The World Health Organization's (WHO) international classification of disease version 11 (ICD-11) contains several features which enable improved classification of patient safety events. We have identified three suggestions to facilitate adoption of ICD-11 from the patient safety perspective. One, health system leaders at national, regional, and local levels should incorporate ICD-11 into all approaches to monitor patient safety. This will allow them to take advantage of the innovative patient safety classification methods embedded in ICD-11 to overcome several limitations related to existing patient safety surveillance methods. Two, application developers should incorporate ICD-11 into software solutions. This will accelerate adoption and utility of software-enabled clinical and administrative workflows relevant to patient safety management. This is enabled as a result of the ICD-11 application programming interface (or API) developed by the WHO. Third, health system leaders should adopt the ICD-11 using a continuous improvement framework. This will help leaders at national, regional and local levels to take advantage of specific existing initiatives which will be strengthened by ICD-11, including peer review comparisons, clinician engagement, and alignment of front-line safety efforts with post marketing surveillance of medical technologies. While the investment to adopt ICD-11 will be considerable, these will be offset by reducing the ongoing costs related to a lack of accurate routine information.

Background: Trials have identified antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies that effectively reduce antibiotic use in primary care. However, many are not commonly used in England. The authors co-developed an implementation intervention to improve use of three AMS strategies: enhanced communication strategies, delayed prescriptions, and point-of-care C-reactive protein tests (POC-CRPTs).

Aim: To investigate the use of the intervention in high-prescribing practices and its effect on antibiotic prescribing.

Design and setting: Nine high-prescribing practices had access to the intervention for 12 months from November 2019. This was primarily delivered remotely via a website with practices required to identify an 'antibiotic champion'.

Method: Routinely collected prescribing data were compared between the intervention and the control practices. Intervention use was assessed through monitoring. Surveys and interviews were conducted with professionals to capture experiences of using the intervention.

Results: There was no evidence that the intervention affected prescribing. Engagement with intervention materials differed substantially between practices and depended on individual champions' preconceptions of strategies and the opportunity to conduct implementation tasks. Champions in five practices initiated changes to encourage use of at least one AMS strategy, mostly POC-CRPTs; one practice chose all three. POC-CRPTs was used more when allocated to one person.

Conclusion: Clinicians need detailed information on exactly how to adopt AMS strategies. Remote, one-sided provision of AMS strategies is unlikely to change prescribing; initial clinician engagement and understanding needs to be monitored to avoid misunderstanding and suboptimal use.

Psychological safety is the concept that an individual feels comfortable asking questions, voicing ideas or concerns, and taking risks without undue fear of humiliation or criticism. In health care, psychological safety is associated with improved patient safety outcomes, increased clinician engagement, and greater creativity. A culture of psychological safety is imperative for physician well-being and satisfaction, which in turn directly affect delivery of care. For health care professionals, psychological safety creates an environment conducive to trust and openness, enabling the team to focus on high-quality care. In contrast, unprofessional behavior reduces psychological safety and threatens the culture of the organization. This patient safety/quality improvement primer considers the barriers and facilitators to psychological safety in health care; outlines principles for creating a psychologically safe environment; and presents strategies for managing conflict, microaggressions, and lapses in professionalism. Individuals and organizations share the responsibility of promoting psychological safety through proactive policies, conflict management, interventions for microaggressions, and cultivation of emotional intelligence.

Objective: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to improve health system patient safety by creating a cardiac monitoring structure aligned with national standards.

Background: Excessive alarms pose patient safety threats and are often false or clinically insignificant. The Joint Commission identified reduction of nonactionable alarms as a National Patient Safety Goal.

Methods: The conversion to structured monitoring occurred in 4 phases: 1) defining health system monitoring structure and processes; 2) co-create sessions; 3) implementation and impact analysis; and 4) ongoing evaluation and optimization.

