Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 14, 2014; 20(46): 17507-17515
Published online Dec 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i46.17507
Published online Dec 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i46.17507
Table 1 Participants’ demographics
Participant specialty | n |
Bowel Cancer Screening endoscopist | 6 |
Specialist screening practitioner | 6 |
Endoscopy nurse | 8 |
Administrative staffs | 3 |
Table 2 Participants (n = 23) patient safety knowledge assessment: Multiple Choice Question scores pre and post training
Knowledge assessment | Pre-training mean ± SD | Post-training mean ± SD | Change mean (95%CI) | P value |
Correct Multiple Choice Question responses | 43% ± 16% | 55% ± 16% | +12% (6-18) | < 0.001 |
Table 3 Participants (n = 23) patient safety attitudes pre and post training on a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree)
Patient safety attitude | Pre-course mean ± SD | Post-course mean ± SD | P value |
A. Perceived patient safety knowledge | |||
Different types of medical error | 3.3 ± 1.2 | 4.2 ± 0.6 | < 0.001 |
Factors contributing to error | 3.5 ± 1.0 | 4.5 ± 0.5 | < 0.001 |
Factors influencing patient safety | 4.0 ± 1.0 | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 0.04 |
Ways of speaking up about error | 3.5 ± 1.1 | 4.3 ± 0.6 | 0.009 |
What should happen if an error occurs | 3.6 ± 1.2 | 4.3 ± 0.7 | 0.01 |
How to report an error1 | 3.8 ± 1.3 | 4.3 ± 0.7 | 0.11 |
B. Perceived patient safety awareness | |||
Able to identify situations leading to error | 3.9 ± 0.6 | 4.3 ± 0.5 | 0.03 |
Able to take steps to ensure patient safety1 | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 4.1 ± 0.5 | 0.45 |
Able to investigate errors to prevent re-occurrence | 3.5 ± 0.8 | 4.1 ± 0.6 | 0.006 |
Understand the role of human factors in error prevention | 4.0 ± 0.8 | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 0.01 |
Able to see potential for error and rectify it1 | 3.8 ± 0.6 | 4.0 ± 0.6 | 0.09 |
Understand factors resulting in wrong site procedure | 3.8 ± 0.8 | 4.7 ± 0.5 | < 0.001 |
Able to prevent wrong site procedures | 4.0 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 0.004 |
Understand factors behind drug errors | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 4.4 ± 0.6 | 0.004 |
Able to prevent drug errors | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 4.4 ± 0.6 | 0.002 |
C. Perceived influence on patient safety | |||
Easier to find someone to blame following an error | 2.5 ± 1.2 | 2.4 ± 1.0 | 0.79 |
Confident addressing a colleague disregarding patient safety | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 4.3 ± 0.6 | 0.07 |
Able to talk to a colleague who has made an error1 | 3.7 ± 0.7 | 4.0 ± 0.7 | 0.06 |
Able to ensure safety is not compromised | 3.5 ± 0.8 | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 0.10 |
Incident forms improve patient safety | 4.0 ± 1.0 | 4.0 ± 0.8 | 0.59 |
Able to talk about my own errors | 4.1 ± 0.5 | 4.3 ± 0.5 | 0.16 |
D. Attitudes towards error management | |||
Identifying incident causation contributes to patient safety | 4.3 ± 0.6 | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 0.13 |
Learning from my mistakes will prevent medical error | 4.2 ± 0.8 | 4.4 ± 0.6 | 0.45 |
Dealing with errors is an important part of my job | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 1.00 |
Able to challenge practices that compromise patient safety | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 4.6 ± 0.6 | 0.65 |
It is acceptable to be honest about mistakes in my work-place | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 4.4 ± 0.6 | 0.48 |
Admitting error would lead to fair treatment by management | 4.0 ± 0.7 | 4.1 ± 0.6 | 0.32 |
E. Error management actions | |||
I report errors in my workplace | 4.4 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 0.76 |
I challenge patient safety complacency | 4.2 ± 0.7 | 4.4 ± 0.5 | 0.24 |
I communicate safety expectations to my team | 4.3 ± 0.6 | 4.4 ± 0.5 | 0.39 |
I support team members involved in an incident | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 4.7 ± 0.5 | 0.10 |
