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
Narrow Results By
PSNet Original Content
Commonly Searched Resource Types
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 Results
Pestian T, Thienprayoon R, Grossoehme D, et al. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2020;5:e328.
The authors used qualitative data to evaluate parental perspectives of quality in pediatric home-based hospice and palliative care (HBHPC) programs, and how parents define “safe care” in the home. Thematic analysis identified eight domains of safety prioritized by patients, including an emphasis on the safety of the physical environment, medication safety, maintaining comfort and preventing harm, and trust in the HBHPC caregivers.
Gallagher R, Passmore MJ, Baldwin C. Med Hypotheses. 2020;142:109727.
The authors of this article suggest that offering palliative care services earlier should be considered a patient safety issue. They highlight three cases in which patients in Canada requested medical assistance in dying (MAiD). The patients in two of the cases were never offered palliative care services, and this could be considered a medical error – had they been offered palliative care services, they may have changed their mind about MAiD, as did the patient in the third case study.
Mirarchi FL, Juhasz K, Cooney TE, et al. J Patient Saf. 2019;15:230-237.
This single-center study found that Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders and Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLSTs) created at hospital admission often do not reflect the true wishes of patients and their caregivers. When queried by study staff, 44% of patients expressed wishes for life-sustaining treatment that differed from their designated code status; this resulted in revocation of the DNR order in more than one-third of patients with a discrepancy. A prior study argued that inaccurate documentation of patient's wishes for end-of-life care should be considered a medical error.
Kahn JS. JAMA. 2017;318.
End-of-life care can be difficult for patients, families, and the care team. This commentary offers insights from a physician's experience with a conversation that was psychologically detrimental to a patient and his family. The author suggests that focusing on the empathetic relationship with patients and families can provide the support needed to care for the patient while exercising judgement and engaging in shared decision making about next steps.
Kiesewetter I, Schulz C, Bausewein C, et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2016;15:75.
Adverse events in palliative care differ from those in other environments. This qualitative interview study of patients who received palliative care identified errors specific to this setting, including deviation from a patient's advance directive and error in prognosis. A recent WebM&M commentary discussed challenges to implementing advance directives.
Heyland DK, Barwich D, Pichora D, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:778-787.
Advance care planning (ACP) has become an increasingly utilized process for exploring and communicating patients' preferences for end-of-life care. This multicenter audit of ACP practices across 12 hospitals in Canada found that even when patients and families have completed ACP, inpatient health care providers are not discussing these preferences during hospitalization nor are they documenting these decisions in the medical record. When there was chart documentation, it did not match the patients' expressed wishes more than two-thirds of the time. The majority of audited cases found that patients were prescribed more aggressive care than they would have preferred. An accompanying editorial argues that these types of "silent misdiagnoses" should be considered medical errors, noting that discussions about code status and ACP are "every bit as important to patient safety as a central line placement or a surgical procedure." A previous AHRQ WebM&M commentary discussed ACP and other tools for expressing end-of-life preferences.