Using prospective clinical surveillance to identify adverse events in hospital

Alan J Forster, Jim R Worthington, Steven Hawken, Michael Bourke, Fraser Rubens, Kaveh Shojania, Carl van Walraven, Alan J Forster, Jim R Worthington, Steven Hawken, Michael Bourke, Fraser Rubens, Kaveh Shojania, Carl van Walraven

Abstract

BACKGROUND To improve patient safety, organisations must systematically measure avoidable harms. Clinical surveillance-consisting of prospective case finding and peer review-could improve identification of adverse events (AEs), preventable AEs and potential AEs. The authors sought to describe and compare findings of clinical surveillance on four clinical services in an academic hospital. METHODS Clinical surveillance was performed by a nurse observer who monitored patients for prespecified clinical events and collected standard information about each event. A multidisciplinary, peer-review committee rated causation for each event. Events were subsequently classified in terms of severity and type. RESULTS The authors monitored 1406 patients during their admission to four hospital services: Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care (n=226), Intensive Care (n=211), General Internal Medicine (n=453) and Obstetrics (n=516). The authors detected 245 AEs during 9300 patient days of observation (2.6 AEs per 100 patient days). 88 AEs (33%) were preventable. The proportion of patients experiencing at least one AE, preventable AE or potential AE was 13.7%, 6.1% and 5.3%, respectively. AE risk varied between services, ranging from 1.4% of Obstetrics to 11% of Internal Medicine and Intensive Care patients experiencing at least one preventable AE. The proportion of patients experiencing AEs resulting in permanent disability or death varied between services: ranging from 0.2% on Obstetrics to 4.9% on Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care. No services shared the most frequent AE type. CONCLUSIONS Using clinical surveillance, the authors identified a high risk of AE and significant variation in AE risks and subtypes between services. These findings suggest that institutions will need to evaluate service-specific safety problems to set priorities and design improvement strategies.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Prospective clinical surveillance overview.

References

    1. Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, et al. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004;170:1678–86
    1. Forster AJ, Asmis TR, Clark HD, et al. Ottawa Hospital Patient Safety Study: incidence and timing of adverse events in patients admitted to a Canadian teaching hospital. CMAJ 2004;170:1235–40
    1. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370–6
    1. Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000;38:261–71
    1. Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001;322:517–19
    1. Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, et al. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995;163:458–71
    1. Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, et al. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals I: occurrence and impact. New Zeal Med J 2002;115:U271.
    1. O'Neil AC, Petersen LA, Cook EF, et al. Physician reporting compared with medical-record review to identify adverse medical events. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:370–6
    1. Cullen DJ, Bates DW, Small SD, et al. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1995;21:541–8
    1. Beckmann U, Bohringer C, Carless R, et al. Evaluation of two methods for quality improvement in intensive care: facilitated incident monitoring and retrospective medical chart review. Crit Care Med 2003;31:1006–11
    1. Flynn EA, Barker KN, Pepper GA, et al. Comparison of methods for detecting medication errors in 36 hospitals and skilled-nursing facilities. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002;59:436–46
    1. Berwick DM, Leape LL. Reducing errors in medicine. BMJ 1999;319:136–7
    1. Leape LL. Reporting of adverse events. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1633–8
    1. Leape LL. A systems analysis approach to medical error. J Eval Clin Pract 1997;3:213–22
    1. Thomas EJ, Petersen LA. Measuring errors and adverse events in health care. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:61–7
    1. Kellogg VA, Havens DS. Adverse events in acute care: an integrative literature review. Res Nurs Health 2003;26:398–408
    1. Walshe K. Adverse events in health care: issues in measurement. Qual Health Care 2000;9:47–52
    1. Murff HJ, Patel VL, Hripcsak G, et al. Detecting adverse events for patient safety research: a review of current methodologies. J Biomed Inform 2003;36:131–43
    1. Karson AS, Bates DW. Screening for adverse events. J Eval Clin Pract 1999;5:23–32
    1. Allan EL, Barker KN. Fundamentals of medication error research. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47:555–71
    1. Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:666–74
    1. Bates DW, Evans RS, Murff H, et al. Detecting adverse events using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003;10:115–28
    1. Weinger MB, Slagle J, Jain S, et al. Retrospective data collection and analytical techniques for patient safety studies. J Biomed Inform 2003;36:106–19
    1. Thomas EJ, Lipsitz SR, Studdert DM, et al. The reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:812–16
    1. Hayward RA, Hofer TP. Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer. JAMA 2001;286:415–20
    1. Forster AJ, Halil RB, Tierney MG. Pharmacist surveillance of adverse drug events. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004;61:1466–72
    1. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995;274:29–34
    1. Andrews LB, Stocking C, Krizek T, et al. An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care. Lancet 1997;349:309–13
    1. Donchin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, et al. A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. 1995. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:143–8
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–83
    1. Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Description of a computerized adverse drug event monitor using a hospital information system. Hosp Pharm 1992;27:774–9
    1. Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK. Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:194–200
    1. Honigman B, Lee J, Rothschild J, et al. Using computerized data to identify adverse drug events in outpatients. JAMIA 2001;8:254–66
    1. Hope C, Overhage JM, Seger A, et al. A tiered approach is more cost effective than traditional pharmacist-based review for classifying computer-detected signals as adverse drug events. J Biomed Inform 2003;36:92–8
    1. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, et al. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. JAMIA 1998;5:305–14
    1. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, et al. Identifying hospital admissions due to adverse drug events using a computer-based monitor. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001;10:113–19
    1. Rothschild JM, Landrigan CP, Cronin JW, et al. The Critical Care Safety Study: The incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care. Crit Care Med 2005;33:1694–700
    1. Haley RW, Culver DH, White JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182–205
    1. Neumayer L, Mastin M, Vanderhoof L, et al. Using the Veterans Administration National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to improve patient outcomes. J Surg Res 2000;88:58–61
    1. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson WG. The comparative assessment and improvement of quality of surgical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Arch Surg 2002;137:20–7
    1. Rowell KS, Turrentine FE, Hutter MM, et al. Use of national surgical quality improvement program data as a catalyst for quality improvement. J Am Coll Surgeons 2007;204:1293–300
    1. Forster AJ, O'Rourke K, Shojania KG, et al. Combining ratings from multiple physician reviewers helped to overcome the uncertainty associated with adverse event classification. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:892–901
    1. Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Chapman EJ, et al. How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: clinical risk unit and association of litigation and risk management protocol. BMJ 2000;320:777–81
    1. Vincent C, Stanhope N, Crowley-Murphy M. Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: an empirical study. J Eval Clin Pract 1999;5:13–21

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться