Eighteen ICUs in the United States. PATIENTS: Incidents reported by ICU staff members during a 12-month period ending June 2003. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of the incidents (defined as events that could/did cause harm), patients, and patient harm were described. Separate multivariable logistic regression analyses of contributing, limiting, and preventive system factors for LTD vs. non-LTD incidents were reported. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 114 reported LTD incidents, >60% were considered preventable. One patient death was attributed to an LTD incident. Of patients experiencing LTD incidents, 56% sustained physical injury, and 23% had an anticipated increased hospital stay. Factors contributing to LTD incidents included occurrence in the operating room (odds ratio [OR], 3.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-9.83), occurrence on a holiday (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.12-11.9), patient medical complexity (OR, 3.68; 95% CI, 2.28-5.92), and age of 1-9 yrs (OR, 7.95; 95% CI, 3.29-19.2). Factors related to team communication were less likely to limit LTD incidents (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68), while clinician knowledge and skills helped prevent LTD incidents (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.09-2.97). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are harmed by preventable LTD incidents. Relative to non-LTD events, these incidents occur more frequently during holidays and in medically complex patients and children. Focusing on these contributing factors and clinician knowledge and skills is important for reducing and preventing these hazardous events.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Creating the web-based intensive care unit safety reporting system.

In an effort to improve patient safety, researchers at the Johns Hopkins University designed and implemented a comprehensive Web-based Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS). The ICUSRS collects data about adverse events and near misses from all staff in the ICU. This report reflects data on 854 reports from 18 diverse ICUs across the United States. Reporting is voluntary, and data collected is confidential, with patient, provider, and reporter information deidentified. Preliminary data include system factors reported, degree of patient harm, reporting times, and evaluations of the system. Qualitative and quantitative data are reported back to the ICU site study teams and frontline staff through monthly reports, case discussions, and a quarterly newsletter.

Computer Communication Networks↗
PubMed2004

Partnering for quality.

This article discusses efforts being made by multiple stakeholders to improve quality and safety in intensive care units (ICUs). The Leapfrog Group (Washington, DC), a consortium of purchasers, is reaching for quality by implementing safety standards. One standard, staffing ICUs with intensivists, is associated with a 30% reduction in hospital mortality and a 40% reduction in ICU mortality. While Leapfrog is addressing quality improvements on a structural level, JCAHO is developing empiric measures for ICU quality, which are being beta tested, to complement Leapfrogs' efforts. JCAHO used rigorously defined processes to develop and refine these measures. These measures include deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, peptic ulcer disease prophylaxis, catheter-related blood stream infections, mortality and length of stay-APACHE III risk adjustment. Finally, ICU providers at Hopkins implemented an 8-step unit-based safety program. This comprehensive program is run at the unit level, works to improve safety culture, addresses staff safety concerns, partners hospital leaders with unit workers, helps staff implement improvement initiatives, uses rigorous data collection methods, and easily disseminated in other clinical areas. Providers can frame their efforts after 3 fundamental concepts from these initiatives: create a culture that supports quality and safety, standardize work processes by reducing complexity and using independent redundancy, and automate. The take home message is, when we come to work every day, we must be committed to quality and safety, and lead our teams to do the same.

Hospital Mortality↗
PubMed2004

A system factors analysis of airway events from the Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contributing and limiting factors for airway events reported in the Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS) developed in partnership with the Society of Critical Care Medicine. DESIGN: Analysis of system factors in airway vs. nonairway events reported to a voluntary, anonymous, Web-based patient safety reporting system (the ICUSRS). SETTING: Sixteen adult and two pediatric intensive care units (ICU) across the United States. PATIENTS: Incidents reported during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2003. INTERVENTIONS: None MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive characteristics of incidents (defined as events that could have, or did, cause harm), patients, and patient harm; separate multivariable logistic regression analyses of contributing and limiting factors for airway vs. nonairway events. MAIN RESULTS: There were 78 airway and 763 nonairway events reported. More than half of airway events were considered preventable. One patient death was attributed to an airway event. Physical injury, increased hospital length of stay, and family dissatisfaction occurred in at least 20% of airway events. Important factors contributing to reported airway events (odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI)) included patients' medical condition (5.24, 3.07-8.95) and age <1 yr old (4.15, 1.79-9.59). Factors limiting the impact of airway events (OR, 95% CI) included adequate ICU staffing (3.60, 1.71-7.56) and use of skilled assistants (3.20, 1.62-6.32). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are harmed by unintended and preventable incidents involving airway management. Prevention efforts should focus on critically ill infants and patients with complex medical conditions. Managers should ensure appropriate ICU staffing to limit the impact of airway events when they occur.

Adolescent↗