'How are we going to harm the next trauma patient?' Trauma care providers' perspective on potential harm to trauma patients.

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open Pub Date : 2025-05-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/tsaco-2024-001628
Galinos Barmparas, Bryce Rh Robinson, Babak Sarani, Aaron R Jensen, Todd W Costantini, Avery B Nathens
{"title":"'How are we going to harm the next trauma patient?' Trauma care providers' perspective on potential harm to trauma patients.","authors":"Galinos Barmparas, Bryce Rh Robinson, Babak Sarani, Aaron R Jensen, Todd W Costantini, Avery B Nathens","doi":"10.1136/tsaco-2024-001628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The question, \"How will the next patient be harmed?\" is a component of strategies used to identify latent safety risks in healthcare. We sought to survey a broad audience attending the 2023 annual conference of the American College of Surgeons-Trauma Quality Improvement Program to record their perception of the risks that might lead to patient harm at their own trauma centers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Attendees were surveyed with a single free-text question \"How are we going to harm the next patient?\" using a quick response code. All responses were categorized into clustered themes. To report the results using a standardized reporting taxonomy, the responses were also classified according to the Joint Commission (JC) patient safety event taxonomy for near misses and adverse events. Results were reported as counts and as proportions of responders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the 3-day duration of the conference, 64 participants provided 80 responses. Provider-related risk (n=16, 25.0%) was the most commonly reported category, followed closely by practice management guideline related (n=14, 21.9%) and communication gaps or failures (n=12, 18.8%). \"Clinical performance\" was the most commonly reported subclassification in the main category \"type\" of the JC patient safety event taxonomy (n=34, 53.1%), followed by patient management (n=30, 46.9%). \"Human error\" was the most common subclassification in the main category \"cause\" (n=48, 75.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Human failures, rather than systems issues, were perceived to be responsible for the majority of potential harm in trauma patients by a broad audience of trauma care providers. These results require amplified focus on strategies that decrease the impact of the human element while enhancing process standardization and addressing barriers to the implementation of processes and guidelines. It might also suggest an opportunity to bring forward alternative conceptual frameworks to advance safety in trauma care.</p>","PeriodicalId":23307,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","volume":"10 2","pages":"e001628"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12086880/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2024-001628","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The question, "How will the next patient be harmed?" is a component of strategies used to identify latent safety risks in healthcare. We sought to survey a broad audience attending the 2023 annual conference of the American College of Surgeons-Trauma Quality Improvement Program to record their perception of the risks that might lead to patient harm at their own trauma centers.

Methods: Attendees were surveyed with a single free-text question "How are we going to harm the next patient?" using a quick response code. All responses were categorized into clustered themes. To report the results using a standardized reporting taxonomy, the responses were also classified according to the Joint Commission (JC) patient safety event taxonomy for near misses and adverse events. Results were reported as counts and as proportions of responders.

Results: During the 3-day duration of the conference, 64 participants provided 80 responses. Provider-related risk (n=16, 25.0%) was the most commonly reported category, followed closely by practice management guideline related (n=14, 21.9%) and communication gaps or failures (n=12, 18.8%). "Clinical performance" was the most commonly reported subclassification in the main category "type" of the JC patient safety event taxonomy (n=34, 53.1%), followed by patient management (n=30, 46.9%). "Human error" was the most common subclassification in the main category "cause" (n=48, 75.0%).

Conclusions: Human failures, rather than systems issues, were perceived to be responsible for the majority of potential harm in trauma patients by a broad audience of trauma care providers. These results require amplified focus on strategies that decrease the impact of the human element while enhancing process standardization and addressing barriers to the implementation of processes and guidelines. It might also suggest an opportunity to bring forward alternative conceptual frameworks to advance safety in trauma care.

“我们要如何伤害下一个创伤患者?”创伤护理人员对创伤患者潜在危害的看法。
背景:“下一个患者将如何受到伤害?”是用于识别医疗保健中潜在安全风险的策略的一个组成部分。我们试图调查参加2023年美国外科医师学会创伤质量改进计划年度会议的广大受众,以记录他们对自己创伤中心可能导致患者伤害的风险的看法。方法:使用快速响应码对参会者进行问卷调查,问题为“我们将如何伤害下一个病人?”所有的回答都被归类为集群主题。为了使用标准化报告分类法报告结果,响应也根据联合委员会(JC)患者安全事件分类法进行了分类,包括未遂事件和不良事件。结果以计数和应答者的比例报告。结果:在为期3天的会议期间,64名与会者提供了80份反馈。提供者相关的风险(n=16, 25.0%)是最常见的报告类别,紧随其后的是实践管理指南相关的风险(n=14, 21.9%)和沟通差距或失败(n=12, 18.8%)。在JC患者安全事件分类的主要类别“类型”中,“临床表现”是最常见的亚分类(n=34, 53.1%),其次是患者管理(n=30, 46.9%)。在主要分类“原因”中,“人为错误”是最常见的子分类(n=48, 75.0%)。结论:广泛的创伤护理提供者认为,人为失误,而不是系统问题,是造成创伤患者大部分潜在伤害的原因。这些结果需要扩大对减少人为因素影响的战略的关注,同时加强过程标准化并解决过程和指导方针实施的障碍。这也可能是一个提出替代概念框架以提高创伤护理安全性的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信