Citations

Abstract Introduction Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is common but often underdiagnosed and undertreated. Expanding the role of primary care providers (PCPs) may improve timely diagnosis and treatment of OSA, but patients report higher positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy adherence when cared for by specialists at centers accredited by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. At Mayo Clinic, PCPs are now authorized to order home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) and subsequent therapy; HSAT is reviewed and interpreted by Sleep Medicine specialists (SMSs), but patients receive diagnoses and treatment recommendations through their PCP. This retrospective study evaluates whether patients diagnosed with OSA through primary and specialty care pathways experience comparable timeliness of care, counseling about therapeutic options, and PAP adherence. Methods Fifty-five patients were selected from each of two groups, based on whether their HSAT was ordered and initially managed by a PCP or SMS. Initial sleep metrics, PAP therapy adherence data, and other management details (treatments offered and key dates in the care pathway) were compared across groups. Results Once HSAT had been ordered, provider type was not associated with meaningful discrepancies in diagnosis and treatment timeliness; PCP-managed patients waited just one additional day after the interpretation of their HSAT to be offered treatment (p=0.025). However, consultation with Sleep Medicine introduced upfront delays caused by limited access to specialty care. The total time in the OSA care pathway, between referral to a SMS or pre-HSAT evaluation to the offering of treatment was 113 days for SMS patients versus 28 days for PCP patients (p< 0.001). Additionally, SMSs identified more co-occurring sleep disorders and discussed a broader range of treatment options with their patients, who demonstrated nightly PAP usage of 1.15 hours longer on average. Conclusion Despite differing modes of patient communication, PCPs offer timely OSA testing and diagnosis, allowing patients to bypass lengthy specialty care wait times. However, future efforts are needed to address variations in the counseling provided, and to ensure that all patients are equipped to succeed with PAP therapy. These findings support primary care pathways for uncomplicated OSA while highlighting the need for enhanced education and support to optimize patient outcomes. Support (if any)

Background: Patient safety event reporting systems are essential for identifying potential risks and improving patient outcomes. However, traditional systems frequently face issues of under-reporting, particularly concerning near-miss and no-harm events, thereby limiting opportunities for organizational learning and harm prevention. This initiative used quality improvement principles to design a new reporting system at our institution to enhance safety culture. Methods: Following extensive stakeholder feedback and multidisciplinary collaboration, a new system was implemented on July 22, 2022. Key features included streamlined reporting, centralized data analysis, and enhanced transparency. Results: Overall event reporting as well as proportional reporting of near-miss and no-harm events increased significantly from around 60% preimplementation to 80% after implementation. Staff engagement also improved, as shown by a steady rise in the number of unique event reporters and reviewers. Conclusions: The new reporting system has improved reporting overall, with increases in near-miss and no-harm events, along with increased staff engagement with the reporting and review process. Our experience offers practical lessons for institutions seeking to strengthen the learning value of event reporting systems. The principles we identified with simplifying ease of use, integrating into the EHR, improving data transparency, and encouraging greater involvement with event review, along with clear oversight protocols, apply beyond our institution and are not limited to a specific PSRS product or system. These initial outcomes support a culture of safety and bolster organizational learning, with future study needed on long-term effects on patient safety outcomes, staff involvement, and increased trust.

