Committee for assessing progress on implementing the recommendations of the institute of medicine report the future of nursing: leading change, advancing health

Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasises the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognising that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (http://www.squire-statement.org).

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/25/12/986.full.pdf

SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process

Since the publication of Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of 3 key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).

/pdf/squire-2-0-standards-for-quality-improvement-reporting-l1rtj3m6ja.pdf

Squire 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised Publication Guidelines From a Detailed Consensus Process

of “Roadmap for Provision of Safer Healthcare Information Systems: Preventing eIatrogenesis” Joan S. Ash, Ph.D., M.L.S., M.B.A.; Charles M. Kilo, M.D., M.P.H.; Michael Shapiro, M.A., M.S.; Joseph Wasserman, B.A.; Carmit McMullen, Ph.D.; William Hersh, M.D. BACKGROUND AND METHODS e-Iatrogenesis, defined as “patient harm caused at least in part by the application of health information technology” (Weiner et al., 2007), is of increasing concern as more and more hospitals are implementing health information systems (HIS). This report assesses how HIS can be designed, developed, implemented, monitored, and maintained to maximize safety. We specifically focus on hospital electronic health records (EHRs), clinical decision support (CDS), and computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems. This white paper is intended to provide background for an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on how the use of health information technology affects the safety of patient care by answering the following IOM-posed questions: • What are the risks of health care information systems that arise from workflow and related issues? • How have organizations acted to implement health care information systems safely? • What are the impacts of customization on safety? • What is the industry approach to managing change and customization? A recent literature review by Harrington et al. (2011) has summarized the EHR safety literature, so we first reviewed all papers cited in their report. Of their 43 references, we identified 37 that were relevant to the scope of this article. We analyzed the bibliographies of these selected papers and performed a reverse bibliography search on the articles deemed most relevant and published since 2000. In total, we identified over 100 sources relevant to the scope of this report. We then targeted topics for which published evidence was lacking and conducted several interviews with experts to help fill the knowledge gaps. 1 Full commissioned paper can be found in this project’s Public Access File. C-2 HEALTH IT AND PATIENT SAFETY PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOFS RESULTS What Are the Risks of Health Information Systems That Arise from Workflow and Related Issues? We found seven publications (Chuo and Hicks, 2008; Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, 2008; Magrabi et al., 2010; Myers et al., 2011; Santell et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2006; Zhan et al., 2006) presenting results of assessments of e-iatrogenic risk. All are studies of large databases of reported errors and they consistently indicate low levels of HISrelated risk, under 1 percent of all errors. All point to the need for human diligence when using HIS. Specifically, they indicate that HIS-related errors are due to inadequate staffing levels, lack of user experience, mislabeled bar-codes on medications, human distraction, inaccurate data entry, system downtime, and missing data. How Have Organizations Acted to Implement Health Information Systems Safely? Prior to implementation, health care organizations can mitigate risk. There is a large literature base devoted to the risks inherent in commercial EHR systems, and also warnings about their impact on workflow. Many publications offer guidance to hospitals about assessing workflow, selecting systems for purchase, conducting simulation tests, training, and other mechanisms for ensuring safe HIS implementation. Numerous publications exist to guide the implementation process itself, but there are also several pointing to the risks of rapid implementation without appropriate preparation. Finally, after implementation, continuous monitoring and improvement can mitigate safety risks. What Are the Impacts of Customization on Safety? The literature indicates that customization of the EHR to fit local situations seems to be necessary for many reasons, but there is scant research on how much customization or what form of customization is needed to optimize EHR use and what the risks are from either too much or too little customization. The content of CDS likewise needs adaptation, especially to avoid alert fatigue. Any customization must be done with care so that system upgrades can be accommodated. What Is the Industry Approach to Managing Change and Customization? The current industry approach is fragmented; a report sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality describes a wide variety of vendor practices related to usability of systems (McDonnell et al., 2010). Because purchasers must usually customize systems to fit local workflows and regulations, HIS safety depends on a combination of industry and local diligence.

Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care

Evidence is accumulating that nurses completing pre-licensure programs are not equipped with the essential knowledge and skills for today’s nursing practice, nor prepared to continue learning for tomorrow’s nursing. Citing the need to improve quality and increase capacity, this paper offers three recommendations for transforming nursing education: (1) Create new nursing education systems which use existing resources in community colleges and universities and which provide for common prerequisites and a shared competency-based nursing curriculum and instructional materials. (2) Convene one or more expert panels to develop model pre-licensure curricula which: (a) can be used as a framework by faculty in community college-university partnerships for development of their local curriculum; (b) are based on emerging health care needs and widely accepted nursing competencies as interpreted for new care delivery models; (c) incorporate best practices in teaching and learning. (3) Invest in a national initiative to develop and evaluate new approaches to pre-licensure clinical education, including a required post-graduate residency under a restricted license. The author notes that these changes will require significant investment in the reforms, as well as in nursing education research and faculty development. The return on investment would be improved educational capacity and a better prepared nursing workforce, responsive to emerging health care needs and rapidly changing health care delivery systems. TRANSFORMING PRE-LICENSURE NURSING EDUCATION: PREPARING THE NEW NURSE TO MEET EMERGING HEALTH CARE NEEDS The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching joins a chorus of calls for transformation of pre-licensure nursing education (Benner et al., 2009b). Citing the shift of significant responsibility to nurses for managing complex medical regimens, as well as increasing complexity of community based practices, Benner and colleagues concluded that nurses entering the field are not equipped with the essential knowledge and skills for today’s practice nor prepared to continue learning for tomorrow’s nursing (p. 31). They found (1) weak curricula in natural sciences, technology, social sciences and humanities, and in developing cultural competency; (2) weak classroom instruction and limited integration between classroom and clinical experiences; (3) limited strategies in helping

The future of nursing: leading change, advancing health.

https://qsen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/QSENArticle.pdf

Judith Warren

Papers

Quality and Safety Education for Nurses.

Quality and safety education for advanced nursing practice