Publications by authors named "Cathy Foskett"
Article Synopsis
- There is a need for better research on adverse events (AEs) in oncology patients, as current methods like voluntary safety reporting (VSR) and the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) show significant differences in detection rates.
- A study conducted between 2013 and 2015 compared these two methods, finding that the modified GTT detected more AEs (0.90 per patient) primarily related to medications, whereas VSR detected only 0.24 AEs per patient, with many not causing harm.
- The findings suggest that neither detection method is fully effective on its own in identifying AEs in oncology patients, emphasizing the need for improved strategies, such as using electronic health records and patient-reported data.
Objective: Evaluate application of quality improvement approaches to key ambulatory malpractice risk and safety areas.
Study Setting: In total, 25 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices (16 intervention; 9 control) in Massachusetts.
Study Design: Controlled trial of a 15-month intervention including exposure to a learning network, webinars, face-to-face meetings, and coaching by improvement advisors targeting "3+1" high-risk domains: test result, referral, and medication management plus culture/communication issues evaluated by survey and chart review tools.
Objective: We sought to assess the epidemiology of medication errors (MEs) and adverse drug events (ADEs) in a psychiatric hospital.
Methods: We conducted a 6-month prospective observational study in a 172-bed academic psychiatric hospital. Errors and ADEs were found by way of chart review, staff reports and pharmacy intervention reports.
Recovery from medical errors: the critical care nursing safety net.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
February 2006
Background: Safety initiatives have primarily focused on physicians despite the fact that nurses provide the majority of direct inpatient care. Patient surveillance and preventing errors from harming patients represent essential nursing responsibilities but have received relatively little study.
Methods: The study was conducted between July 2003 and July 2004 in a 10-bed academic coronary care unit.