Objective To determine the association between poor sleep quality, fatigue, and self-reported safety outcomes among Emergency Medical Services (EMS) workers. Methods We used convenience sampling of EMS agencies and a cross-sectional survey design. We administered the 19-item Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), 11-item Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), and 44-item EMS Safety Inventory (EMS-SI) to measure sleep quality, fatigue, and safety outcomes, respectively. We used a consensus process to develop the EMS-SI, which was designed to capture three composite measurements of EMS worker injury, medical errors and adverse events (AE), and safety compromising behaviors. We used hierarchical logistic regression to test the association between poor sleep quality, fatigue, and three composite measures of EMS worker safety outcomes. Results We received 547 surveys from 30 EMS agencies (a 35.6% mean agency response rate). The mean PSQI score exceeded the benchmark for poor sleep (6.9, 95%CI 6.6, 7.2). Greater than half of respondents were classified as fatigued (55%, 95%CI 50.7, 59.3). Eighteen percent of respondents reported an injury (17.8%, 95%CI 13.5, 22.1), forty-one percent a medical error or AE (41.1%, 95%CI 36.8, 45.4), and 89% (95%CI 87, 92) safety compromising behaviors. After controlling for confounding, we identified 1.9 greater odds of injury (95%CI 1.1, 3.3), 2.2 greater odds of medical error or AE (95%CI 1.4, 3.3), and 3.6 greater odds of safety compromising behavior (95%CI 1.5, 8.3) among fatigued respondents versus non-fatigued respondents. Conclusions In this sample of EMS workers, poor sleep quality and fatigue is common. We provide preliminary evidence of an association between sleep quality, fatigue, and safety outcomes.

Background Despite over a decade of efforts to reduce the adverse event rate in healthcare, the rate has remained relatively unchanged. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a process used by hospitals in an attempt to reduce adverse event rates; however, the outputs of this process have not been well studied in healthcare. This study aimed to examine the types of solutions proposed in RCAs over an 8-year period at a major academic medical institution. Methods All state-reportable adverse events were gathered, and those for which an RCA was performed were analysed. A consensus rating process was used to determine a severity rating for each case. A qualitative approach was used to categorise the types of solutions proposed by the RCA team in each case and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results 302 RCAs were reviewed. The most common event types involved a procedure complication, followed by cardiopulmonary arrest, neurological deficit and retained foreign body. In 106 RCAs, solutions were proposed. A large proportion (38.7%) of RCAs with solutions proposed involved a patient death. Of the 731 proposed solutions, the most common solution types were training (20%), process change (19.6%) and policy reinforcement (15.2%). We found that multiple event types were repeated in the study period, despite repeated RCAs. Conclusions This study found that the most commonly proposed solutions were weaker actions, which were less likely to decrease event recurrence. These findings support recent attempts to improve the RCA process and to develop guidance for the creation of effective and sustainable solutions to be used by RCA teams.

BackgroundInterest in human factors has increased across healthcare communities and institutions as the value of human centred design in healthcare becomes increasingly clear. However, as human factors is becoming more prominent, there is growing evidence of confusion about human factors science, both anecdotally and in scientific literature. Some of the misconceptions about human factors may inadvertently create missed opportunities for healthcare improvement.MethodsThe objective of this article is to describe the scientific discipline of human factors and provide common ground for partnerships between healthcare and human factors communities.ResultsThe primary goal of human factors science is to promote efficiency, safety and effectiveness by improving the design of technologies, processes and work systems. As described in this article, human factors also provides insight on when training is likely (or unlikely) to be effective for improving patient safety. Finally, we outline human factors specialty areas that may be particularly relevant for improving healthcare delivery and provide examples to demonstrate their value.ConclusionsThe human factors concepts presented in this article may foster interdisciplinary collaborations to yield new, sustainable solutions for healthcare quality and patient safety.

The usability of electronic health records (EHRs) continues to be a point of dissatisfaction for providers, despite certification requirements from the Office of the National Coordinator that require EHR vendors to employ a user-centered design (UCD) process. To better understand factors that contribute to poor usability, a research team visited 11 different EHR vendors in order to analyze their UCD processes and discover the specific challenges that vendors faced as they sought to integrate UCD with their EHR development. Our analysis demonstrates a diverse range of vendors' UCD practices that fall into 3 categories: well-developed UCD, basic UCD, and misconceptions of UCD. Specific challenges to practicing UCD include conducting contextually rich studies of clinical workflow, recruiting participants for usability studies, and having support from leadership within the vendor organization. The results of the study provide novel insights for how to improve usability practices of EHR vendors.

To characterize the variability in usability and safety of EHRs from two vendors across four healthcare systems (2 Epic and 2 Cerner). Twelve to 15 emergency medicine physicians participated from each site and completed six clinical scenarios. Keystroke, mouse click, and video data were collected. From the six scenarios, two diagnostic imaging, laboratory, and medication tasks were analyzed. There was wide variability in task completion time, clicks, and error rates. For certain tasks, there were an average of a nine-fold difference in time and eight-fold difference in clicks. Error rates varied by task (X-ray 16.7% to 25%, MRI: 0 to 10%, Lactate: 0% to 14.3%, Tylenol: 0 to 30%; Taper: 16.7% to 50%). The variability in time, clicks, and error rates highlights the need for improved implementation optimization. EHR implementation, in addition to vendor design and development, is critical to usable and safe products.

Background Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) frequently experience adverse drug events involving intravenous medications (IV-ADEs), which are often preventable. Objectives To determine how frequently preventable IV-ADEs in ICUs match the safety features of a programmable infusion pump with safety software (“smart pump”) and to suggest potential improvements in smart-pump design. Design Using retrospective medical-record review, we examined preventable IV-ADEs in ICUs before and after 2 hospitals replaced conventional pumps with smart pumps. The smart pumps alerted users when programmed to deliver duplicate infusions or continuous-infusion doses outside hospital-defined ranges. Participants 4,604 critically ill adults at 1 academic and 1 nonacademic hospital. Measurements Preventable IV-ADEs matching smart-pump features and errors involved in preventable IV-ADEs. Results Of 100 preventable IV-ADEs identified, 4 involved errors matching smart-pump features. Two occurred before and 2 after smart-pump implementation. Overall, 29% of preventable IV-ADEs involved overdoses; 37%, failures to monitor for potential problems; and 45%, failures to intervene when problems appeared. Error descriptions suggested that expanding smart pumps’ capabilities might enable them to prevent more IV-ADEs. Conclusion The smart pumps we evaluated are unlikely to reduce preventable IV-ADEs in ICUs because they address only 4% of them. Expanding smart-pump capabilities might prevent more IV-ADEs.

No abstract

EMS screening of older adults during emergency responses is feasible, but a simple intervention of providing educational materials to patients during emergency responses and faxing notifications to physicians appears insufficient to address patients' needs.