Background Second victims are healthcare workers who experience emotional distress following patient adverse events. Studies indicate the need to develop organisational support programmes for these workers. The RISE (Resilience In Stressful Events) programme was developed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital to provide this support. Objective To describe the development of RISE and evaluate its initial feasibility and subsequent implementation. Programme phases included (1) developing the RISE programme, (2) recruiting and training peer responders, (3) pilot launch in the Department of Paediatrics and (4) hospital-wide implementation. Methods Mixed-methods study, including frequency counts of encounters, staff surveys and evaluations by RISE peer responders. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise demographic characteristics and proportions of responses to categorical, Likert and ordinal scales. Qualitative analysis and coding were used to analyse open-ended responses from questionnaires and focus groups. Results A baseline staff survey found that most staff had experienced an unanticipated adverse event, and most would prefer peer support. A total of 119 calls, involving ∼500 individuals, were received in the first 52 months. The majority of calls were from nurses, and very few were related to medical errors (4%). Peer responders reported that the encounters were successful in 88% of cases and 83.3% reported meeting the caller's needs. Low awareness of the programme was a barrier to hospital-wide expansion. However, over the 4 years, the rate of calls increased from ∼1–4 calls per month. The programme evolved to accommodate requests for group support. Conclusions Hospital staff identified the need for a multidisciplinary peer support programme for second victims. Peer responders reported success in responding to calls, the majority of which were for adverse events rather than for medical errors. The low initial volume of calls emphasises the importance of promoting awareness of the value of emotional support and the availability of the programme.

Preventable mistakes are common in medicine. For example, at 1 hospital, a patient received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), a combination of local anesthet

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) aims to improve care quality and patient outcomes by providing information that patients, clinicians, and family members need regarding treatment alternatives, and emphasizing patient input to inform the research process. PCOR capitalizes on available data sources and generates new evidence to provide timely and relevant information and can be conducted using prospective data collection, disease registries, electronic medical records, aggregated results from prior research, and administrative claims. Given PCOR’s emphasis on the patient perspective, methods to incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical. PROs are defined by the US Food and Drug Administration as “Any report coming directly from patients… about a health condition and its treatment.” However, PROs have not routinely been collected in a way that facilitates their use in PCOR. Electronic medical records, disease registries, and administrative data have only rarely collected, or been linked to, PROs. Recent technological developments facilitate the electronic collection of PROs and linkage of PRO data, offering new opportunities for putting the patient perspective in PCOR. This paper describes the importance of and methods for using PROs for PCOR. We (1) define PROs; (2) identify how PROs can be used in PCOR and the critical role of electronic data methods for facilitating the use of PRO data in PCOR; (3) outline the challenges and key unanswered questions that need to be addressed for the routine use of PROs in PCOR; and (4) discuss policy and research interventions to accelerate the integration of PROs with clinical data.

Despite more than 20 yr of use, relative differences in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are not clearly known. The objective of this study was to compare self-reported HRQOL and overall health status for HD and PD patients at the initiation of dialysis therapy and 1 yr later. A prospective cohort of incident ESRD patients was enrolled between October 1995 and June 1998 at 81 outpatient dialysis units in 19 states and included 698 HD and 230 PD patients who completed a baseline CHOICE Health Experience Questionnaire. The main outcome measured was change in qualify-of-life scores from start of dialysis to 1 yr on dialysis and overall health status. Of 928 patients who completed the baseline questionnaire, 585 also completed the 12-mo questionnaire; 101 had died, 55 had received a kidney transplant, and 88 had moved to a new dialysis clinic. PD patients were slightly younger, were more likely to be white, were well-educated, were employed, were married, had less comorbidity, and had higher hematocrit. Unadjusted baseline scores showed better HRQOL for PD patients in both generic and ESRD domains (bodily pain, travel, diet restrictions, and dialysis access [P < 0.05]). At 1 yr, SF-36 scores improved, whereas some ESRD domains improved and others deteriorated. HD patients had greater improvements in two SF-36 domains (physical functioning and general health perception) than PD patients, but results were mixed for ESRD domains (PD is better for finances, HD is better for sleep and overall quality of life). HD and PD patients did not differ in change in overall health status. HD and PD are associated with similar HRQOL outcomes at 1 yr. Generic HRQOL in two domains improved more for HD patients. However, for ESRD-specific HRQOL, results were not consistent; some domains were better for PD patients whereas others were better for HD patients. In advising patients about modality choices, trade-offs should be discussed and individual preferences for specific aspects of HRQOL should be elicited.