Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

Background: The objective of this study was to develop a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool aimed at facilitating the detection of adverse events and no-harm incidents in the patient process from specialised hospital care to home healthcare in paediatric oncology. The development of the trigger tool addresses the need for enhanced safety knowledge in paediatric oncology, particularly as the field has increasingly transitioned from inpatient admissions to day care and home healthcare settings. Existing trigger tools do not fully meet the specific requirements of paediatric oncology, where care is collaboratively provided by patients, parents and healthcare professionals. Materials and methods: The study employed a multi-step process, including a literature search, a three-phase modified Delphi process, and the practical application of the trigger tool. All six Swedish paediatric oncology centres were represented in the Delphi process. Medical records were reviewed as part of the national multicentre study Patient Safety in Paediatric Oncology, which included participation from four out of six paediatric oncology centres, covering 64% of the population in Sweden. Data were collected from stakeholders representing the patient process from specialised hospital care to home healthcare in paediatric oncology, as well as from reviewers of medical records, and representatives with patient safety and trigger tool methodology expertise. Data were gathered through virtual meetings and web-based surveys, where the triggers were discussed and rated in terms of clinical relevance, comprehensibility and usefulness. Ratings were made using a four-point Likert scale. A dichotomisation process was used to assess consensus, defined as the proportion of respondents giving the same dichotomised rating. Result: The key outcome was the development of a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool. The final tool consisted of 22 triggers with definitions and decision support information, designed to enhance understanding of patient safety in paediatric oncology. Conclusions: The application of a multi-step development process resulted in a final context-specific trigger tool, the Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool, addressing unique patient safety needs. The tool can be used in local safety initiatives aiming to improve safety for children with cancer. Additionally, this paper provides a transparent description of a systematic development process. 2026 Engvall, Stenmarker, Andersson, Ros and Unbeck.

Background

The development of neonatal intensive care has substantially reduced infant mortality, still, infants remain at high risk for adverse outcomes. Safe care relies on adequate nurse staffing and an appropriate skill mix, which is especially important in neonatal intensive care as infants are extremely vulnerable to harm when quality lapses occur. Although international guidelines recommend optimal nurse-to-patient ratios for neonatal care, these standards have not been fully implemented, leaving it unclear whether current staffing levels align with recommendations for safe staffing.

Objective

To benchmark the acuity-adjusted registered nurse staffing provision ratio in neonatal intensive care and determine the skill mix distribution and variation of nursing staff across shifts.

Method

This retrospective cohort study included infant data from a 16-week period in 2022 in three neonatal intensive care units with a common administration at a university hospital. Data were obtained from the hospital’s data repository and the Swedish Neonatal Quality Register, including 609 neonatal admissions and 345 nursing staff members working 1008 shifts. Infants’ daily acuity levels were assessed using an adapted version of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine’s guideline, classifying infants into three levels: intensive care, high dependency care, and special care. Staffing provision was measured as the number of worked hours per shift, staff category, and unit. The registered nurse provision ratio was defined as the number of registered nurse hours provided divided by the recommended hours. A ratio below 1.0 indicates understaffing.

Results

The population’s total in-hospital days were 4674, and the mean birth weight was 2843 g (SD 1029), with 57.0 % being boys. The proportion of registered nurses relative to nursing assistants ranged from 22.2 % to 85.7 %, with a median of 46.5 %. Registered nurses with specialist education accounted for a median of 73.0 % of total registered nurse hours. Within each unit, the mean acuity-adjusted number of registered nurses recommended by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine’s standard was relatively consistent across shift types and between weekdays and weekends. However, the required number of registered nurses between individual shifts showed considerable variation, ranging from 2.5 to 10.3. During the inclusion period, 81.2 % of the shifts had a registered nurse provision ratio below 1.0, suggesting that most shifts did not meet the recommendations for staffing levels.

