Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Bryan Sexton

Publications and source records attributed to J Bryan Sexton.

16 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Perceptions of safety culture vary across the intensive care units of a single institution.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether safety culture factors varied across the intensive care units (ICUs) of a single hospital, between nurses and physicians, and to explore ICU nursing directors' perceptions of their personnel's attitudes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire-ICU version, a validated, aviation industry-based safety culture survey instrument. It assesses culture across six factors: teamwork climate, perceptions of management, safety climate, stress recognition, job satisfaction, and work environment. SETTING: Four ICUs in one tertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS: All ICU personnel. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We conducted the survey from January 1 to April 1, 2003, and achieved a 70.2% response rate (318 of 453). We calculated safety culture factor mean and percent-positive scores (percentage of respondents with a mean score of > or =75 on a 0-100 scale for which 100 is best) for each ICU. We compared mean ICU scores by ANOVA and percent-positive scores by chi-square. Mean and percent-positive scores by job category were modeled using a generalized estimating equations approach and compared using Wald statistics. We asked ICU nursing directors to estimate their personnel's mean scores and generated ratios of their estimates to the actual scores.Overall, factor scores were low to moderate across all factors (range across ICUs: 43.4-74.9 mean scores, 8.6-69.4 percent positive). Mean and percent-positive scores differed significantly (p < .0083, Bonferroni correction) across ICUs, except for stress recognition, which was uniformly low. Compared with physicians, nurses had significantly lower mean working conditions and perceptions of management scores. ICU nursing directors tended to overestimate their personnel's attitudes. This was greatest for teamwork, for which all director estimates exceeded actual scores, with a mean overestimate of 16%. CONCLUSIONS: Significant safety culture variation exists across ICUs of a single hospital. ICU nursing directors tend to overestimate their personnel's attitudes, particularly for teamwork. Culture assessments based on institutional level analysis or director opinion may be flawed.

Analysis of Variance↗
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

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

A leadership framework for culture change in health care.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, Ascension Health's strategic direction sharpened the focus of its 2002 Call to Action to provide "Healthcare That Works, Healthcare That Is Safe, and Healthcare That Leaves No One Behind, for Life," Ascension Health has used a framework, the Five Cs of Culture Change, to address the call to action--comprehension (understanding the problem), compassion (spirituality and commitment), collaboration (teaming between subcultures and providers), coordination (system processes, infrastructure, and ideation), and convergence (leadership of local culture with spread and dissemination of new norms in a rapid way). THE FIVE CS OF CULTURE CHANGE AND CULTURE SURVEYS: Climate (or culture) of safety results are provided from a baseline systemwide survey of front-line caregivers' assessments of teamwork and patient safety. The findings are aggregated at the hospital level, clinical area level, and caregiver role level, and fed back to executives, managers, and front-line caregivers. The final major element of culture change, and arguably the most important, involves the leadership and fortitude necessary to stimulate convergence of the culture on a new way of doing things. CONCLUSION: Ascension Health will continue to use a systemwide culture survey for front-line assessments' of safety and teamwork across all clinical areas and to discover best practices and track progress in improving performance.

Delivery of Health Care↗
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

Patient safety in surgery.

