Understand the Science of Safety: Presentation SlidesThe Understand the Science of Safety module of the CUSP Toolkit discusses the importance of understanding system design, safe design principles, and valuing diverse input from team members. By analyzing patient safety as a science, frontline providers will provide a higher quality of patient-centered care on their hospital unit. Note: Slide content is presented below each of the images.ContentsSlide 1. Cover SlideSlide 2. Learning ObjectivesSlide 3. Putting Safety into ContextSlide 4. Health Care DefectsSlide 5. How Can These Errors Happen?Slide 6. The Science of SafetySlide 7. System-Level Factors Affect Safety9Slide 8. Safety is a Property of the SystemSlide 9. System-Level Factors Can Predict PerformanceSlide 10. Three Principles of Safe DesignSlide 11. Standardize When You CanSlide 12. Create Independent ChecksSlide 13. Learn From DefectsSlide 14. ExerciseSlide 15. Principles of Safe Design Apply to Technical Work and TeamworkSlide 16. Technical Work and TeamworkSlide 17. ExerciseSlide 18. Teams Make Wise Decisions When There is Diverse and Independent InputSlide 19.How To Ensure Diverse and Independent InputSlide 20. Basic Components and Process of Communication11Slide 21. Diverse and Independent InputSlide 22. Reduced CRBSI By Applying Principles of Safe Design12Slide 23. Understand the Science of Safety: What the Team Must DoSlide 24. SummarySlide 25. CUSP ToolsSlide 26. TeamSTEPPS Tools1Slide 27. ReferencesSlide 28. ReferencesSlide 29. ReferencesNote: Slide content is presented below each of the images. Slide 1: Cover Slide Image: CUSP Toolkit logo.Return to Contents Slide 2: Learning Objectives In this module, we will:Describe the historical and contemporary context of the Science of SafetyExplain how system design affects system resultsList the principles of safe design and identify how they apply to technical work and teamworkIndicatel how teams make wise decisions when there is diverse and independent inputReturn to Contents Slide 3: Putting Safety in Context Advances in medicine have led to positive outcomes:Most childhood cancers are curableAIDS is now a chronic diseaseLife expectancy has increased 10 years since the 1950sHowever, sponges are still found inside patients’ bodies after operations.Return to Contents Slide 4: Health Care Defects In the U.S. health care system:7 percent of patients suffer a medication error.2On average, every patient admitted to an intensive care unit suffers an adverse event.3, 444,000 to 99,000 people die in hospitals each year as the result of medical errors.5Over half a million patients develop catheter-associated urinary tract infections resulting in 13,000 deaths a year.6Nearly 100,000 deaths from health care-associated infections (HAIs) each year and the cost of HAIs is $28 to $33 billion per year.7Estimated 30,000 to 62,000 deaths from central line-associated blood stream infections per year.8Return to Contents Slide 5: How Can These Errors Happen? People are fallible.Medicine is still treated as an art, not a science.Systems do not catch mistakes before they reach the patient.Return to Contents Slide 6: The Science of Safety Every system is perfectly designed to achieve its end results.Safe design principles must be applied to technical work and teamwork.Teams make wise decisions when there is diverse and independent input.Return to Contents Slide 7: System-Level Factors Affect Safety9 Image: Concentric circles show the layered system-level factors that affect patient safety: institutional factors, hospital factors, departmental factors, work environment factors, team factors, individual provider factors, and task factors all have an effect on patient safety.Return to Contents Slide 8: Safety is a Property of the System(vignette still)Click to play Return to Contents Slide 9: System-Level Factors Can Predict Performance Examples of the Impact of System-Level FactorsSystem FactorEffectDaily rounds with an intensivistWhen ICUs are staffed with a multidisciplinary team, including daily rounds with an intensivist, mortality is reducedNurses responsible for more than two patientsWhen nurses are responsible for more than two patients, there is an increased risk of pulmonary complications in the ICU patient populationPoint-of-care pharmacist or pharmacist who participates in roundsA point-of-care pharmacist or one who participates in rounds reduces prescribing errorsReturn to Contents Slide 10: Three Principles of Safe Design The three principles of safe design are standardize, create independent checks, and learn from defects.Return to Contents Slide 11: Standardize When You Can(vignette still)Click to play Return to Contents Slide 12: Create Independent Checks (vignette still)Click to play Return to Contents Slide 13: Learn From Defects (vignette still)Click to play Return to Contents Slide 14: Exercise Think