From the Centre of Medical Informatics, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh.
College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec 1;17(8):e1383-e1393. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000530.
In recent decades, there has been considerable international attention aimed at improving the safety of hospital care, and more recently, this attention has broadened to include primary medical care. In contrast, the safety profile of primary care dentistry remains poorly characterized.
We aimed to describe the types of primary care dental patient safety incidents reported within a national incident reporting database and understand their contributory factors and consequences.
We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods study, which involved analysis of a weighted randomized sample of the most severe incident reports from primary care dentistry submitted to England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System. Drawing on a conceptual literature-derived model of patient safety threats that we previously developed, we developed coding frameworks to describe and conduct thematic analysis of free text incident reports and determine the relationship between incident types, contributory factors, and outcomes.
Of 2000 reports sampled, 1456 were eligible for analysis. Sixty types of incidents were identified and organized across preoperative (40.3%, n = 587), intraoperative (56.1%, n = 817), and postoperative (3.6%, n = 52) stages. The main sources of unsafe care were delays in treatment (344/1456, 23.6%), procedural errors (excluding wrong-tooth extraction) (227/1456; 15.6%), medication-related adverse incidents (161/1456, 11.1%), equipment failure (90/1456, 6.2%) and x-ray related errors (87/1456, 6.0%). Of all incidents that resulted in a harmful outcome (n = 77, 5.3%), more than half were due to wrong tooth extractions (37/77, 48.1%) mainly resulting from distraction of the dentist. As a result of this type of incident, 34 of the 37 patients (91.9%) examined required further unnecessary procedures.
Flaws in administrative processes need improvement because they are the main cause for patients experiencing delays in receiving treatment. Checklists and standardization of clinical procedures have the potential to reduce procedural errors and avoid overuse of services. Wrong-tooth extractions should be addressed through focused research initiatives and encouraging policy development to mandate learning from serious dental errors like never events.
近几十年来,国际社会一直高度关注提高医院护理安全水平,最近,这一关注范围扩大到初级医疗保健。相比之下,初级保健牙科的安全状况仍未得到充分描述。
我们旨在描述在国家事件报告数据库中报告的初级保健牙科患者安全事件的类型,并了解其促成因素和后果。
我们进行了一项横断面混合方法研究,涉及对英格兰和威尔士国家报告和学习系统提交的最严重事件报告的加权随机样本进行分析。我们借鉴了我们之前开发的患者安全威胁概念文献衍生模型,开发了编码框架来描述和进行主题分析自由文本事件报告,并确定事件类型、促成因素和结果之间的关系。
在 2000 份抽样报告中,有 1456 份符合分析条件。确定了 60 种类型的事件,并根据术前(40.3%,n=587)、术中(56.1%,n=817)和术后(3.6%,n=52)阶段进行了分类。不安全护理的主要来源是治疗延误(344/1456,23.6%)、程序错误(不包括错误拔牙)(227/1456;15.6%)、药物相关不良事件(161/1456,11.1%)、设备故障(90/1456,6.2%)和 X 射线相关错误(87/1456,6.0%)。所有导致不良后果的事件(n=77,5.3%)中,超过一半是由于错误拔牙(37/77,48.1%),主要是由于牙医分心所致。由于这类事件,37 名患者中的 34 名(91.9%)需要接受进一步的不必要程序。
行政流程中的缺陷需要改进,因为它们是导致患者治疗延误的主要原因。检查表和临床程序的标准化有可能减少程序错误并避免过度使用服务。应通过重点研究举措和鼓励制定政策来解决错误拔牙问题,要求从类似永不发生的严重牙科错误中吸取教训。