Results: Twenty-two clinical units participated. At the conclusion of phase 4, total 30-day alarm rates decreased by 74% at the academic hospital and by 92% and 95% at the community hospitals and were sustained for 12 months.

Conclusions: Decreasing alarm frequency can be safely achieved in academic and community hospitals by creating a system-wide monitoring infrastructure and standardized processes that engage interdisciplinary teams.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to identify inpatient rehabilitation quality-of-care concepts that are best understood from the patient perspective.

Design: We conducted 12 focus groups with 95 former patients, caregivers, and rehabilitation clinicians and asked them to describe high-quality inpatient rehabilitation care.

Methods: We independently reviewed the focus group transcripts and then used an iterative process to identify the quality measure concepts identified by participants.

Results: Based on participants' comments, we identified 18 quality measure concepts: respect and dignity, clinician communication with patient, clinician communication with family, organizational culture, clinician engagement with patient, clinician engagement with family, rehabilitation goals, staff expertise, responsiveness, patient safety, physical environment, care coordination, discharge planning, patient and family education, peer support, symptom management (pain, anxiety, fatigue, sadness), sleep, and functioning.

Clinical relevance to the practice of rehabilitation nursing: Rehabilitation nurses should be aware of the quality-of-care issues that are important to patients and their caregivers.

Conclusion: Important patient-reported domains of quality of care include interpersonal relationships, patient and family engagement, care planning and delivery, access to support, and quality of life.

Background: Health service administrators are continually investigating new ways to improve the safety and quality of health services. A positive and powerful relationship between employee engagement and patient safety has been suggested in the research literature, and steps can be taken by employers to enhance engagement to improve the safety of health services, particularly considering the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Objective: The aim of this review was to explore the current literature on the impact of employee engagement on patient safety.

Methods: A review of peer-reviewed literature relating to the impact of employee engagement on patient safety within health services between January 2015 and May 2021 was conducted using Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline Complete, Scopus, Health Business Elite and Business Source Ultimate databases. A search of grey literature using the Bielefeld Academic Search Engine database was also completed.

Results: Of relevant articles, 3693 were identified, of which 15 studies were included in this review. Ten articles measured employee engagement using existing, validated tools, whereas patient safety was most frequently assessed through surveys seeking staff member's perceptions of safety or the quality of care they provide. Overall, there appeared to be a positive correlation between employee engagement and patient safety, but the strength of the relationship varied.

Conclusion: Anecdotal accounts of improving employee engagement and improving patient safety abound, and the evidence reviewed appears in agreement. However, research into the impact of employee engagement on patient safety is in its early stages. As health service managers consider the best use of funding to support safe and high-quality care, evidence to support the positive impact employee engagement has on patient safety may be useful in managing the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aim: The aim was to examine the subgroups of work engagement in frontline nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The pandemic may affect the work engagement of nurses who have direct contact with infected patients and lead to a poor quality of care. Identifying classification features of work engagement and tailoring interventions to support frontline nurses is imperative.

Design: This study utilized a cross-sectional study design.

Methods: Three hundred fifty-five nurses were enrolled in this cross-sectional study from 14 February to 15 April 2020. A latent profile analysis was performed to identify classification features of work engagement. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to examine predictors of profile membership.

Results: A four-profile model provided the best fit. The four profiles were titled 'low work engagement' (n = 99), 'high vigour-low dedication and absorption' (n = 58), 'moderate work engagement' (n = 63) and 'high work engagement' (n = 135). A regression analysis suggested that young nurses and nurses who were the only children of their family were more likely to be in the 'low work engagement' and 'high vigour-low dedication and absorption' groups.

Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of tailoring interventions for frontline supporting nurses by considering their distinct work engagement patterns, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, to improve the promotion of work satisfaction and quality of care.

Impact: This was the first study to explore the latent profiles of work engagement in frontline nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 40% of nurses were in the 'low work engagement' and 'high vigour-low dedication and absorption' groups and reported low levels of work engagement. Understanding different patterns of work engagement in frontline nurses can help nursing managers provide emotional, material and organizational support based on the features of each latent profile, which may improve the quality of care and patient safety.

