Patient Safety Metrics Monitoring Across Harvard-Affiliated Hospitals: A Mixed Methods Study.

IF 2.3 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Hojjat Salmasian, Astrid Van Wilder, Michelle Frits, Christine Iannaccone, Merranda Logan, Jonathan P Zebrowski, David Shahian, Mitchell Rein, David Levine, David W Bates
{"title":"Patient Safety Metrics Monitoring Across Harvard-Affiliated Hospitals: A Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Hojjat Salmasian, Astrid Van Wilder, Michelle Frits, Christine Iannaccone, Merranda Logan, Jonathan P Zebrowski, David Shahian, Mitchell Rein, David Levine, David W Bates","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjq.2025.05.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The past two decades have seen a surge in available patient safety metrics. However, the variability in how health care organizations choose and monitor these metrics remains unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors cataloged the metrics organizations chose and how actively they monitored them. Factors influencing the monitoring of patient safety metrics were investigated using surveys and in-depth interviews with patient safety experts from 11 Harvard-affiliated organizations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-four individuals across 11 sites helped complete the surveys, with a mean of 2.5 representatives from each site interviewed. Significant variability in active monitoring of safety metrics was observed across different sites. Overall, 108 measures were monitored by at least 1 site. Agreement between sites about the choice of measures was weak (κ = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.43), ranging from κ = 0.13 (95% CI 0.07-0.20) for maternal safety measures to κ = 0.86 (95% CI 0.69-1.00) for measures of hospital-acquired infections. Although not all 23 mandatory measures were monitored across all sites, these had the highest likelihood of active monitoring. A substantial overlap existed in measures targeting the same safety event but with slight differences in definitions, limiting the comparability of rates across institutions. Key considerations for active monitoring included the perceived measure usefulness and measurement burden, although external mandates or internal institutional commitments were stronger motivators overall. Other contributors included access to analytics teams and platforms, registry participation, vendor investments, and strategic or leadership interests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study offers critical guidance to health policymakers on designing and mandating safety metrics. Despite high variability in metric selection, health care organizations share common themes when deciding what to actively measure.</p>","PeriodicalId":14835,"journal":{"name":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2025.05.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The past two decades have seen a surge in available patient safety metrics. However, the variability in how health care organizations choose and monitor these metrics remains unknown.

Methods: The authors cataloged the metrics organizations chose and how actively they monitored them. Factors influencing the monitoring of patient safety metrics were investigated using surveys and in-depth interviews with patient safety experts from 11 Harvard-affiliated organizations.

Results: Eighty-four individuals across 11 sites helped complete the surveys, with a mean of 2.5 representatives from each site interviewed. Significant variability in active monitoring of safety metrics was observed across different sites. Overall, 108 measures were monitored by at least 1 site. Agreement between sites about the choice of measures was weak (κ = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.43), ranging from κ = 0.13 (95% CI 0.07-0.20) for maternal safety measures to κ = 0.86 (95% CI 0.69-1.00) for measures of hospital-acquired infections. Although not all 23 mandatory measures were monitored across all sites, these had the highest likelihood of active monitoring. A substantial overlap existed in measures targeting the same safety event but with slight differences in definitions, limiting the comparability of rates across institutions. Key considerations for active monitoring included the perceived measure usefulness and measurement burden, although external mandates or internal institutional commitments were stronger motivators overall. Other contributors included access to analytics teams and platforms, registry participation, vendor investments, and strategic or leadership interests.

Conclusion: This study offers critical guidance to health policymakers on designing and mandating safety metrics. Despite high variability in metric selection, health care organizations share common themes when deciding what to actively measure.

哈佛附属医院患者安全指标监测:一项混合方法研究。
背景:过去二十年来,可用的患者安全指标激增。然而,医疗机构如何选择和监控这些指标的可变性仍然未知。方法:作者编目了组织选择的度量标准以及他们如何积极地监控这些度量标准。通过对11个哈佛附属机构的患者安全专家的调查和深度访谈,研究了影响患者安全指标监测的因素。结果:来自11个站点的84个人帮助完成了调查,平均每个站点有2.5名代表接受采访。在不同地点观察到主动监测安全指标的显著差异。总体而言,至少有一个站点监测了108项措施。不同地点对措施选择的一致性较弱(κ = 0.40, 95%可信区间[CI] 0.37-0.43),范围从孕产妇安全措施的κ = 0.13 (95% CI 0.07-0.20)到医院获得性感染措施的κ = 0.86 (95% CI 0.69-1.00)。虽然并非所有地点都监测了所有23项强制性措施,但这些措施进行主动监测的可能性最高。针对同一安全事件的措施存在大量重叠,但在定义上略有不同,限制了各机构费率的可比性。积极监测的关键考虑因素包括感知到的测量有用性和测量负担,尽管外部授权或内部机构承诺总体上是更有力的激励因素。其他贡献包括访问分析团队和平台、注册参与、供应商投资以及战略或领导兴趣。结论:本研究为卫生政策制定者设计和实施安全指标提供了重要指导。尽管在度量选择上有很大的可变性,但在决定积极度量什么时,医疗保健组织有共同的主题。
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
3.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
116
审稿时长
49 days
×
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