Adverse effects and medication errors: incidence and role of the organization of drug distribution

The true incidence of adverse drug events is controversial and there are few data concerning the percentage of potentially preventable adverse drug events. Over 2 months, in two internal medicine units, we asked the staff to report adverse drug events. All incidents were evaluated: adverse drug events (preventable and non-preventable) and potential adverse drug events (non-intercepted potential adverse drug events and intercepted potential adverse drug events). The severity, the stage in the process at which the error occurred and the type of error were evaluated by a physician reviewer. Over the 240 admissions, the incidence of adverse drug events is 18 per 1000 patient-days. The system design caused 77 per cent of the incidents. The medication errors occurred at all stages from ordering to administration. Adverse drug events resulting in medication errors (n = 22) were more serious than non-preventable adverse drug events (n = 26) (p = 0.003). A prevention strategy by pharmacovigilance centres (Centres Régionaux de Pharmacovigilance) should target all stages of the drug delivery process.     

Medication errors and adverse drug events in an intensive care unit: direct observation approach for detection

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence and preventability of medication errors and potential/actual adverse drug events. To evaluate system failures leading to error occurrence. DESIGN: Prospective, direct observation study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic medical center. PATIENTS: Patients in a medical/surgical intensive care unit. INTERVENTIONS: Observers would intervene only in the event that the medication error would cause substantial patient harm or discomfort. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The observers identified 185 incidents during a pilot period and four phases totaling 16.5 days (33 12-hr shifts). Two independent evaluators concluded that 13 of 35 (37%) actual adverse drug events were nonpreventable (i.e., not medication errors). An additional 40 of the remaining 172 medication errors were judged not to be clinically important. Of the 132 medication errors classified as clinically important, 110 (83%) led to potential adverse drug events and 22 (17%) led to actual, preventable adverse drug events. There was one error (i.e., resulting in a potential or actual, preventable adverse drug event) for every five doses of medication administered. The potential adverse drug events mostly occurred in the administration and dispensing stages of the medication use process (34% in each); all of the actual, preventable adverse drug events occurred in the prescribing (77%) and administration (23%) stages. Errors of omission accounted for the majority of potential and actual, preventable adverse drug events (23%), followed by errors due to wrong dose (20%), wrong drug (16%), wrong administration technique (15%), and drug-drug interaction (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Using a direct observation approach, we found a higher incidence of potential and actual, preventable adverse drug events and an increased ratio of potential to actual, preventable adverse drug events compared with studies that used chart reviews and solicited incident reporting. All of the potential adverse drug events and approximately two thirds of the actual adverse drug events were judged to be preventable. There was one preventable error for every five doses of medication administered; most errors were due to dose omission, wrong dose, wrong drug, wrong technique, or interactions.     

Adverse event and error of unexpected life-threatening events within 24 hours of ED admission

Objectives

Errors and adverse events associated with unexpected life-threatening events including unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and unexpected death after emergency department (ED) hospitalization are not well characterized. We performed this study to investigate the role of unexpected life-threatening events as a trigger to capture errors and adverse events for ED patient safety.

A controlled trial of smart infusion pumps to improve medication safety in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE: Intravenous medications are vital during inpatient management. Errors associated with the administration of medications through intravenous infusion pumps to critically ill patients can result in adverse drug events. We sought to assess the impact of smart pumps with integrated decision support software on the incidence and nature of medication errors and adverse drug events. DESIGN: We performed a prospective, randomized time-series trial and compared the serious medication error rate between intervention (decision support on) and control (decision support off) periods. Serious medication errors included both near-misses and preventable adverse drug events. Pump software produced log reports to help identify potential events. Events were presented to physicians for rating of event type, preventability, and severity. SETTING: Cardiac surgical intensive care and step-down units between February and December 2002. PATIENTS: Pump data were available for 744 cardiac surgery admissions. INTERVENTIONS: Decision support during medication administration provided feedback including alerts, reminders, and unit-specific drug rate limits. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We found a total of 180 serious medication errors, including 14 and 11 preventable adverse drug events and 73 and 82 nonintercepted potential adverse drug events in the control and intervention periods, respectively. The serious medication error rates in the control and intervention periods were 2.03 and 2.41 per 100 patient-pump-days, respectively (p = .124). We also found numerous opportunities for safety improvement. Violations of infusion practice during the intervention periods included 571 (25%) bypasses of the drug library. Medications were also frequently administered without documentation of physician orders in both periods (n = 823; 7.7%). CONCLUSION: Intravenous medication errors and adverse drug events were frequent and could be detected using smart pumps. We found no measurable impact on the serious medication error rate, likely in part due to poor compliance. Although smart pumps have great promise, technological and nursing behavioral factors must be addressed if these pumps are to achieve their potential for improving medication safety.     

