technology applications.
Workforce organization and training remain uneven.
Early reporting systems had little demonstrable impact.
Only small improvement in accountability was noted.
Thus, Wachter concluded, we are at the end of the beginning, meaning much work remains.
In 2010 Wachter used a report card grading system from A (highest) to D (lowest), and rating progress improved from a C+ in 2004 to a B– in 2009. Leadership engagement from provider organizations and reporting systems were gauged as having made the most progress, in part because of a stronger business case for hospitals to concentrate on safety and quality, increased accreditation standards and error‐reporting requirements, and national and international campaigns from groups such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Joint Commission, the National Quality Forum, and WHO. Hospitals were still slow to fully implement information technology applications, safety cultures that balance no blame with accountability, human factors to address workforce concerns, and measurements for improvement.
Measuring the impact of quality and safety efforts is challenging, particularly patient deaths due to preventable harm, because of their hidden nature, providers’ unwillingness to share exactly what happened, varying definitions of what is reportable, and fear of punishment. Estimates of inpatient deaths have ranged from the 44,000 and 98,000 in the 1999 report to James's (2013) projection of 250,000–400,000 per year. More recently, Makary and Daniel (2016) estimated 251,454 deaths annually based on examination of death certificates. Globally, the 2018 report indicates that between 5.7 and 8.4 million deaths occur annually from poor quality of care in low‐ and middle‐income countries (NASEM, 2018). Regardless of the exact number, these reports, like the report cards above, indicate that change is coming slowly, albeit any number above zero is unacceptable.
Inpatient preventable harm alone costs the system $33.7 billion in aggregate hospital costs, accounting for 3.5 million potentially preventable adult inpatient stays (McDermott and Jiang, 2020). Economic costs are only part of the total costs: patients and families pay double in emotional costs, pain and suffering, lost productivity and wages, and physical harm. Health care staff working in flawed systems cope with inadequate resources, experiencing demoralization that contributes to dissatisfaction and low morale that diminishes attention to safety (Tawfik et al., 2019). For everyone, there is an erosion of trust from the pitfalls experienced that defies measurement.
In 2015 the National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF, now part of the IHI) convened a panel to examine progress 15 years after To Err Is Human. The White Paper, Free from Harm, has similar results as the previous progress reports. Both issued the same caveat, that for the most part, safety and improvement are a set of piecemeal strategies lacking a coherent, system‐wide, coordinated and committed plan (NPSF, 2015). The panel issued eight recommendations to accomplish change, listed in Textbox 1.2.
In 2018, NASEM, with support from organizations around the globe, convened a global panel that issued the first Global Quality Chasm Report. It identified defects in quality of care around the world. This groundbreaking document, the first global report on health care quality, concluded that many of the same problems exist in most countries. Fragmentation is common, meaning most care happens in a series of disparate interventions rather than from a coordinated, purposefully designed system. Inpatient care is disconnected from community outpatient care; health care professions education happens in silos and includes little on teamwork behaviors and principles of interdependence; and patients are relegated to passive roles. Rather than promote excellence, quality of care is hampered by system dysfunction, unclear goals, poorly prepared workforces, burdensome rules and procedures, ineffective information flow, and unreliable supply chains. As a result the workforce is fatigued, discouraged, and disenfranchised by ineffective work environments. Economic costs are high: as much as 15% of all hospital costs in countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) result from patient harms in adverse events, lack of person‐centered care, and inconsistent adherence to evidence‐based best practices (NASEM, 2018).
Textbox 1.2 Eight Recommendations for Improving Quality and Safety
Ensure leaders establish and sustain a safety culture
Create centralized and coordinated oversight for patient safety
Create a common set of safety metrics of meaningful outcomes
Increase research funding to examine patient safety and improvement science
Address safety across the entire care continuum
Support the health care workforce
Partner with patients and families for safest care
Ensure safe technology used optimally to improve patient safety
The global report used the same STEEEP model first developed for the 2001 IOM Crossing the Quality Chasm report, but made modifications reflecting new perspectives on equity, equality, social determinants of health, and access to health care (Figure 1.1).
Systems are hampered by a lack of technology that could drive some improvements, payers and providers are not in alignment, and few resources are allocated for coordinating care for complex conditions. Systems are largely designed for failure, with safety a reactive approach that regulates behavior and inhibits variability, with little effort paid to analyzing system issues.
Quality and safety are dependent on the culture, norms, expectations, and learning environment of systems—that is, hardwired into the organizational mission and vision. To improve, every level of a health care system must be examined to learn how each microsystem interacts within the larger system: how the environment, the organization, workers, and the patient at the center work in synergy (Neuhaus, Lutnæs, and Bergström, 2020). To improve, health professions education should be transformed with a guiding framework based on developing systems thinking for all providers to share in quality and safety improvements.
National Initiatives for Quality and Safety
Many of the improvements in our health care systems are the result of regulatory mandates from groups such as the Joint Commission (www.jointcommission.org), which grants institutional accreditation that opens the possibility of different aspects of federal funding (Wachter, 2004, 2010). The Joint Commission issues an annual list of National Patient Safety goals to provide guidance in key areas of high vulnerability and share evidence for solutions by emphasizing a systematic process for quality improvement, patient safety, and monitoring outcomes (https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/national‐patient‐safety‐goals). The Joint Commission requires health care delivery systems to establish a code of conduct to eliminate disruptive behavior among health care professionals, a major threat to safety, as well as a process for managing such behaviors. Schumann (see Chapter 2) provides a comprehensive description of national groups related to quality and safety.
The IHI (www.ihi.org) is a strong advocate for quality and safety innovations, facilitating collaboration among all professions. Its