BACKGROUND: Improving patient safety is an increasing priority for surgeons and hospitals since sentinel events can be catastrophic for patients, caregivers, and institutions. Patient safety initiatives aimed at creating a safe operating room (OR) culture are increasingly being adopted, but a reliable means of measuring their impact on front-line providers does not exist. METHODS: We developed a surgery-specific safety questionnaire (SAQ) and administered it to 2769 eligible caregivers at 60 hospitals. Survey questions included the appropriateness of handling medical errors, knowledge of reporting systems, and perceptions of safety in the operating room. MANOVA and ANOVA were performed to compare safety results by hospital and by an individual's position in the OR using a composite score. Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis was performed to validate the structure of the scale at the operating room level of analysis. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 77.1% (2135 of 2769), with a range of 57% to 100%. Factor analysis of the survey items demonstrated high face validity and internal consistency (alpha = 0.76). The safety climate scale was robust and internally consistent overall and across positions. Scores varied widely by hospital [MANOVA omnibus F (59, 1910) = 3.85, P < 0.001], but not position [ANOVA F (4, 1910) = 1.64, P = 0.16], surgeon (mean = 73.91), technician (mean = 70.26), anesthesiologist (mean = 71.57), CRNA (mean = 71.03), and nurse (mean = 70.40). The percent of respondents reporting good safety climate in each hospital ranged from 16.3% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Safety climate in surgical departments can be validly measured and varies widely among hospitals, providing the opportunity to benchmark performance. Scores on the SAQ can serve to evaluate interventions to improve patient safety.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2006

Creating high reliability in health care organizations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to present a comprehensive approach to help health care organizations reliably deliver effective interventions. CONTEXT: Reliability in healthcare translates into using valid rate-based measures. Yet high reliability organizations have proven that the context in which care is delivered, called organizational culture, also has important influences on patient safety. MODEL FOR IMPROVEMENT: Our model to improve reliability, which also includes interventions to improve culture, focuses on valid rate-based measures. This model includes (1) identifying evidence-based interventions that improve the outcome, (2) selecting interventions with the most impact on outcomes and converting to behaviors, (3) developing measures to evaluate reliability, (4) measuring baseline performance, and (5) ensuring patients receive the evidence-based interventions. The comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) is used to improve culture and guide organizations in learning from mistakes that are important, but cannot be measured as rates. CONCLUSIONS: We present how this model was used in over 100 intensive care units in Michigan to improve culture and eliminate catheter-related blood stream infections--both were accomplished. Our model differs from existing models in that it incorporates efforts to improve a vital component for system redesign--culture, it targets 3 important groups--senior leaders, team leaders, and front line staff, and facilitates change management-engage, educate, execute, and evaluate for planned interventions.

Health Facilities↗
PubMed2005

The effect of executive walk rounds on nurse safety climate attitudes: a randomized trial of clinical units[ISRCTN85147255] [corrected].

BACKGROUND: Executive walk rounds (EWRs) are a widely used but unstudied activity designed to improve safety culture in hospitals. Therefore, we measured the impact of EWRs on one important part of safety culture -- provider attitudes about the safety climate in the institution. METHODS: Randomized study of EWRs for 23 clinical units in a tertiary care teaching hospital. All providers except physicians participated. EWRs were conducted at each unit by one of six hospital executives once every four weeks for three visits. Providers were asked about their concerns regarding patient safety and what could be done to improve patient safety. Suggestions were tabulated and when possible, changes were made. Provider attitudes about safety climate measured by the Safety Climate Survey before and after EWRs. We report mean scores, percent positive scores (percentage of providers who responded four or higher on a five point scale (agree slightly or agree strongly), and the odds of EWR participants agreeing with individual survey items when compared to non-participants. RESULTS: Before EWRs the mean safety climate scores for nurses were similar in the control units and EWR units (78.97 and 76.78, P = 0.458) as were percent positive scores (64.6% positive and 61.1% positive). After EWRs the mean safety climate scores were not significantly different for all providers nor for nurses in the control units and EWR units (77.93 and 78.33, P = 0.854) and (56.5% positive and 62.7% positive). However, when analyzed by exposure to EWRs, nurses in the control group who did not participate in EWRs (n = 198) had lower safety climate scores than nurses in the intervention group who did participate in an EWR session (n = 85) (74.88 versus 81.01, P = 0.02; 52.5% positive versus 72.9% positive). Compared to nurses who did not participate, nurses in the experimental group who reported participating in EWRs also responded more favorably to a majority of items on the survey. CONCLUSION: EWRs have a positive effect on the safety climate attitudes of nurses who participate in the walk rounds sessions. EWRs are a promising tool to improve safety climate and the broader construct of safety culture.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Acute decompensation after removing a central line: practical approaches to increasing safety in the intensive care unit.