Objectives: We aimed to examine associations of work engagement with self-reported concerns of having made medical errors among medical assistants.

Methods: We used cross-sectional questionnaire data from 424 medical assistants in Germany (collected between March and May 2021). The nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale assessed the subdimensions vigor, dedication, and absorption. Participants further reported whether they were concerned that they had made an important medical error in the last three months. Work engagement scores were used both as categorized variables (i.e., highest tertile vs. remaining tertiles) and continuous variables (i.e., z-scores) and their associations with concerns to have made an important medical error were examined using multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: High vigor (versus low vigor) and high dedication (versus low dedication) were associated with substantially reduced odds of expressing concerns to have made an important medical error (OR = 0.19, 95%CI = 0.04-0.85 and OR = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.07-0.88, respectively), but absorption was not (OR = 1.10, 95%CI = 0.43-2.86). Analyses with z-scores confirmed this pattern of associations for vigor and absorption, but less so for dedication (OR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.47-1.11).

Conclusions: Vigor and possibly also dedication are inversely related to concerns of having made an important medical error. Our findings may suggest that promotion of these subdimensions of work engagement may improve patient safety.

Background: Barriers for home infusion therapy central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) surveillance have not been elucidated and are needed to identify how to support home infusion CLABSI surveillance. We aimed to (1) perform a goal-directed task analysis of home infusion CLABSI surveillance, and (2) describe barriers to, facilitators for, and suggested strategies for successful home infusion CLABSI surveillance.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with team members involved in CLABSI surveillance at 5 large home infusion agencies to explore work systems used by members of the agency for home infusion CLABSI surveillance. We analyzed the transcribed interviews qualitatively for themes.

Results: Twenty-one interviews revealed 8 steps for performing CLABSI surveillance in home infusion therapy. Major barriers identified included the need for training of the surveillance staff, lack of a standardized definition, inadequate information technology support, struggles communicating with hospitals, inadequate time, and insufficient clinician engagement and leadership support.

Discussion: Staff performing home infusion CLABSI surveillance need health system resources, particularly leadership and front-line engagement, access to data, information technology support, training, dedicated time, and reports to perform tasks.

Conclusions: Building home infusion CLABSI surveillance programs will require support from home infusion leadership.

Objective: To characterize the relationship between learning environments (the educational approaches, cultural context, and settings in which teaching and learning happen) and reliability enhancing work practices (hiring, training, decision making) with employee engagement, retention, and safety climate.

Data source: We collected data using the Learning Environment and High Reliability Practices Survey (LEHRs) from 231 physicians, nurses, and technicians at 67 Veterans Affairs cardiac catheterization laboratories who care for high-risk Veterans.

Study design: The association between the average LEHRs score and employee job satisfaction, burnout, intent to leave, turnover, and safety climate were modeled in separate linear mixed effect models adjusting for other covariates.

Data collection: Participants responded to a web-only survey from August through September 2020.

Principal findings: There was a significant association between higher average LEHRs scores and (1) higher job satisfaction (2) lower burnout, (3) lower intent to leave, (4) lower cath lab turnover in the previous 12 months, and (5) higher perceived safety climate.

Conclusions: Learning environments and use of reliability enhancing work practices are potential new avenues to support satisfaction and safety climate while lowering burnout, intent to leave, and turnover in a diverse US health care workforce that serves a vulnerable and marginalized population.

Background: Job satisfaction and retention of healthcare staff remains an ongoing issue in many health systems. Huddles have been endorsed as a mechanism to improve patient safety by improving teamwork, collaboration, and communication in teams.

Aim: This study aims to synthesises the literature to investigate the impact of huddles on job satisfaction, teamwork, and work engagement in multidisciplinary healthcare teams.