Clinical review: Medication errors in critical care

Medication errors in critical care are frequent, serious, and predictable. Critically ill patients are prescribed twice as many medications as patients outside of the intensive care unit (ICU) and nearly all will suffer a potentially life-threatening error at some point during their stay. The aim of this article is to provide a basic review of medication errors in the ICU, identify risk factors for medication errors, and suggest strategies to prevent errors and manage their consequences.     

Does acute care for the elderly (ACE) unit decrease the incidence of falls?

To determine whether acute care for the elderly (ACE) units decrease the incidence of patient falls compared to general medical and surgical (GMS) units, a non-concurrent prospective study included individuals aged 65 and older admitted to ACE or GMS units over a 2-year span was done. There were 7069 admissions corresponded to 28,401 patient-days. A total of 149 falls were reported for an overall incidence rate (IR) of 5.2 falls per 1000 patient-days, 95% CI, 4.4/1000–6.1/1000 patient-days. The falls IR ratio for patients in ACE unit compared to those in non-ACE units after adjusting for age, sex, prescribed psychotropics and hypnotics, and Morse Fall Score was 0.27/1000 patient-days; 95% CI, 0.13–0.54; p < 0.001. So, an estimated 73% reduction in patient falls between ACE unit and non-ACE units. Hospitals may consider investing in ACE units to decrease the risk of falls and the associated medical and financial costs.     

The effect of workload on infection risk in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE: There is growing evidence that low nurse staffing jeopardizes quality of patient care. The objective of the study was to determine whether low staffing level increases the infection risk in critical care. DESIGN: Observational, single-center, prospective cohort study. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit of the University of Geneva Hospitals, Switzerland. PATIENTS: All patients admitted over a 4-yr period. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Study variables included all infections acquired in critical care, daily nurse-to-patient ratio, demographic characteristics, admission diagnosis and severity score, comorbidities, daily individual exposure to invasive devices, and selected drugs. Of a cohort of 1,883 patients totaling 10,637 patient-days, 415 (22%) developed at least one healthcare-associated infection while in critical care. Overall infection rate was 64.5 episodes per 1000 patient-days. Infected patients experienced higher mortality with a longer duration of stay both in critical care and in the hospital than noninfected patients (all p < .001). Median 24-hr nurse-to-patient ratio was 1.9. Controlling for exposure to central venous catheter, mechanical ventilation, urinary catheter, and antibiotics, we found that higher staffing level was associated with a >30% infection risk reduction (incidence rate ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.95). We estimated that 26.7% of all infections could be avoided if the nurse-to-patient ratio was maintained >2.2. CONCLUSIONS: Staffing is a key determinant of healthcare-associated infection in critically ill patients. Assuming causality, a substantial proportion of all infections could be avoided if nurse staffing were to be maintained at a higher level.     

Preventable readmission to intensive care unit in critically ill cancer patients

BACKGROUND: Readmission to intensive care unit (ICU) after discharge to ward has been reported to be associated with increased hospital mortality and longer length of stay (LOS). The objective of this study was to investigate whether ICU readmission are preventable in critically ill cancer patients.METHODS: Data of patients who readmitted to intensive care unit (ICU) at National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) and Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) between January 2013 and November 2016 were retrospectively collected and reviewed.RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were included in the final analysis, and the overall readmission rate between 2013 and 2016 was 1.32% (39/2,961). Of 39 patients, 32 (82.1%) patients were judged as unpreventable and 7 (17.9%) patients were preventable. There were no significant differences in duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, ICU mortality and in-hospital mortality between patients who were unpreventable and preventable. For 24 early readmission patients, 7 (29.2%) patients were preventable and 17 (70.8%) patients were unpreventable. Patients who were late readmission were all unpreventable. There was a trend that patients who were preventable had longer 1-year survival compared with patients who were unpreventable (100% vs. 66.8%, log rank=1.668, P=0.196).CONCLUSION: Most readmission patients were unpreventable, and all preventable readmissions occurred in early period after discharge to ward. There were no significant differences in short term outcomes and 1-year survival in critically ill cancer patients whose readmissions were preventable or not.     

