Skip to main content

The PSNet Collection: All Content

The AHRQ PSNet Collection comprises an extensive selection of resources relevant to the patient safety community. These resources come in a variety of formats, including literature, research, tools, and Web sites. Resources are identified using the National Library of Medicine’s Medline database, various news and content aggregators, and the expertise of the AHRQ PSNet editorial and technical teams.

Search All Content

Search Tips
Save
Selection
Format
Download
Published Date
Original Publication Date
Original Publication Date
PSNet Publication Date
Search By Author(s)
Commonly Searched Resource Types
Additional Filters
Displaying 1 - 20 of 109 Results
Goldman J, Rotteau L, Flintoft V, et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2023;32:470-478.
Learning collaboratives within the Canadian Patient Safety Institute are working to implement the Measurement and Monitoring of Safety Framework (MMSF). This paper describes the collaboratives’ experiences with integrating MMSF into their organizations. Hospitals reported small scale success and described challenges with implementation when the Framework was not aligned with existing quality and safety processes.
Doshi S, Shin S, Lapointe-Shaw L, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183:924-932.
Missed recognition of early signs of clinical deterioration can result in transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) or death. This study investigated whether critical illness events (transfer to ICU or death) impacted another patient's critical illness event in the subsequent six-hour period. Results suggest one or more critical illness events increase the odds of additional patient transfers into the ICU, but not of death. The authors present several explanations for this phenomenon.
Jeffs L, Bruno F, Zeng RL, et al. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2023;49:255-264.
Implementation science is the practice of applying research to healthcare policies and practices. This study explores the role of implementation science in the success of quality improvement projects. Inclusion of expert implementation specialists and coaches were identified as best practices for successful quality improvement and patient safety projects. COVID-19 presented challenges for some facilities, however, including halting previously successful projects.
Miller FA, Young SB, Dobrow M, et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;30:331-335.
The COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about medical product shortages and demand surges, and the resulting effects on patient safety. This viewpoint discusses medical product supply chain vulnerabilities heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors summarize the evidence on supply chain resilience and medical product shortage, provide examples to illustrate key vulnerabilities, and discuss reactive and proactive solutions for medical product shortage.
Shojania KG, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29.
This commentary discusses the two ‘gold standard’ research methods used to identify adverse events– retrospective record review and prospective surveillance using triggers. The authors note that these approaches have served to demonstrate the scope of the patient safety problem and to engage clinicians, managers, researchers and policy makers. However, looking forward, they advocate moving away from the imperfect gold standard of adverse event rates and embracing more specific measures of important safety problems.
Wong BM, Baum KD, Headrick LA, et al. Acad Med. 2020;95:59-68.
An international group of educational and health system leaders, educators, front-line clinicians, learners, and patients convened to create a list of actionable strategies that organizations can use to better integrate Quality Improvement Patient Safety (QIPS) education with clinical care. A framework and list of concrete examples describe how groups can get started.
Bombard Y, Baker R, Orlando E, et al. Implement Sci. 2018;13:98.
Engaging patients and their families in quality and safety is considered central to providing truly patient-centered care. This systematic review included 48 studies involving the input of patients, family members, or caregivers on health care quality improvement initiatives to identify factors that facilitate successful engagement, patients' perceptions regarding their involvement, and patient engagement outcomes.
Sears NA, Blais R, Spinks M, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:400.
Adverse events occur frequently in the home care setting. A previous study estimated that about 10% of patients receiving home care experienced an adverse event, and research suggests that a significant proportion of these may be preventable. Early identification of patients at increased risk for harm in the home care setting may help inform hospital discharge planning and improve patient safety. Analyzing data from two prior Canadian home care patient safety studies, researchers found that both increased dependency for instrumental activities of daily living and a higher number of comorbid medical conditions placed patients at greater risk for adverse events. A past PSNet perspective discussed safety issues associated with care transitions after hospital discharge.
Trbovich PL, Shojania KG. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:350-353.
Although root cause analysis is an established strategy to investigate incidents, some have questioned its effectiveness in health care. Drawing from a recent study, this editorial suggests that robust health care investment in human factors engineering and safety science is needed to help root cause analysis achieve its full potential as an improvement mechanism. A recent Annual Perspective discussed ongoing problems with the root cause analysis process and described opportunities to improve its application in health care.
Leis JA, Shojania KG. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:572-577.
Although plan–do–study–act (PDSA) cycles were promoted as an in-depth rapid-cycle improvement mechanism, this process can fall short of advancing an organization's improvement work. Exploring shortcomings as reflected in the literature, this article relates insights drawn from a project review to discuss how to effectively use PDSA cycles in patient safety work.
Shojania KG, Dixon-Woods M. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:423-428.
A recent article asserted that medical error is the third leading cause of death in the United States. This perspective questions the accuracy of this estimate. The authors note that this estimate was generated by simply combining medical error rates from prior studies, without adhering to guidelines for quantitative synthesis or accounting statistically for the uncertainty associated with the extrapolation of these studies. There are also inherent limitations in the original data, which used trigger tools to identify adverse events. The studies from which the error rates were calculated could not clearly determine whether the adverse events detected actually contributed to the patient's death. Patients who are critically ill tend to have more adverse events because they experience more medical interventions. However, their deaths may be due to the underlying illness rather than the medical care they received. The authors argue that an inaccurately high estimate for medical error–related mortality draws attention away from other crucial patient harms, such as pressure ulcers and medication safety, both of which rarely contribute to mortality but are of high priority to patients.
Kovacs-Litman A, Wong K, Shojania KG, et al. J Hosp Med. 2016;11:862-864.
This study compared covert hand hygiene observation by students to traditional overt hand hygiene audits. Investigators found much lower hand hygiene performance with covert observation, especially for nurses, suggesting that covert observation may be more accurate. These results demonstrate the challenge of achieving optimal hand hygiene compliance.
Staiger TO, Mills LM, Wong BM, et al. Am J Med. 2016;129:540-6.
A survey of academic medicine departments sought to identify quality improvement and patient safety activities in written promotion criteria. Investigators suggest language to use in promotion criteria that acknowledges quality and safety activities as core to clinical excellence, includes quality and safety as areas of scholarship, and delineates how the impact of these activities should be evaluated. The authors recommend that academic medical centers adopt such criteria across more institutions.