I inform colleagues about errors they make | 4.2 ± 0.6 | 4.1 ± 0.6 | 0.71 |
I intervene if a patient is exposed to harm | 4.4 ± 0.7 | 4.6 ± 0.5 | 0.23 |
I actively learn from others’ mistakes | 4.4 ± 0.6 | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 0.41 |
F. Personal views following an error | |||
Following an error I would feel afraid | 3.1 ± 0.9 | 3.1 ± 0.8 | 1.00 |
Following an error I would feel ashamed | 3.6 ± 0.9 | 3.6 ± 1.0 | 1.00 |
Following an error I would feel guilty | 4.1 ± 0.7 | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 0.15 |
Following an error I would feel upset | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 4.3 ± 0.6 | 0.24 |
I know whom to inform following an error | 4.4 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 0.24 |
I know whom to escalate a problem to arising during a list | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 4.4 ± 0.7 | 0.56 |
Able to request a debrief +/- support following a mistake I have made | 4.1 ± 1.1 | 4.2 ± 0.9 | 0.94 |
Table 4 Summary of quantitative course evaluation for 23 participants following the training intervention on a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree)
Course evaluation | Statement | Mean ± SD |
Content | Improved my understanding of patient safety, human factors and the systems approach to error | 3.95 ± 0.72 |
Improved my understanding of how to analyse an adverse event and learn from error | 4.14 ± 0.77 | |
Improved my understanding of solutions to prevent error | 4.18 ± 0.66 | |
Enhanced my understanding of non-technical skills | 4.32 ± 0.57 | |
Will enable me to use the Endoscopic Non-Technical Skills framework to reflect upon patient safety issues | 4.23 ± 0.53 | |
Provided me with a set of strategies to enhance safety in the endoscopy suite | 4.09 ± 0.43 | |
Implementation | Will change my practice in endoscopy to enhance patient safety | 4.14 ± 0.83 |
The learning objectives were met and the take-home message was clear | 4.32 ± 0.57 | |
Teaching and learning materials were of an appropriate quality | 4.27 ± 0.55 | |
This course should be mandatory for all members of the Bowel Cancer Screening team | 3.91 ± 1.11 | |
This course should be offered to non-Bowel Cancer Screening endoscopy teams | 4.36 ± 0.79 | |
Satisfaction | This course was well delivered and engaging | 4.23 ± 0.53 |
Overall, I was satisfied with the course | 4.18 ± 0.73 | |
I would recommend this course to a colleague | 4.18 ± 0.80 |
Table 5 Summary of qualitative course evaluation
Free text comments |
Highly relevant to day-to-day endoscopy practice |
ENTS is no-brainer need to educate others' on the topic |
Video cases were really interesting and good interactive discussion |
Excellent faculty, and well organised with high quality handbook |
Highly important topic, training should be mandatory for all endoscopy teams |
Suggested improvements |
More clinical cases |
More adverse event analysis |
More time for video analysis |
Practical ENTS sessions in real teams |
Table 6 Summary of patient safety training intervention studies
Ref. | Number of participants | Target audience | Duration of training | Patient safety outcome measures | Long term evaluation |
Matharoo et al[24] | 23 | English BCS teams from training centres | Full day | Knowledge | No |
Attitude | |||||
Arora et al[26] | 27 | Surgical residents in North West London training region | Half day | Knowledge | Yes |
Attitude | |||||
PSI observations | |||||
Ahmed et al[27] | 216 | Senior clinicians from 20 hospitals in the North Western Deanery | Half day | Knowledge | Yes |
Attitude | |||||
Error analysis | |||||
Uptake of training role | |||||
Hull et al[33] | 30 | Postgraduate students (clinical and non-clinical specialties) in Colombia | Full day | Knowledge | No |
Attitude | |||||
Observations of theatre teams using OTAS |
- Citation: Matharoo M, Haycock A, Sevdalis N, Thomas-Gibson S. Endoscopic non-technical skills team training: The next step in quality assurance of endoscopy training. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(46): 17507-17515
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i46/17507.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i46.17507