Reporting of medical errors: an intensive care unit experience

OBJECTIVE: To determine the occurrence and type of medical errors in an intensive care setting using a voluntary reporting method. DESIGN: Prospective, single-center, observational study. SETTING: The medical intensive care unit (19 beds) at an urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Adult patients requiring at least 48 hrs of intensive care. INTERVENTIONS: Prospective reporting of medical errors. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During a 6-month period, 232 medical events were reported involving 147 patients. A total of 2598 patient days were surveyed yielding 89.3 medical events reported per 1000 intensive care unit days. The source of the reports included nurses, who reported most of the medical events (59.1%), followed by physicians-in-training (27.2%) and intensive care unit attending physicians (2.6%). One hundred thirty (56.2%) medical events occurred within the intensive care unit and were judged to involve patient careproviders who were working directly in the intensive care unit area. One hundred and two (43.8%) medical events were commissions or omissions that occurred outside of the intensive care unit during patient transports or in the emergency department and hospital floors. Twenty-three (9.9%) medical events leading to a medical error resulted in the need for additional life-sustaining treatment, and seven (3.0%) medical errors may have contributed to patient deaths. CONCLUSION: Medical errors appear to be common among patients requiring intensive care. Medical events resulting in an error can result in the need for additional life-sustaining treatments and, in some circumstances, can contribute to patient death. Patient healthcare providers appear to be in a unique position to identify medical errors. Institutions should develop formalized methods for the reporting and analysis of medical errors to improve patient care.     

Life-threatening adverse drug reactions at admission to medical intensive care: a prospective study in a teaching hospital

Objective To assess the characteristics of life-threatening adverse drug reactions in patients admitted to medical intensive care unit and to define those that could facilitate early identification. Design A prospective 6-month observational study. Patients Of the 436 admissions to the teaching hospital medical intensive care unit, all patients aged over 15 years and who had received documented drug treatment were included (n = 405). Measurements Characteristics of patients [age, gender, underlying diseases, organ failure(s), drugs taken, Severity Acute Physiologic Score II, length of stay, outcome at discharge] were prospectively collected using a standardised questionnaire. A panel of experts assessed putative serious adverse drug reaction(s) for each drug taken and each organ failure at admission by using a standardised causality assessment method. Characteristics of patients with and without serious adverse drug reactions at admission were compared using univariate and then stepwise descending multivariate logistic regression. Results Of the 405 patients included, 111 (27.4%) presented an adverse drug reaction leading to organ failure. In 48% of cases adverse drug reactions were preventable, 23% were undiagnosed and 19% contributed to death. Age over 75 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15–4.38; p = 0.02], having more than three drugs (OR 6.90; 95% CI 1.44–33.00; p = 0.02) and a diagnosis of haematological malignancy (OR 6.19; 95% CI 2.07–18.53; p = 0.001) were independently associated with serious adverse drug reactions. Conclusions Preventable life-threatening adverse drug reactions were frequently involved in organ failure at admission to medical intensive care; many of them had not been identified. Financial disclosures: None Conflict of interest: None     

Disclosing errors and adverse events in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE: To review the issue of disclosing errors in care and adverse events that have caused harm to patients in critical care. DESIGN: Review the scope of the problem, the definitions of errors and adverse events, and the benefits and problems of disclosing errors and adverse events and provide an approach by which to have these difficult discussions. SETTING: Medical center. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients and their families. INTERVENTIONS: Applying a systematic framework for disclosing errors and adverse events to affected patients and their families. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Several national organizations mandate that physicians discuss errors in care and adverse events that have caused harm with affected patients, but failure to do so is a common problem in critical care as surveys of intensivists indicate that, although most believe that errors should be disclosed, few routinely do so. The likelihood of an adverse event is increased in intensive care units because of the nature of critical care. Not all errors or adverse events require disclosure. There are ethical, financial, legal, systems, and personal benefits to disclosing errors, and disclosure discussions should address common patient concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to disclose errors and adverse events in critical care is an important and common problem. There are numerous reasons why errors and adverse events should be disclosed, and use of a standard framework for doing so will facilitate the process.     

Nurse workload and inexperienced medical staff members are associated with seasonal peaks in severe adverse events in the adult medical intensive care unit: A seven-year prospective study

ObjectiveOur purpose was to identify potential organizational factors that contributed to life-threatening adverse events in adult intensive care unit.MethodsA prospective, observational, dynamic cohort study was carried out from January 2006 to December 2013 in a 20-bed adult medical intensive care unit. All patients admitted to the intensive care unit and who experienced one or more selected life-threatening adverse events (mainly unexpected cardiac arrest, unplanned extubation, reintubation after planned extubation, and readmission within 48 h of intensive care unit discharge) were included in the analysis. Negative binomial regression was used to model how human resources, work organization, and intensive care activity influenced the monthly rate of selected severe adverse events. Data were collected from local and national databases.ResultsOverall, 638 severe adverse events involving 498 patients were recorded. Adverse events increased seasonally in May, November and December (p < .001 vs other months). The proportion of inexperienced nurses and doctors’ working hours could not explain these seasonal peaks of adverse events. Multivariate analysis identified bed-to-nurse ratio and the arrival of inexperienced residents or senior registrars as being independently associated with the rate of adverse events (incidence risk ratio = 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.75), and 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.13), respectively; p = .01 in both cases). According to this model, a one-unit increase in the day–night shifts carried out by each nurse per month tended to reduce the rate of adverse events (incidence risk ratio = 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.36–1.01), p = .05). Severity at intensive care unit admission did not influence the rate of adverse events (incidence risk ratio = 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 1.00–1.04), p = .12).ConclusionsResults identify nurse workload and the arrival of inexperienced residents or senior registrars as risk factors for the occurrence of life-threatening adverse events in the adult medical intensive care unit. Limiting fluctuations in bed-to-nurse ratio and providing inexperienced medical staff members with sufficient supervision may decrease severe adverse events in critically ill patients.     