Conclusions

This study highlights a shortfall in registered nurse staffing relative to recommended levels. Ensuring adequate registered nurse staffing levels is crucial for maintaining high-quality neonatal care and improving infant outcomes.

Variability and persistent gaps in reporting have been consistently observed across studies evaluating adverse events in healthcare, dating back to the early days of the patient safety movement. Incomplete descriptions-particularly missing details regarding study design, conduct, methodologies and applied definitions-impede interpretation, hinder critical appraisal and limit reproducibility. These deficiencies not only obstruct a shared understanding of findings but also diminish the overall impact such studies may have on patient safety initiatives and policy development. To address these challenges and enhance the quality of reporting, we developed the SESAME (Standard Elements in Studies of Adverse Events and Medical Error) reporting guideline. SESAME is a 44-item checklist designed to support comprehensive and standardised reporting in studies evaluating potential patient harm. The guideline was developed over a 2-year period by an international, multidisciplinary panel through a consensus-driven process aligned with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research Network standards.

BACKGROUND: Trigger tools are widely used for detecting adverse events. Within the multicentre study Patient Safety in Paediatric Oncology, a trigger tool was created to address the unique needs of paediatric oncology. Although trigger tools are highly valued for detecting adverse events, concerns about their usability and reliability persist. Understanding the perspectives of medical record reviewers using these tools may provide valuable insights for improving their usability and reliability. This study aimed to explore the experiences of medical record reviewers involved in the development and use of a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool.

METHODS: A descriptive qualitative case study was conducted to investigate the experiences of medical record reviewers participating in the development and use of the Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool. Data were collected through a semi-structured focus group interview conducted via Zoom, involving six reviewers with varying levels of experience in paediatric oncology and trigger tool methodology. The interview was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The written text was analysed in its entirety using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS: The analysis revealed an overarching theme of knowledge building with three themes: competencies, resources and usefulness. The findings highlight the importance of collaborative learning, expert support and adequate resources, while also noting challenges such as time consumption and the emotional impact of reviewing medical records of critically ill children.

CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a comprehensive examination and clarity regarding the development and use of a patient safety instrument, a process marked by both challenges and facilitators from the perspective of medical record reviewers. The study underscores the need for resources, training and support during the review process to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the trigger tool.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma causes nearly six million deaths annually and is the leading cause of death in the working-age population. Systematic, multidisciplinary, team-based initial care is vital. Trauma nursing addresses complex physical and psychological needs, enhancing patient outcomes and preventing complications. However, acute care settings have challenges, such as heavy workloads and high patient-to-nurse ratios.

AIM: This study aimed to explore nursing staff́s perceptions of reasons for missed nursing care for patients with traumatic injuries.

METHODS: Four semi-structured group interviews were conducted with 22 registered and assistant nurses caring for trauma patients in a level one trauma center. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis and an inductive approach.

RESULTS: The main findings revealed that complex organizational challenges hinder consistent nursing care. Factors such as patient characteristics and team composition necessitate prioritizing medical interventions over nursing care, leading to feelings of inadequacy among nurses when they are unable to provide timely care.

CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that essential nursing care is frequently overlooked in the trauma ward, often taking a backseat to medical interventions. This trend arises from the intricate dynamics of patient characteristics, team composition, and the organizational environment.

The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network indexes over 600 reporting guidelines designed to improve the reproducibility of manuscripts across medical fields and study designs. Although several such reporting guidelines touch on adverse events that may occur in the context of a study, there is a large body of research whose primary focus is on adverse events, near-misses and medical errors that do not currently have a dedicated reporting guideline to help set reporting standards and facilitate comparisons across studies. As part of the process prescribed by EQUATOR for developing such a reporting guideline, we performed a needs assessment, evaluating whether existing standards address key features of a proposed reporting guideline in development, entitled Standard Elements in Studies of Adverse Events and Medical Error (SESAME). We evaluated 12 EQUATOR reporting guidelines for the presence of eight key features of SESAME. Five of the 12 failed to include any of these key features. None of the remaining seven incorporated more than four of the eight SESAME key components, confirming the need for a dedicated reporting guideline for studies of adverse events and medical errors.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia, urinary tract infections, pressure ulcers and delirium are adverse events that affect older inpatients. Accurate administrative data are key to improving patient safety and healthcare quality. The aim of the study was to validate Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE) data on the occurrence of pneumonia, urinary tract infections, pressure ulcers and delirium in older patients discharged from an acute hospital in Ireland through retrospective chart review.

