Adverse events (AEs) seriously affect patient safety and quality of care, and remain a pressing global issue. This study had three objectives: (1) to describe the proportions of patients affected by in-hospital AEs; (2) to explore the types and consequences of observed AEs; and (3) to estimate the preventability of in-hospital AEs. We applied a scoping review method and concluded a comprehensive literature search in PubMed and CINAHL in May 2017 and in February 2018. Our target was retrospective medical record review studies applying the Harvard method–or similar methods using screening criteria–conducted in acute care hospital settings on adult patients (≥18 years). We included a total of 25 studies conducted in 27 countries across six continents. Overall, a median of 10% patients were affected by at least one AE (range: 2.9–21.9%), with a median of 7.3% (range: 0.6–30%) of AEs being fatal. Between 34.3 and 83% of AEs were considered preventable (median: 51.2%). The three most common types of AEs reported in the included studies were operative/surgical related, medication or drug/fluid related, and healthcare-associated infections. Evidence regarding the occurrence of AEs confirms earlier estimates that a tenth of inpatient stays include adverse events, half of which are preventable. However, the incidence of in-hospital AEs varied considerably across studies, indicating methodological and contextual variations regarding this type of retrospective chart review across health care systems. For the future, automated methods for identifying AE using electronic health records have the potential to overcome various methodological issues and biases related to retrospective medical record review studies and to provide accurate data on their occurrence.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist is used globally to ensure patient safety during surgery. Two years after its implementation in the University Hospital Basel’s operating rooms, adherence to the protocol was evaluated. This mixed method observational study took place in the surgical department of the University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland from April to August 2017. Data collection was via individual structured interviews with selected OR team members regarding checklist adherence and on-site non-participant observations of Team Time Out and Team Sign Out sequences in the OR. Data were subjected to thematic analysis and descriptive statistics compiled. Comprehensive local expert interviews indicated that individual, procedural and contextual variables influenced the application of the checklist. Facilitating factors included well-informed specialists who advocated the use of the Checklist, as well as teams focused on the checklist’s intended process and on its content. In contrast, factors such as staff insecurity, a generally negative attitude towards the checklist, a lack of teamwork, and hesitance to complete the checklist, hindered its implementation. The checklist’s application was evaluated in 104 on-site observations comprising of 72 Team Time Out (TTO) and 32 Team Sign Out (TSO) sections. Adherence to the protocol ranged between 96 and 100% in TTO and 22% in TSO respectively. Lack of implementation of the TSO was mainly due to the absence of one of the key OR team members, who were busy with other tasks or no longer present in the operating room. The study illustrates factors, which foster and hinder consistent application of the WHO surgical safety checklist namely individual, procedural and contextual. It also demonstrates that the TTO was consistently and correctly applied, while the unavailability of key OR team members at sign-out time was the most common reason for omission or incomplete use of the TSO.

Nursing home quality indicators are often used to publicly report the quality of nursing home care. In Switzerland, six national nursing home quality indicators covering four clinical domains (polypharmacy, pain, use of physical restraints and weight loss) were recently developed. To allow for meaningful comparisons, these indicators must reliably show differences in quality of care levels between nursing homes. This study’s objectives were to assess nursing home quality indicators’ between-provider variability and reliability using intraclass correlations and rankability. This approach has not yet been used in long-term care contexts but presents methodological advantages. This cross-sectional multicenter study uses data of 11,412 residents from a convenience sample of 152 Swiss nursing homes. After calculating intraclass correlation 1 (ICC1) and rankability, we describe between-provider variability for each quality indicator using empirical Bayes estimate-based caterpillar plots. To assess reliability, we used intraclass correlation 2 (ICC2). Overall, ICC1 values were high, ranging from 0.068 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.047–0.086) for polypharmacy to 0.396 (95% CI 0.297–0.474) for physical restraints, with quality indicator caterpillar plots showing sufficient between-provider variability. However, testing for rankability produced mixed results, with low figures for two indicators (0.144 for polypharmacy; 0.471 for self-reported pain) and moderate to high figures for the four others (from 0.692 for observed pain to 0.976 for physical restraints). High ICC2 figures, ranging from 0.896 (95% CI 0.852–0.917) (self-reported pain) to 0.990 (95% CI 0.985–0.993) (physical restraints), indicated good reliability for all six quality indicators. Intraclass correlations and rankability can be used to assess nursing home quality indicators’ between-provider variability and reliability. The six selected quality indicators reliably distinguish care differences between nursing homes and can be recommended for use, although the variability of two—polypharmacy and self-reported pain—is substantially chance-driven, limiting their utility.