Methods: Five academic databases were searched to conduct a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from January 2000 to January 2020. Articles were included if they (1) featured a daily huddle, were conducted in a healthcare setting, and involved a multidisciplinary team and (2) measured variables including job satisfaction, work engagement, or teamwork. Results were reported in accordance with the systematic synthesis without meta-analysis and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. We identified 445 articles of which 12 met the eligibility criteria and are included in this review.

Results: All 12 included studies found a predominantly positive impact on teamwork and job satisfaction. None of the studies discussed or reported evidence of the impact of huddles on work engagement. This review highlights the value of a daily multidisciplinary healthcare team huddle in improving job satisfaction and teamwork for the healthcare staff involved. However, there is a dearth of high-quality, peer-reviewed evidence regarding the direct impact of huddles on job satisfaction, teamwork and in particular on work engagement. Further research-particularly controlled studies on adoption, implementation and outcomes for healthcare team culture-is needed to further assess this intervention.

Introduction: Mindfulness-based interventions for health professionals have been linked to improvements in burnout, well-being, empathy, communication, patient-centered care, and patient safety, but the optimal formats and intensity of training have been difficult to determine because of the paucity of studies and the heterogeneity of programs. A 4-days residential "Mindful Practice" workshop for physicians and medical educators featuring contemplative practices, personal narratives, and appreciative dialogs about challenging experiences may hold promise in improving participants' well-being while also improving compassionate care, job satisfaction, work engagement, and teamwork.

Methods: We collected baseline and 2-month follow-up data during four workshops conducted in 2018 to 2019 at conference centers in the United States and Europe. Primary outcomes were burnout, work-related distress, job satisfaction, work engagement, patient-centered compassionate care, and teamwork.

Results: Eighty-five of 120 participants (71%) completed both surveys (mean age was 49.3 and 68.2% female). There were improvements (P < .01) in two of three burnout components (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization), work-related distress, job satisfaction, patient-centered compassionate care, work engagement and meaning, teamwork, well-being, positive emotion, mindfulness, somatic symptoms, and spirituality. Effect sizes (standardized mean difference of change) ranged from 0.25 to 0.61. With Bonferroni adjustments (P < .0031), teamwork, general well-being, and mindfulness became nonsignificant.

Discussion: An intensive, multiday, mindfulness-based workshop for physicians had clinically significant positive effects on clinician well-being, quality of interpersonal care and work satisfaction, and meaning and engagement, all important indicators of improved health and sustainability of the health care workforce. Future iterations of the program should increase the focus on teamwork.

Background: Despite growing evidence that deprescribing can improve clinical outcomes, quality of life and reduce the likelihood of adverse drug events, the practice is not widespread, particularly in hospital settings. Clinical risk assessment tools, like the Drug Burden Index (DBI), can help prioritise patients for medication review and prioritise medications to deprescribe, but are not integrated within routine care. The aim of this study was to conduct formative usability testing of a computerised decision support (CDS) tool, based on DBI, to identify modifications required to the tool prior to trialling in practice.

Methods: Our CDS tool comprised a DBI MPage in the electronic medical record (clinical workspace) that facilitated review of a patient's DBI and medication list, access to deprescribing resources, and the ability to deprescribe. Two rounds of scenario-based formative usability testing with think-aloud protocol were used. Seventeen end-users participated in the testing, including junior and senior doctors, and pharmacists.

Results: Participants expressed positive views about the DBI CDS tool but testing revealed a number of clear areas for improvement. These primarily related to terminology used (i.e. what is a DBI and how is it calculated?), and consistency of functionality and display. A key finding was that users wanted the CDS tool to look and function in a similar way to other decision support tools in the electronic medical record. Modifications were made to the CDS tool in response to user feedback.

Conclusion: Usability testing proved extremely useful for identifying components of our CDS tool that were confusing, difficult to locate or to understand. We recommend usability testing be adopted prior to implementation of any digital health intervention. We hope our revised CDS tool equips clinicians with the knowledge and confidence to consider discontinuation of inappropriate medications in routine care of hospitalised patients. In the next phase of our project, we plan to pilot test the tool in practice to evaluate its uptake and effectiveness in supporting deprescribing in routine hospital care.