Objectives: A framework of high-reliability principles was used to identify, investigate, and mitigate infusion pump safety concerns at a large, multisite health care system. We developed a systematic approach to address challenges associated with overinfusions, underinfusions, and the inability to clear upstream occlusion alarms. We identified 112,875 upstream occlusion events for 389,604 infusion starts (failure rate, 29%) within 6 months. Methods: Five high-reliability principles were applied to infusion pump management. Preoccupation with failure emphasized reporting safety concerns and performing appropriate clinical and bench tests. Deference to expertise prompted the development of a multidisciplinary team with internal and external partners. Sensitivity to operations prompted assessment of human factors design, with simulations and analysis of medication-specific factors (e.g., viscosity; infusion rates). Reluctance to simplify prompted assessment of tubing characteristics (e.g., concentricity; wall thickness) with micro–computed tomography and process development for removing faulty equipment. Practice of resilience ensured ongoing engagement and commitment to a culture of safety and patient advocacy. Results: The multidisciplinary oversight team prompted a national recall, removal of malfunctioning pumps, and development of system-wide training and mitigation protocols. Despite ongoing pump challenges, our team optimized internal patient safety systems and processes. The cause of these malfunctions remains under investigation, but serious patient harm has been prevented. Conclusions: Key strategies for enhancing patient safety were continuous vigilance, interdisciplinary collaboration, and embracing complexity in a large health care organization. Future directions involve deeply integrating these high-reliability principles across all aspects of health care delivery to continue improving safety and quality outcomes.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unique challenges to healthcare systems, particularly in relation to patient safety and adverse events during hospitalization. There is limited understanding of COVID-19’s association with some patient safety indicators (PSIs). Objectives This study aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 infection on the rate of PSI-3 events and its implications on quality metrics. We compared PSI-3 event rates between COVID-19–infected and uninfected patients and examined the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients experiencing PSI-3 events. Methods This is a retrospective study at Mayo Clinic hospitals between January 2020 and February 2022, analyzing patients meeting PSI-3 denominator eligibility criteria. PSI-3 events were identified using AHRQ WinQI software. Patients were categorized based on COVID-19 status. Patient demographics, characteristics, and PSI-3 rates were compared. A case series analysis described clinical details of COVID-19 patients with PSI-3 events. Results Of 126,781 encounters meeting PSI-3 criteria, 8674 (6.8%) had acute COVID-19 infection. COVID-19–infected patients were older, more likely to be male, non-white, and had private insurance. PSI-3 rates were significantly higher in COVID-19 patients (0.21% versus 0.06%, P < 0.0001), even after risk adjustment (adjusted risk ratio, 3.24, P < 0.0001). The case series of 17 COVID-19 patients with PSI-3 events showed distinctive clinical characteristics, including higher medical device–related pressure injuries, and greater predisposition for head, face, and neck region. Conclusions Acute COVID-19 infection correlates with higher PSI-3 event rates. Current quality indicators may require adaptation to address the pandemic’s complexities and impact on patient safety. Further research is needed to comprehensively understand the intricate relationship between COVID-19 and patient outcomes.

Objectives Patient safety incident reporting in our institution’s intensive care units (ICUs) had fallen 30% below national benchmarks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Underreporting diminishes awareness of risks and precludes organizational learning from near misses. We aimed to increase the ICU number of patient safety incident reports by 30% from 27 to 35 reports/1000 patient-days without negatively impacting culture of safety as measured by patient-care staff surveys. Methods Single-institution prospective interventional study with 9 ICUs receiving a multifaceted intervention developed using quality improvement methodology during February–April 2022. Study intervention involved creation of patient safety peer-leadership role, feedback process, interactive dashboards for patient safety data, and education resources accessible via quick response codes. Primary outcome was patient safety incident reports/1000 patient-days. Intensive care unit patient-care staff culture of safety was assessed with surveys. Results Intensive care unit patient safety incident reporting increased by 48% after intervention (40 versus 27 reports/1000 patient-days [P = 0.136]). Near misses were the most common incident report. Intensive care unit patient-care staff ratings of patient safety did not change; 80% rated patient safety as good or better after intervention versus 78% at baseline (P = 0.465). However, significant improvement was observed for subcomponents related to learning culture and support for staff involved in patient safety incidents. Most reports (>80%) were submitted by nurses. Conclusions This multifaceted quality improvement intervention increased patient safety incident reporting in the ICUs. Increases in ratings of learning culture and support for staff underline the importance of a well-functioning patient safety incident reporting system in an institutional culture of safety.