PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Philip L Henneman

Publications and source records attributed to Philip L Henneman.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

Increasing patient safety and efficiency in transfusion therapy using formal process definitions.

The administration of blood products is a common, resource-intensive, and potentially problem-prone area that may place patients at elevated risk in the clinical setting. Much of the emphasis in transfusion safety has been targeted toward quality control measures in laboratory settings where blood products are prepared for administration as well as in automation of certain laboratory processes. In contrast, the process of transfusing blood in the clinical setting (ie, at the point of care) has essentially remained unchanged over the past several decades. Many of the currently available methods for improving the quality and safety of blood transfusions in the clinical setting rely on informal process descriptions, such as flow charts and medical algorithms, to describe medical processes. These informal descriptions, although useful in presenting an overview of standard processes, can be ambiguous or incomplete. For example, they often describe only the standard process and leave out how to handle possible failures or exceptions. One alternative to these informal descriptions is to use formal process definitions, which can serve as the basis for a variety of analyses because these formal definitions offer precision in the representation of all possible ways that a process can be carried out in both standard and exceptional situations. Formal process definitions have not previously been used to describe and improve medical processes. The use of such formal definitions to prospectively identify potential error and improve the transfusion process has not previously been reported. The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of formally defining processes and to describe how formal definitions of blood transfusion processes can be used to detect and correct transfusion process errors in ways not currently possible using existing quality improvement methods.

Blood Group Incompatibility↗

Strategies used by nurses to recover medical errors in an academic emergency department setting.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gain insight into how nurses recover medical errors in the emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: The research method was of exploratory descriptive design with qualitative analysis. Subjects who signed the informed consent participated in one of four focus groups centering on nurse's role in recovering errors. Questions were asked during the focus groups to elicit information regarding nurse's role in the three phases of error recovery, namely, identifying, interrupting, and correcting the error. RESULTS: Five themes emerged to describe methods used by nurses to identify errors in the ED setting. These themes included: surveillance, anticipation, double checking, awareness of the "big picture," and experiential "knowing." Five themes emerged as methods used to interrupt errors: patient advocacy, offer of assistance, clarification, verbal interruption, and creation of delay. The themes for correcting an error were assembling the team and involving leadership. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide preliminary evidence of the strategies used by ED nurses in the recovery of medical error. Further research is needed to generalize these findings to other ED settings. Knowledge of effective recovery strategies can ultimately be used to develop interventions for reducing medical error and improving patient safety.

Adaptation, Psychological↗

Prehospital hypotension is a predictor of the need for an emergent, therapeutic operation in trauma patients with normal systolic blood pressure in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether prehospital hypotension predicts the need for an emergent, therapeutic operation in trauma patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with normal systolic blood pressure (SBP). METHODS: An observational, cohort study was conducted at a Level I, urban, county trauma center. Consecutive trauma patients not in cardiopulmonary arrest and transported to the ED by emergency medical services during a one-year period were studied. Data on prehospital and ED vital signs, subsequent hospital course, and surgical procedures were collected. The occurrence of an emergent, therapeutic operation, which was defined based on the types of injuries found or repaired within 6 hours of arrival, was determined from operative and hospital records. RESULTS: Of the 1,227 total trauma patients, 160 were excluded because of cardiopulmonary arrest or inadequate documentation, leaving 1,067 study patients. Of those, 1,028 were normotensive on arrival to the ED. Seventy-one of the 1,028 patients (7%) were hypotensive in the field; 37% of these patients received an emergent, therapeutic operation and 6% died. Of the 1,028 patients, 957 (93%) were normotensive in the field; 11% of these patients received an emergent, therapeutic operation and 3% died. Thus, in trauma patients who were normotensive on arrival to the ED, the need for an emergent, therapeutic operation was more than three times more likely compared with those who had normal SBP in the field (odds ratio 4.5, 95% confidence interval 2.7-7.6). Mortality was also higher in the prehospital hypotension group (odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 0.8-6.9). CONCLUSION: Prehospital hypotension is a strong predictor of the need for an emergent, therapeutic operation in trauma patients with normal SBP on arrival to the ED.

Adolescent↗

Testing a classification model for emergency department errors.

AIM: This paper presents an evaluation of the Eindhoven Classification Model for categorizing healthcare errors. BACKGROUND: The ability to decrease healthcare errors will depend on an understanding of the types and patterns of error that occur in various settings. Research addressing the systematic classification of error is in its infancy. METHODS: The sample for this study was two existing sets of healthcare error reports obtained from the emergency department of a regional trauma center. Study data were collected in the summer of 2001 and 2002. The errors in these reports were categorized using a coding tool based on the Eindhoven Classification Model. In addition to testing for inter-rater reliability, the classification model was also evaluated for the number of unclassifiable errors and of categories never selected by the raters (not useful to the error classification model). RESULTS: Our findings of poor inter-rater reliability, large numbers of unclassifiable errors and categories not selected, suggest that the Eindhoven Classification Model, in its current form, cannot be applied to categorizing healthcare errors in an emergency department setting. CONCLUSIONS: Further study is needed to develop and test error categorization models for use in emergency departments and other healthcare settings.