METHODS: A cohort of one thousand randomly selected admissions of inpatients aged over 65 from a university, tertiary hospital in 2022 were reviewed using a two-stage retrospective chart review. The researchers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives co-produced a study-specific chart review protocol and data collection instrument. HIPE data were validated by comparing the chart review data to the HIPE data. Since HIPE only codes the presence of the respective adverse event once, the comparisons between the HIPE data and the chart review data were carried out at admission level.

RESULTS: Of the 1,000 admissions reviewed, 231 (23.1%) contained at least one adverse event. At event level, 373 adverse events were identified including 133 pressure ulcers in 71 admissions, 101 delirium episodes in 100 admissions, 84 pneumonia episodes in 79 admissions and 55 urinary tract infections in 52 admissions. Of the 302 adverse events found in chart review on admission level, 96 (31.8%) of these were coded in the HIPE data and flagged by the Hospital Acquired Diagnosis indicator. Compared with chart review data, the overall sensitivity of the administrative data was low, and the specificity was high. The positive predictive values varied, and the negative predictive values were generally high. In HIPE data, 42 adverse events were found that were not identified in the chart review.

CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that HIPE data may not accurately represent these specific adverse events as experienced by older patients. Improving the accuracy of these data may facilitate benchmarking of adverse events across hospitals and countries and provide opportunities for improvements in patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Nursing-sensitive events (NSEs) are common, accounting for up to 77% of adverse events in hospitalized patients (eg, fall-related harm, pressure ulcers, and health care-associated infections). NSEs lead to adverse patient outcomes and impose an economic burden on hospitals due to increased medical costs through a prolonged hospital stay and additional medical procedures. To reduce NSEs and ensure high-quality nursing care, appropriate nurse staffing levels are needed. Although the link between nurse staffing and NSEs has been described in many studies, appropriate nurse staffing levels are lacking. Existing studies describe constant staffing exposure at the unit or hospital level without assessing patient-level exposure to nurse staffing during the hospital stay. Few studies have assessed nurse staffing and patient outcomes using a single-center longitudinal design, with limited generalizability. There is a need for multicenter longitudinal studies with improved potential for generalizing the association between individual nurse staffing levels and NSEs.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed (1) to determine the prevalence, preventability, type, and severity of NSEs; (2) to describe individual patient-level nurse staffing exposure across hospitals; (3) to assess the effect of nurse staffing on NSEs in patients; and (4) to identify thresholds of safe nurse staffing levels and test them against NSEs in hospitalized patients.

METHODS: This international multicenter study uses a longitudinal and observational research design; it involves 4 countries (Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, and Iran), with participation from 14 hospitals and 61 medical, surgery, and mixed units. The 16-week observation period will collect NSEs using systematic retrospective record reviews. A total of 3680 patient admissions will be reviewed, with 60 randomly selected admissions per unit. To be included, patients must have been hospitalized for at least 48 hours. Nurse staffing data (ie, the number of nurses and their education level) will be collected daily for each shift to assess the association between NSEs and individual nurse staffing levels. Additionally, hospital data (ie, type, teaching status, and ownership) and unit data (ie, service line and number of beds) will be collected.

RESULTS: As of January 2024, the verification process for the plausibility and comprehensibility of patients' and nurse staffing data is underway across all 4 countries. Data analyses are planned to be completed by spring 2024, with the first results expected to be published in late 2024.

CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide comprehensive information on NSEs, including their prevalence, preventability, type, and severity, across countries. Moreover, it seeks to enhance understanding of NSE mechanisms and the potential impact of nurse staffing on these events. We will evaluate within- and between-hospital variability to identify productive strategies to ensure safe nurse staffing levels, thereby reducing NSEs in hospitalized patients. The TAILR (Nursing-Sensitive Events and Their Association With Individual Nurse Staffing Levels) study will focus on the optimization of scarce staffing resources.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56262.

BACKGROUND: The provision of home healthcare is increasing in response to the growing aging population with the need for chronic disease management in their homes. Safety work differs from hospital care. The incidence of adverse events in home healthcare is sparsely studied but is estimated to occur in-one third of patients, and most are deemed preventable. Although nursing care is crucial for risk assessment and preventive work in the home environment, the role of registered nurses in the prevention of no-harm incidents and adverse events has not received sufficient scientific attention.

OBJECTIVES: To explore nursing-sensitive events in patients receiving home healthcare.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A Swedish national multicenter study based on a structured record review of 600 randomly chosen healthcare records from 10 organizations in different regions of the country.

METHODS: Ten trained teams, each including physician(s) and registered nurses, undertook a review based on the Global Trigger Tool method. The review covered a maximum of 90 days from admission to home healthcare. First, each record was screened for the presence of 38 predefined triggers. In the second step, every potential event was assessed according to preventability, types of events, severity, time of occurrence, consequences of the event, and potential contributing causes.

RESULTS: In total, 699 events were identified in the study. Of these, 495 (74.0%) were classified as nursing-sensitive (227 no-harm incidents and 268 adverse events) and affected 267 (44.5%) patients, with a mean of 1.9 events per patient. The majority (n = 367, 73.1%) were considered preventable. The most prominent types of nursing-sensitive event were falls (n = 138, 27.9%), pressure ulcers (n = 62, 12.5%), healthcare-associated infections (n = 58, 11.7%) and medication management (n = 50, 10.1%). Concerning severity, 45.9% were classified as no-harm incidents and another 36.6% resulted in temporary harm that required extra healthcare resources: 226 hospital days, 66 physician visits in outpatient care, and 99 in home healthcare. All severity types occurred from day 1, except death, which included only one patient. The most frequent contributing factors were deficiencies in nursing care, treatment & diagnosis, with the subgroups nursing care, observation, treatment & follow-up, followed by deficiencies in the organization.

CONCLUSIONS: Nursing-sensitive events in home healthcare are common, often preventable, and occur from the start of the care period. This study contributes to increased knowledge of patient safety shortcomings and points to the important role that registered nurses play in patient safety work.

AIM: To explore the incidence and characteristics of inpatient neonatal adverse events in a Swedish setting.

METHODS: A retrospective record review, using a trigger tool, performed by registered nurses and a neonatologist, at a University Hospital. The identified adverse events were categorised by, for example, preventability, severity and time of occurrence.

RESULTS: A random selection of 150 admissions representing 3531 patient days were reviewed (mean [SD] birthweight 2620 [1120]g). Three hundred sixty adverse events were identified in 78(52.0%) infants and 305(84.7%) of these were assessed as being preventable. The overall adverse event rate was 240 per 100 admissions and 102.0 per 1000 patient days. Preterm infants had a higher rate than term infants (353 versus 79 per 100 admissions, p=0.001), however with regard to the length of stay, the rates were similar. Most adverse events were temporary and less severe (n=338/360, 93.9%) and the most common type involved harm to skin, tissue or blood vessels (n=163/360, 45.3%). Forty percent (n=145) of adverse events occurred within the first week of admission.

CONCLUSION: Adverse events were common in neonatal care and many occurred during the first days of treatment. Characterisation of adverse events may provide focus areas for improvements in patient safety.