Unfinished, rationed, missed, or otherwise undone nursing care is a phenomenon observed across health‐care settings worldwide. Irrespective of differing terminology, it has repeatedly been linked to adverse outcomes for both patients and nursing staff. With growing numbers of publications on the topic, scholars have acknowledged persistent barriers to meaningful comparison across studies, settings, and health‐care systems. The aim of this study was thus to develop a guideline to strengthen transparent reporting in research on unfinished nursing care. An international four‐person steering group led a consensus process including a two‐round online Delphi survey and a workshop with 38 international experts. The study was embedded in the RANCARE COST Action: Rationing Missed Nursing Care: An international and multidimensional Problem. Participation was voluntary. The resulting 40‐item RANCARE guideline provides recommendations for transparent and comprehensive reporting on unfinished nursing care regarding conceptualization, measurement, contextual information, and data analyses. By increasing the transparency and comprehensiveness in reporting of studies on unfinished nursing care, the RANCARE guideline supports efficient use of the research results, for example, allowing researchers and nurses to take purposeful actions, with the goal of improving the safety and quality of health‐care services.

Objectives: We engaged patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and healthcare professionals to assess electronic health (eHealth) literacy and needs relating to web-based support using internet-based information and communication technologies (ICT). Methods: We employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in patients (n=101) and professionals (n=47). Next, we conducted three focus groups with patients, family members and professionals (n=17). Results: Of patients, 89.1% used ICT at least weekly for private communication. Patients reported relatively high comprehension of eHealth information ( x ¯ =6.7, 95% CI: 6.2 to 7.3, range 1–10), yet were less confident evaluating information reliability ( x ¯ =5.8, 95% CI: 5.1 to 6.4) and finding eHealth apps ( x ¯ =4.8, 95% CI: 4.2 to 5.4). Patients and professionals reported little experience with web-based self-management support. Focus groups revealed ‘considering non-ICT-accessible groups’ and ‘fitting patients’ and professionals’ technology’ as crucial for acceptability. In relation to understanding/appraising eHealth, participants highlighted that general SSc information is not tailored to individual’s disease course. Recommendations included ‘providing timely, understandable and safe information’ and ‘empowering end-users in ICT and health decision-making skills’. Professionals expressed concerns about lacking resources. Patients were concerned about data security and person-centredness. Key eHealth drivers included ‘addressing end-user perceptions’ and ‘putting people at the centre of technology’. Conclusions: Patients and professionals need education/training to support uptake of eHealth resources. Key elements include guiding patients to timely/reliable information and using eHealth to optimise patient–provider communication. Design that is responsive to end-users’ needs and considers individuals with limited eHealth literacy and/or ICT access appears to be critical for acceptability.

Resident safety is an important topic for nursing home practice with up to 33 % of residents subjected to an adverse event. In spite of a large evidence base examining the relationship between nursing home staffing and resident outcomes, the findings of several systematic reviews remain inconclusive and contradicting, possibly due to methodological shortcomings. The main aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature on nursing home staffing and its relationship with resident safety outcomes. We undertook a systematic review of reviews. We searched Medline, CINAHL and Embase by the end of November 2022. Reviews were included if they assessed the relationship between nursing home staffing and resident safety outcomes using objective measures and data at resident level. Quality appraisal was conducted using the SIGN-checklist, but we did not exclude any reviews based on quality assessment. We used a narrative approach, tables and figures to summarize the findings. We included 13 systematic reviews published between 2006 and 2022 building on primary evidence from 1977 to 2022. Twelve reviews investigated the relationship between nurse staffing and resident safety outcomes (187 unique primary studies), and one review focused on allied health professionals (28 primary studies). Five reviews originated as work to inform governmental recommendations on staffing. We found diverse approaches used to investigate the staffing-outcome relationship with regard to design, timeframe, operationalization, data-source and theoretical rationales guiding the studies. The most prominently reported resident safety outcomes were pressure ulcers and urinary tract infections. Commonly reported staffing measures included number and level of education of nursing home staff. Based on narrative summaries, staffing seems to have a favorable relationship with resident safety outcomes, but logic models explaining the mechanisms of this relationship were sparsely reported. The existing literature shows methodological limitations that demand a change in research on the staffing-outcome relationship in the nursing home setting. Our work highlights the need for carefully designed primary studies that address the pertinent shortcomings by design, timeframe, operationalization, data-source and theoretical rationales. These future studies will allow to carefully examine the causal relationship between selected staffing measures and resident safety outcomes in further detail and serve as legitimate evidence bases to inform action plans for clinical practice and to evaluate staffing policies.