Over the last decade, the Lucian Leape Institute has explored five key areas in health care to advance patient safety. These include medical education reform, care integration, patient and family engagement, transparency, and joy and meaning in work and workforce safety for health care professionals. This review highlights progress to date in each area and the challenges that remain to be addressed, including increasing clinician burnout and shortcomings of existing health information technology approaches. The authors also suggest opportunities for further research such as measuring the impact of residency training programs. In a past PSNet interview, Dr. Tejal Gandhi, president of the IHI/NPSF Lucian Leape Institute, discussed improving patient safety at a national level.

The impact of electronic health records has thus far been disappointing for many clinicians, with limited effect on patient safety and growing concern that electronic health records may contribute to physician burnout. This commentary discusses the productivity paradox of information technology—the fact that digitization often initially impedes productivity rather than enhancing it. The authors highlight recent advancements in health care information technology that hold promise to overcome the productivity paradox, such as artificial intelligence, and discuss barriers that must be surmounted in order for health IT to meet its potential.

Patient safety in the ambulatory setting is gaining traction as a focus of research and improvement efforts. Discussing the methods and results of an AHRQ Technical Brief, this commentary summarizes expert opinion on the report to propose recommendations for a research strategy on ambulatory patient safety. The authors outline patient safety practices relevant to the ambulatory setting and suggest activities to advance improvement efforts in outpatient care, such as measure development and use of health information technologies.

Overuse of therapies, medications, and procedures can contribute to both financial and physical harm. This commentary explores an incident involving medical overuse, discusses whether overuse should be assessed like adverse events, and outlines steps the care team should have taken in treating this patient.

Health care institutions are increasingly focused on providing high-value care and preventing overuse. In this study, researchers developed a validated High-Value Care Culture Survey and found that administering the survey at two large academic medical centers provided health care leaders with an opportunity to target their improvement efforts.

Patient safety research and commentary often focus on specialized care processes rather than medical wards. Exploring challenges to improving safety in the medical ward environment, this commentary outlines four strategies to address complexity of implementing initiatives in this setting.

Although financial incentives have been widely adopted, they may not lead to organizational improvements. This commentary raises concerns about including hospital mortality in incentive programs, since patient deaths do not necessarily mean poor quality care. The authors suggest that further research is needed to enhance accuracy of risk-adjusted mortality and to account for differences in patient treatment preferences.

Implementing standardized handoff processes has garnered attention as a strategy to improve patient safety. In this commentary, the authors apply cognitive load theory to handoff tasks to demonstrate how to improve handover bundles and enhance reliability.

Interdisciplinary team care interventions are increasingly common on medical wards, based partly on a widespread belief that these practices will improve efficiency and patient safety. This systematic review sought to evaluate the performance of hospital-based interdisciplinary teams on patient outcomes. The majority of studies have chosen length of stay, complications, readmission, or mortality rates as their primary outcomes, but interdisciplinary teams rarely seem to affect these traditional quality measures, which may be insensitive to teamwork improvements in care delivery. The authors call for establishing more relevant outcomes to evaluate interdisciplinary team interventions. An accompanying commentary notes that this systematic review provides an opportunity to highlight the potential harms of choosing the wrong metrics to evaluate an intervention, which can undermine a program's mission.

One strategy to improve patient safety is public reporting of performance data, and hospital quality ratings have proliferated. In this study, researchers examined the extent of agreement among hospital ratings issued by U.S. News & World Report, HealthGrades, The Leapfrog Group, and Consumer Reports. Each rating system has a different emphasis, varying inclusion and exclusion criteria, and focuses on different measures of quality. There is very little agreement among the ratings for either high or low performance—not one hospital was rated as a top performer across all four ratings—which makes these ratings challenging for consumers to interpret or use in decision making. These findings are consistent with prior work demonstrating variability in surgical quality rankings. The authors call for transparency in how ratings are constructed and clear communication with consumers to facilitate informed decisions regarding their care. A recent AHRQ WebM&M interview with Leah Binder, President and CEO of The Leapfrog Group, explored the development of the Hospital Safety Score and Leapfrog Hospital Survey.

This narrative review of safety efforts on general hospital wards found that most interventions encompass one or more of five areas: staffing levels, interprofessional collaboration, standardization of care such as use of checklists, rapid response to clinical deterioration, and safety culture. The authors advocate for increasing the evidence base in all of these areas, as gaps in implementation and sustainment are prevalent.

Past commentaries have explored the tension between balancing no blame and individual accountability for medical errors. This commentary summarizes a debate exploring accountability in patient safety, with one argument describing the need for health care to differentiate individual failures from systems problems and an opposing perspective suggesting that incorporating blame would hinder progress in patient safety.

This narrative review found that while computerized provider order entry combined with clinical decision support systems effectively prevented medication prescribing errors, there was no clear effect on clinical adverse drug event rates. This finding may be due to alert fatigue and other unintended consequences of the technology.