Impact of medical safety huddles on patient safety: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised study.

IF 6.5 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Meiqi Guo, Mark Bayley, Xiang Y Ye, Richard Dunbar-Yaffe, Chris Fortin, Katharyn Go, Alyssa Macedo, John Matelski, Amanda Mayo, Jordan Pelc, Lawrence R Robinson, Leahora Rotteau, Jesse Wolfstadt, Peter Cram, Lauren Linett, Christine Soong
{"title":"Impact of medical safety huddles on patient safety: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised study.","authors":"Meiqi Guo, Mark Bayley, Xiang Y Ye, Richard Dunbar-Yaffe, Chris Fortin, Katharyn Go, Alyssa Macedo, John Matelski, Amanda Mayo, Jordan Pelc, Lawrence R Robinson, Leahora Rotteau, Jesse Wolfstadt, Peter Cram, Lauren Linett, Christine Soong","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2025-019170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical safety huddles are short, structured meetings for physicians to proactively discuss and respond to profession-specific patient safety concerns, with the goal of decreasing future adverse events. Prior observational studies found associations with improved patient safety outcomes, but no randomised controlled studies have been conducted.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary objective was to determine the impact of medical safety huddles on adverse events. Secondary objectives included the fidelity of huddle implementation and the impact on patient safety culture among physicians.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial with four sequences, and each hospital site was a cluster.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Inpatient oncology, surgery and rehabilitation programmes in four academic hospitals.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Physicians in participating programmes.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Medical safety huddles were adapted for local context and implemented sequentially based on a computer-generated random sequence every 2 months after a 4-month control period. All sites remained in the intervention phase for at least 9 months.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the rate of adverse events, as determined through blinded chart audits of 912 randomly selected patients. The fidelity of implementation was assessed through the huddle attendance rate, number of safety issues raised in the huddles and number of actions taken in response. Patient safety culture was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The adjusted rate of adverse events (per 1000 patient days) in the postintervention phase was 12% lower compared with preintervention (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.98; p=0.016). The odds of having adverse events posthuddle implementation were 17% lower in the postintervention period compared with preintervention (OR intervention vs control: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.87; p<0.001). The mean huddle attendance rate at each site ranged from 30% to 85%, and the mean number of issues raised per huddle and the mean number of actions taken per huddle ranged from 1.6 to 3.1. The mean (SD) overall patient safety rating increased from 2.3 (0.53) to 2.8 (0.88), p=0.010. The mean per cent (SD) positive score for the composite measures of 'Organisational learning' increased significantly from 35% (26%) to 54% (23%), p=0.00, 'Response to error' 37% (24%) to 52% (22%), p=0.025 and 'Communication about error' 36% (28%) to 64% (42%), p=0.016 after implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Medical safety huddles decreased adverse events and may improve patient safety culture through engaging physicians.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05365516.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2025-019170","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Medical safety huddles are short, structured meetings for physicians to proactively discuss and respond to profession-specific patient safety concerns, with the goal of decreasing future adverse events. Prior observational studies found associations with improved patient safety outcomes, but no randomised controlled studies have been conducted.

Objective: The primary objective was to determine the impact of medical safety huddles on adverse events. Secondary objectives included the fidelity of huddle implementation and the impact on patient safety culture among physicians.

Design: Stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial with four sequences, and each hospital site was a cluster.

Setting: Inpatient oncology, surgery and rehabilitation programmes in four academic hospitals.

Participants: Physicians in participating programmes.

Intervention: Medical safety huddles were adapted for local context and implemented sequentially based on a computer-generated random sequence every 2 months after a 4-month control period. All sites remained in the intervention phase for at least 9 months.

Main outcome and measures: The primary outcome was the rate of adverse events, as determined through blinded chart audits of 912 randomly selected patients. The fidelity of implementation was assessed through the huddle attendance rate, number of safety issues raised in the huddles and number of actions taken in response. Patient safety culture was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety.

Results: The adjusted rate of adverse events (per 1000 patient days) in the postintervention phase was 12% lower compared with preintervention (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.98; p=0.016). The odds of having adverse events posthuddle implementation were 17% lower in the postintervention period compared with preintervention (OR intervention vs control: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.87; p<0.001). The mean huddle attendance rate at each site ranged from 30% to 85%, and the mean number of issues raised per huddle and the mean number of actions taken per huddle ranged from 1.6 to 3.1. The mean (SD) overall patient safety rating increased from 2.3 (0.53) to 2.8 (0.88), p=0.010. The mean per cent (SD) positive score for the composite measures of 'Organisational learning' increased significantly from 35% (26%) to 54% (23%), p=0.00, 'Response to error' 37% (24%) to 52% (22%), p=0.025 and 'Communication about error' 36% (28%) to 64% (42%), p=0.016 after implementation.

Conclusions and relevance: Medical safety huddles decreased adverse events and may improve patient safety culture through engaging physicians.

Trial registration number: NCT05365516.

医疗安全会议对患者安全的影响:一项楔步聚类随机研究。
背景:医疗安全会议是医生主动讨论和回应专业特定患者安全问题的简短结构化会议,目的是减少未来的不良事件。先前的观察性研究发现与改善患者安全结果相关,但尚未进行随机对照研究。目的:主要目的是确定医疗安全会议对不良事件的影响。次要目标包括会议执行的保真度和对医生患者安全文化的影响。设计:四个序列的楔形聚类随机试验,每个医院点为一个聚类。环境:四所学术医院的住院肿瘤学、外科和康复方案。参与者:参与项目的医生。干预措施:医疗安全会议根据当地情况进行调整,并在4个月的对照期后每2个月根据计算机生成的随机序列依次实施。所有试验点均处于干预阶段至少9个月。主要结局和措施:主要结局是不良事件发生率,通过对912名随机选择的患者进行盲法图表审计确定。通过座谈出勤率、座谈中提出的安全问题的数量以及在回应中采取的行动的数量来评估执行的保真度。使用医疗保健研究机构和质量医院对患者安全的调查来评估患者安全文化。结果:与干预前相比,干预后阶段调整后的不良事件发生率(每1000患者日)降低12% (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80 ~ 0.98; p=0.016)。与干预前相比,干预后的不良事件发生率降低了17%(干预vs对照组OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.80 ~ 0.87;结论和相关性:医疗安全会议减少了不良事件,并可能通过医生参与改善患者安全文化。试验注册号:NCT05365516。
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
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
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