about a recent safety issue in your unit and answer the four Learning from Defects questions:What happened?Why did it happen?How will you reduce the risk of recurrence?How will you know it worked?Return to Contents Slide 15: Principles of Safe Design Apply to Technical Work and Teamwork Return to Contents Slide 16: Technical Work and Teamwork (vignette still)Click to play Return to Contents Slide 17: Exercise How do you see technical and adaptive work fitting in your unit?Return to Contents Slide 18: Teams Make Wise Decisions When There is Diverse and Independent Input Return to Contents Slide 19: Exercise Appreciate the wisdom of crowdsEmphasize that health care is a team effortDevelop an environment where frontline providers can voice concerns, and are acknowledged when they express concernsGather as many viewpoints as possibleAlternate between convergent and divergent thinking Divergent thinking occurs on rounds, during brainstorming sessions, and when trying to understand what might be occurring10Convergent thinking occurs while formulating a treatment plan or focusing on a specific task10Return to Contents Slide 20: Basic Components and Process of Communication11 Provider A – Sender and ReceiverNoiseA’s ContextEncoding and DecodingMessagesChannelProvider B – Sender and ReceiverNoiseB’s ContextEncoding and DecodingReturn to Contents Slide 21: Diverse and Independent Input (vignette still)Click to play Return to Contents Slide 22: Reduced CRBSI By Applying Principles of Safe Design12 Time PeriodMedian Catheter-Related BloodStream Infection (CRBSI) RateIncidence Rate RatioBaseline2.71Pre-intervention1.60.760-3 months00.624-6 months00.567-9 months00.4710-12 months00.4213-15 months00.3716-18 months00.34Return to Contents Slide 23: Understand the Science of Safety: What the Team Must Do Develop a plan so all staff on your unit view the Understand the Science of Safety video.Video screening should be mandatory for all unit staff.Create a list of who has watched the video.Describe the three principles of safe design: Standardize.Create independent checks.Learn from defects.Return to Contents Slide 24: Summary Every system is designed to achieve its anticipated results.The principles of safe design are standardize when you can, create independent checks, and learn from defects.The principles of safe design apply to technical work and teamwork.Teams make wise decisions when there is diverse input.Return to Contents Slide 25: CUSP Tools Daily Goals ChecklistMorning BriefingShadowing Another Professional ToolObserving Patient Care RoundsTeam Check-Up ToolReturn to Contents Slide 26: TeamSTEPPS Tools1 BriefHuddleDebriefSBARCheck BackCall OutHand OffI PASS the BATONDESC Script*Please refer to the “Implement Teamwork and Communication” module for additional information*Return to Contents Slide 27: References 1.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Department of Defense. TeamSTEPPS. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/education/curriculum-tools/teamstepps/instructor/index.html 2. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. JAMA. 1995;274(1):29-34. 3. Donchin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, et al. A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:294-300. 4. Andrews LB, Stocking C, Krizek T, et al. An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care. Lancet. 349:309-313,1997.Return to Contents Slide 28: References 5. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. 6. Scott, RD. The Direct Medical Costs of Healthcare-Associated Infections in U.S. Hospitals and the Benefits of Prevention. March 2009. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/Scott_CostPaper.pdf (Plugin Software Help) 7. Klevens M, Edwards J, Richards C, et al. Estimating Health Care-Associated Infections and Deaths in U.S. Hospitals, 2002. PHR. 2007;122:160-166. 8. Ending health care-associated infections, AHRQ, Rockville, MD, 2009. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/errors-safety/haicusp/. 9. Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Stanhope N. Framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. BMJ. 1998;316:1154–57.Return to Contents Slide 29: References 10. Heifetz R. Leadership without easy answers, president and fellows of Harvard College. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;1994. 11. Dayton E, Henriksen K. Communication failure: basic components, contributing factors, and the call for structure. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007;33(1): 34-47. 12. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. New Engl J Med. 2006;355(26):2725-32. Current as of December 2012 Internet Citation: Understand the Science of Safety:: Presentation Slides. December 2012. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/education/curriculum-tools/cusptoolkit/modules/understand/scisafetyslides.html