Background: A large proportion of surgical patient harm is preventable; yet, our ability to systematically learn from these incidents and improve clinical practice remains limited. The Operating Room Black Box was developed to address the need for comprehensive assessments of clinical performance in the operating room. It captures synchronized audio, video, patient, and environmental clinical data in real time, which are subsequently analyzed by a combination of expert raters and software-based algorithms. Despite its significant potential to facilitate research and practice improvement, there are many potential implementation challenges at the institutional, clinician, and patient level. This paper summarizes our approach to implementation of the Operating Room Black Box at a large academic Canadian center.

Objective: We aimed to contribute to the development of evidence-based best practices for implementing innovative technology in the operating room for direct observation of the clinical performance by using the case of the Operating Room Black Box. Specifically, we outline the systematic approach to the Operating Room Black Box implementation undertaken at our center.

Methods: Our implementation approach included seeking support from hospital leadership; building frontline support and a team of champions among patients, nurses, anesthesiologists, and surgeons; accounting for stakeholder perceptions using theory-informed qualitative interviews; engaging patients; and documenting the implementation process, including barriers and facilitators, using the consolidated framework for implementation research.

Results: During the 12-month implementation period, we conducted 23 stakeholder engagement activities with over 200 participants. We recruited 10 clinician champions representing nursing, anesthesia, and surgery. We formally interviewed 15 patients and 17 perioperative clinicians and identified key themes to include in an information campaign run as part of the implementation process. Two patient partners were engaged and advised on communications as well as grant and protocol development. Many anticipated and unanticipated challenges were encountered at all levels. Implementation was ultimately successful, with the Operating Room Black Box installed in August 2018, and data collection beginning shortly thereafter.

Conclusions: This paper represents the first step toward evidence-guided implementation of technologies for direct observation of performance for research and quality improvement in surgery. With technology increasingly being used in health care settings, the health care community should aim to optimize implementation processes in the best interest of health care professionals and patients.

Background: An academic safety-net hospital leveraged the federally funded state Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment programme to implement a hospital-wide initiative to reduce healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and improve sepsis care.

Methods: The study period was from 2013 to 2017. The setting is a 770-bed urban hospital with six intensive care units and a large emergency department. Key interventions implemented were (1) awareness campaign and clinician engagement, (2) implementation of HAI and sepsis bundles, (3) education of clinical personnel using standardised curriculum on bundles, (4) training of key managers, leaders and personnel in quality improvement methods, and (5) electronic medical record-based clinical decision support. Throughout the 5-year period, staff received frequent, clear, visible and consistent messages from leadership regarding the importance of their participation in this initiative, performing hand hygiene and preventing potential regulatory failures. Several process measures including bundle compliance, hand hygiene and culture of safety were monitored. The primary outcomes were rates of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), surgical site infection (SSI) and sepsis mortality.

Results: From 2013 to 2017, the hospital-wide rates of HAI reduced: CLABSI from 1.6 to 0.8 per 1000 catheter-days (Poisson regression estimate: -0.19; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.09; p=0.0002), CAUTI from 4.7 to 1.3 per 1000 catheter-days (-0.34; -0.43 to -0.26; p<0.0001) and SSI after 18 types of procedures from 3.4% to 1.3% (-0.29; -0.34 to -0.24; p<0.0001). Mortality of patients presenting to emergency department with sepsis reduced from 9.4% to 2.9% (-0.42; -0.49 to -0.36; p<0.0001). Adherence to bundles of care and hand hygiene and the hospital culture of patient safety improved. Results were sustained through 2019.

Conclusion: A hospital-wide initiative incentivised by the Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment programme succeeded in reducing HAI and sepsis mortality over 5 years in a sustainable manner.

