Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39089742›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2024

Mixed methods evaluation of a specialty-specific system to promote physician engagement in safety and quality reporting in a large academic health system.

Anna Sophia Lessios, Stacie Vilendrer, Ashley Peterson, Cati Brown-Johnson, Samantha M R Kling, Darlene Veruttipong, Michelle Arteaga, Daniel Gessner, William John Gostic

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anna Sophia LessiosMedicine, Primary Care and Population Health Division, Evaluation Sciences Unit, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA aslessios@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3493-0540
Stacie VilendrerMedicine, Primary Care and Population Health Division, Evaluation Sciences Unit, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Ashley PetersonDepartment of Anesthesia, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford Health Care, Stanford, California, USA.
Cati Brown-JohnsonMedicine, Primary Care and Population Health Division, Evaluation Sciences Unit, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5415-3665
Samantha M R KlingMedicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9169-763X
Darlene VeruttipongDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Michelle ArteagaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative & Pain Medicine, Stanford Health Care, Stanford, California, USA.
Daniel GessnerInternal Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA.
William John GosticDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative & Pain Medicine, Stanford Health Care, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncident reporting systems (IRS) can improve care quality and patient safety, yet their impact is limited by clinician engagement. Our objective was to assess barriers to reporting in a hospital-wide IRS and use data to inform ongoing improvement of a specialty-specific IRS embedded in the electronic health record targeting anaesthesiologists.

methodsThis quality improvement (QI) evaluation used mixed methods, including qualitative interviews, faculty surveys and user data from the specialty-specific IRS. We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews from January to May 2023 in a large academic health system in Northern California. Participants included adult and paediatric anaesthesiologists, operating room nurses, surgeons and QI operators, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. We identified key themes and factors influencing engagement, which were classified using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety framework. We surveyed hospital anaesthesiologists in January and May 2023, and characterised the quantity and type of reports submitted to the new system.

resultsParticipants shared organisation and technology-related barriers to engagement in traditional system-wide IRSs, many of which the specialty-specific IRS addressed-specifically those related to technological access to the system. Barriers related to building psychological safety for those who report remain. Survey results showed that most barriers to reporting improved following the specialty-specific IRS launch, but limited time remained an ongoing barrier (25 respondents out of 44, 56.8%). A total of 964 reports with quality/safety concerns were submitted over the first 8 months of implementation; 47-76 unique anaesthesiologists engaged per month. The top safety quality categories of concern were equipment and technology (25.9%), clinical complications (25.3%) and communication and scheduling (19.9%).

conclusionsThese findings suggest that a specialty-specific IRS can facilitate increased physician engagement in quality and safety reporting and complement existing system-wide IRSs.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyQuality ImprovementAcademic Medical CentersAdultCaliforniaHumansInterviews as TopicMalePhysician EngagementPhysiciansQualitative ResearchRisk ManagementSurveys and QuestionnairesElectronic Health RecordsHealth services researchQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID39089742
PMCPMC11293395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.