Aggressive incidents occur frequently in health care facilities, such as psychiatric care and forensic psychiatric hospitals. Previous research suggests that civil psychiatric inpatients may display more aggression than forensic inpatients. However, there is a lack of research comparing these groups on the incident severity, even though both frequency and severity of aggression influence the impact on staff members. The purpose of this study is to compare the frequency and severity of inpatient aggression caused by forensic and civil psychiatric inpatients in the same Dutch forensic psychiatric hospital. Data on aggressive incidents occurring between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, were gathered from hospital files and analyzed using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale, including sexual aggression (MOAS+). Multilevel random intercept models were used to analyze differences between forensic and civil psychiatric patients in severity of aggressive incidents. In all, 3,603 aggressive incidents were recorded, caused by 344 different patients. Civil psychiatric patients caused more aggressive incidents than forensic patients and female patients caused more inpatient aggression compared with male patients. Female forensic patients were found to cause the most severe incidents, followed by female civil psychiatric patients. Male forensic patients caused the least severe incidents. The findings have important clinical implications, such as corroborating the need for an intensive treatment program for aggressive and disruptive civil psychiatric patients, as well as emphasizing the importance of gender-responsive treatment
MULTIFILE
The Junior Adverse Drug Event Manager (J-ADEM) team is a multifaceted intervention focusing on real-life education for medical students that has been shown to assist healthcare professionals in managing and reporting suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. The aim of this study was to quantify and describe the ADRs reported by the J-ADEM team and to determine the clinical potential of this approach. The J-ADEM team consisted of medical students tasked with managing and reporting ADRs in hospitalized patients. All ADRs screened and reported by J-ADEM team were recorded anonymously, and categorized and analysed descriptively. From August 2018 through January 2020, 209 patients on two wards in an academic hospital were screened for ADR events. The J-ADEM team reported 101 ADRs. Although most ADRs (67%) were first identified by healthcare professionals and then reported by the J-ADEM team, the team also reported an additional 33 not previously identified serious ADRs. In 10% of all reported ADRs, the J-ADEM team helped optimize ADR treatment. The ADR reports were largely well-documented (78%), and ADRs were classified as type A (66%), had a moderate or severe severity (85%) and were predominantly avoidable reactions (69%). This study shows that medical students are able to screen patients for ADRs, can identify previously undetected ADRs and can help optimize ADR management. They significantly increased (by 300%) the number of ADR reports submitted, showing that the J-ADEM team can make a valuable clinical contribution to hospital care.
MULTIFILE
This paper proposes an amendment of the classification of safety events based on their controllability and contemplates the potential of an event to escalate into higher severity classes. It considers (1) whether the end-user had the opportunity to intervene into the course of an event, (2) the level of end-user familiarity with the situation, and (3) the positive or negative effects of end-user intervention against expected outcomes. To examine its potential, we applied the refined classification to 296 aviation safety investigation reports. The results suggested that pilots controlled only three-quarters of the occurrences, more than three-thirds of the controlled cases regarded fairly unfamiliar situations, and the flight crews succeeded to mitigate the possible negative consequences of events in about 71% of the cases. Further statistical tests showed that the controllability-related characteristics of events had not significantly changed over time, and they varied across regions, aircraft, operational and event characteristics, as well as when fatigue had contributed to the occurrences. Overall, the findings demonstrated the value of using the controllability classification before considering the actual outcomes of events as means to support the identification of system resilience and successes. The classification can also be embedded in voluntary reporting systems to allow end-users to express the degree of each of the controllability characteristics so that management can monitor them over time and perform internal and external benchmarking. The mandatory reports concerned, the classification could function as a decision-making parameter for prioritising incident investigations.
DOCUMENT