Objectives: Despite decades of research, improving health care safety remains a global priority. Individual studies have demonstrated links between staff engagement and care quality, but until now, any relationship between engagement and patient safety outcomes has been more speculative. This systematic review and meta-analysis therefore assessed this relationship and explored if the way these variables were defined and measured had any differential effect.

Methods: After systematic searches of Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, Cochrane Library, and National Institute for Health Research Journals databases, narrative and random-effects meta-analyses were completed, with pooled effect sizes expressed as Pearson r.

Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were suitable for meta-analysis. Meta-analyses indicated a small but consistent, statistically significant relationship between staff engagement and patient safety (all outcomes; 11 studies; r = 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 0.36; n = 30,490) and 2 patient safety outcome categories: patient safety culture (7 studies; r = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.41; n = 27,857) and errors/adverse events (4 studies; r = -0.20; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.13; n = 2633). The specific approach to conceptualizing engagement did not affect the strength of the findings.

Conclusions: This is the first review to demonstrate a significant relationship between engagement and both safety culture scores and errors/adverse events. Despite a limited and evolving evidence base, we cautiously conclude that increasing staff engagement could be an effective means of enhancing patient safety. Further research is needed to determine causality and clarify the nature of the staff engagement/patient safety relationship at individual and unit/workgroup levels.

Aim: To explore the effects of resonant leadership, leader exchange relationships and perceived organizational support on work engagement and patient outcomes.

Design: A cross-sectional survey design.

Methods: Data were collected in June and July 2016 from 252 nurses and clerical staff and institutional patient safety (falls rates) and patient satisfaction (Friends and Family Test) in New Zealand. Data were analysed with structural equation modelling (SEM).

Results: The final model was an excellent fit to the data (χ² (22, N = 252) = 39.048, p = 0.014). Resonant leadership was significantly and positively associated with relationships at work, perception of unit care quality (β = 0.28, p < 0.001), reduced falls rates (β = -0.14, p < 0.05) and better patient satisfaction (β = -0.41, p < 0.001). A direct effect of resonant leadership was demonstrated on patient satisfaction (β = 0.20, p < 0.01). Perceived organization support (β = 0.40, p < 0.001) and leader-member exchange (β = 0.46, p < 0.001) were confirmed antecedents of work engagement. Work engagement was confirmed as an antecedent of nurse perception of unit care quality (β = 0.21, p < 0.001). Where social exchanges exist, work engagement mediates these. Three further mediated paths bypassed work engagement altogether.

Conclusion: Existing literature investigating the drivers and impacts of work engagement predominantly focuses on staff outcomes rather than patient outcomes. The findings identify modifiable factors to improve staff experience, patient safety, and ultimately patient satisfaction. Resonant leadership, a relational style, is a core antecedent of quality care and positively associated with staff experience and patient outcomes.

Impact: This investigation into a real-world problem for nurse leaders also confirmed that an organizational focus on work engagement is not always required. Resonant leadership improves staff work experience, patient safety, and patient satisfaction. Nurse leaders should measure, foster, and develop resonant leadership in practice.

As healthcare organizations seek to improve patient experience, quality, and safety, employee engagement and perceptions of patient safety (POPS) have increasingly become foci of attention. Yet, the relationship between these constructs is poorly understood. We examined the correlation between provider and staff engagement (collectively, "employee engagement"), and between employee engagement and POPS in ambulatory and hospital environments. We found significant correlations between staff engagement and POPS, and between provider engagement and POPS in ambulatory and hospital environments. We also found significant correlation between provider and staff engagement. Although all correlations were weak (correlation coefficients of 0.17-0.47), there were significant increases in POPS with increases in employee engagement (in both ambulatory and hospital environments) and increases in provider engagement with increases in staff engagement. These increases range from 4% to 11% for every 17% increase in staff engagement. These findings suggest that healthcare systems seeking to improve provider engagement, staff engagement, and POPS may find synergistic effects between these efforts in ambulatory and hospital settings.