Intensive care is one of the largest, most expensive, and complex components of U.S. health care. Errors and the resulting adverse events are, however, common in intensive care units (ICUs). Theories about errors in high-risk environments, developed by aviation and other industries, provide insight into why ICUs are prone to errors. Complex systems--of which ICUs are certainly an example--are breeding grounds for errors because interdependent components interact in unexpected ways. To achieve favorable outcomes, ICUs require that many processes occur in sequence. For example, patients are cared for by many providers with varying levels of expertise across several disciplines, and these providers use highly sensitive and potentially dangerous technologies and medications. Such complex systems require careful planning, excellent teamwork and communication, and designed redundancies to recheck for proper care processes. This paper provides a practical framework for improving patient safety.

Catheterization, Central Venous↗
PubMed2004

Working together in the neonatal intensive care unit: provider perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: To elicit healthcare provider perceptions of working together in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted focus groups to elicit descriptions of how providers work together. The groups included one each of transport nurses, staff nurses, residents, fellows, attending physicians and two multiple provider groups. To identify themes and their descriptive elements we performed qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: There were three to seven participants per group for a total sample of 36. Provider responses to questions about working together centered around three major themes: (1) Provider Characteristics; (2) Workplace Factors and; (3) Group Influences. Provider Characteristics were defined by personal attributes, reputation, and expertise. Workplace Factors included staffing, work organization, and work environment. Group Influences were described by communication and relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Providers in this NICU described three broad organizational and interpersonal factors that influence how they work together, yet no consistent descriptions of teams or teamwork were found. The organizational factors, often far removed from bedside, should be considered when evaluating how providers work together.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Discrepant attitudes about teamwork among critical care nurses and physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To measure and compare critical care physicians' and nurses' attitudes about teamwork. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Eight nonsurgical intensive care units in two teaching and four nonteaching hospitals in the Houston, TX, metropolitan area. SUBJECTS: Physicians and nurses who worked in the intensive care units. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three hundred twenty subjects (90 physicians and 230 nurses) responded to the survey. The response rate was 58% (40% for physicians and 71% for nurses). Only 33% of nurses rated the quality of collaboration and communication with the physicians as high or very high. In contrast, 73% of physicians rated collaboration and communication with nurses as high or very high. By using factor analysis, we developed a seven-item teamwork scale. Multivariate analysis of variance of the items yielded an omnibus ( [7, 163] = 8.37; p <.001), indicating that physicians and nurses perceive their teamwork climate differently. Analysis of individual items revealed that relative to physicians, nurses reported that it is difficult to speak up, disagreements are not appropriately resolved, more input into decision making is needed, and nurse input is not well received. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care physicians and nurses have discrepant attitudes about the teamwork they experience with each other. As evidenced by individual item content, this discrepancy includes suboptimal conflict resolution and interpersonal communication skills. These findings may be the result of the differences in status/authority, responsibilities, gender, training, and nursing and physician cultures.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Engaging nurses in patient safety.

Critical care nurses can be instrumental in developing and implementing changes to improve patient safety. Targeted interventions, based on nurse-identified issues, can yield measurable results. There were several keys to engaging and sustaining nurses in this effort. Leaders at all levels of the organization consistently demonstrated their enthusiasm and support for every aspect of the initiative. Topics addressed-clarification of orders, establishing care protocols, strengthening chain of command, improving staff levels and staff education, and eliminating the overflow of nonspecialty patients to specialty units-arose from suggestions made by nurses through formal surveys, informal focus groups, clinical practice groups, or root cause analyses. Progress is measured, and feedback is frequent. The culture remains one of collaboration and continuous problem solving with nurses viewed as central to the process.

Cooperative Behavior↗