Causality↗

A descriptive study of heavy emergency department users at an academic emergency department reveals heavy ED users have better access to care than average users.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) overcrowding has been a significant problem for the last 10 years. Several studies have shown that a relatively small number of ED patients are responsible for a disproportionate amount of ED visits. This study aims to describe the frequent users of our emergency department. METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved descriptive study performed by a retrospective review of electronic records. This pilot describes and compares patients who had 12 or more ED visits during the study year with those who visited less. RESULTS: The 234 patients who met criteria for high-frequency use (HFU) of the emergency department were responsible for a total of 4633 visits. Sex, race, and age distribution of HFU patients were similar to those of general ED patients. Eighty-four percent of HF users have insurance and 93% have primary care providers. A relatively small percentage of HFU visits, 4%, were mental health-related visits and 3% were alcohol- and drug-related visits. The HFU visits are socially connected: 93% have their own homes; 94% have relatives or friends; 73% have a religious affiliation. Pain or pain-related conditions are the most common diagnoses. These patients are also frequent users of ambulatory care services. CONCLUSION: The similarities between our HFU and the general ED population are more numerous than their differences. The HFU patients of our emergency department are different in terms of age, employment status, and type of insurance. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSES: A detailed description of local HFU may help to inform planning and better meet ED patients' needs. As one of many results of this study, the ED chairman met with the Hematology-Oncology team and reviewed the protocol for ED management of sickle cell crisis. The meeting resulted in a revised protocol, including an immediate change in their pain medication from meperidine to either morphine or hydromorphone.

Academic Medical Centers↗

Errors in a busy emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe errors occurring in a busy ED. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study of reported errors at an academic emergency department (ED) with 100000 annual visits. Trained personnel interviewed all ED staff with direct patient contact, during and at the end of every shift, by using standardized data sheets. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred thirty-five ED patients registered during the 7-day study period in the summer of 2001. Four hundred error reports were generated, identifying 346 nonduplicative errors (18 per 100 registered patients; 95% confidence interval [CI] 15.9 to 20.0). Forty percent of errors were reported by nurses, 25% by providers, 19% by clerical staff, 13% by technicians and orderlies, and 3% multiple reporters. Errors reported for every 100 hours worked were similar for all groups (5.5; 95% CI 5.2 to 5.9). Errors were categorized as 22% diagnostic studies, 16% administrative procedures, 16% pharmacotherapy, 13% documentation, 12% communication, 11% environmental, and 9% other. Patients involved in errors were more likely to be older (P <.0001) and more likely to have higher visit level intensity (P <.0001) than registered ED patients. Ninety-eight percent of errors did not have a significant adverse outcome. Seven errors (0.36 per 100 registered patients; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72) were associated with an adverse outcome. CONCLUSION: Reported errors occurred in almost every aspect of emergency care. Ninety-eight percent of errors in the ED do not result in adverse outcomes. System changes need to be implemented to reduce ED errors.

Academic Medical Centers↗

Next-day care for emergency department users with nonacute conditions. A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Because of overcrowding and cost-control efforts, emergency departments are under pressure to refer patients with nonacute conditions to other settings. However, no validated systematic methods exist for safely performing such referrals. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects on health status and access to care of systematically referring patients with nonacute conditions to next-day primary care. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: An emergency department in a public hospital. PATIENTS: 156 adults who used the emergency department on weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and met criteria for deferred care. The criteria applied to three symptom complexes that account for 33% of U.S. emergency department visits by adults. INTERVENTION: Next-day care at the study site's primary care center or usual same-day care. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported health status and use of health services during 1-week follow-up. RESULTS: Patients assigned to next-day care did not demonstrate clinically important disadvantages in health status or physician visits compared with usual care patients. In each group, more than 95% of patients were evaluated at least once by a physician, 4% sought health services after their initial evaluation, and no patients were hospitalized or died. At follow-up, both groups reported improved health status and fewer days in bed or with disability, although the deferred care group reported less improvement on all three measures. The 95% CIs were sufficiently narrow to exclude a clinically significant difference in self-reported health status. However, the possibility of 1 additional day in bed or with disability in the deferred care group could not be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically detailed standardized screening criteria can safely identify patients at public hospital emergency departments for referral to next-day care. However, larger studies are needed to assess the possibility of adverse effects.

Adult↗