Evaluation of two methods for quality improvement in intensive care: facilitated incident monitoring and retrospective medical chart review

OBJECTIVE: Quality assurance techniques applied within the healthcare industry have been widely used and are intended to improve patient outcomes. Two methods that have been utilized are incident reporting and medical chart review (MCR). The objectives for this study were to evaluate facilitated incident monitoring (FIM) and MCR in the intensive care setting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparison of prospective FIM and retrospective MCR. SETTING: Tertiary, 12-bed, closed intensive care unit (ICU) in Australia providing adult and pediatric intensive care to surgical, medical, trauma, and retrieval patients. PATIENTS: Patients present or admitted to the ICU during the 2-month study period. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, there were 176 admissions involving 164 patients. A total of 100 FIM reports, of which 70 related to care provided by the ICU team, identified 221 incidents. There were 30 FIM reports that described adverse events, of which only one related to ICU team care. Potential of harm was estimated to be minimal in 49% and significant in 51%; 84% of incidents were considered preventable. Important contextual information was provided, including evidence for the importance of system factors. MCR identified 132 adverse events involving 48% of charts, and 47 related to ICU team care. Common adverse events included nosocomial infections, aspiration, neurologic compromise, respiratory arrest, delayed diagnosis, and treatment. Twenty percent of adverse events were considered preventable, and in 41%, there was evidence of system causation. CONCLUSION: FIM provided more contextual information about incidents and identified a larger number and higher proportion of preventable problems than MCR, but FIM identified few iatrogenic infections, problems with pain management, or problems leading to ICU admission. FIM is easily incorporated into the clinical routine. This study suggests that incident monitoring may be more useful for identifying quality problems, and it could be supplemented by selective audits and focused MCR to detect problems not reported well by FIM.     

Costs of adverse events in intensive care units

CONTEXT: Iatrogenic injuries are very common in critically ill adults. However, the financial implications of these events are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs of adverse events in patients in the medical intensive care unit and in the cardiac intensive care unit. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We performed a matched case-control analysis on data collected during a prospective 1-yr observation study (July 2002 to June 2003) of medical intensive care unit and cardiac intensive care unit patients at an academic, tertiary care urban hospital. A total of 108 cases were matched with 375 controls in our study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of care and lengths of stay were determined from hospital billing systems for patients in the medical and cardiac intensive care units. We then determined the incremental costs and lengths of stay for patients with adverse events compared with patients without events while in the intensive care unit. Costs were truncated for patients with a second adverse event on a subsequent day during the intensive care unit stay. RESULTS: For 56 medical intensive care unit patients, the cost of an adverse event was $3,961 (p = .010) and the increase in length of stay was 0.77 days (p = .048). This extrapolated to annual costs of $853,000 for adverse events in the medical intensive care unit. Similarly, for 52 cardiac intensive care unit patients, the cost of an adverse event was $3,857 (p = .023), corresponding to $630,000 in annual costs. On average, patients with events in the cardiac intensive care unit had an increase of 1.08 days in length of stay (p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who require intensive care are especially at risk for adverse events, and the associated costs with such events are substantial. The costs of adverse events may justify further investment in prevention strategies.     

The epidemiology of preventable adverse drug events: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND: A growing amount of data suggests that adverse drug events (ADEs) in hospital settings are frequent and result in substantial harm. Even though prevention is where efforts must be directed, only a few studies have reported on the preventability of these events. The objective of this article is to review the literature of ADEs and their preventability, and to report on their incidences, characteristics, risk factors, costs and prevention strategies. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline and Embase for literature published between 1980 and June 2002. All articles reporting primary data on the incidences of ADEs and their preventability in hospital settings were included. RESULTS: In the 8 articles retrieved the incidences of ADEs were between 0.7% and 6.5% of hospitalized patients; in up to 56.6% these events were judged to be preventable. Furthermore, ADEs accounted for 2.4% to 4.1% of admissions to inpatient facilities; preventability was stated in up to 69.0% of these events. A substantial body of preventable ADEs, the so-called medication errors, occur in the process of ordering, transcribing, dispensing and administrating the drugs. Further investigations into medication errors at the ordering stage reveal their occurrence in up to 57.0 per 1,000 orders. Between 18.7% and 57.7% of those errors have the potential for harm, but only in about 1% they result in preventable ADEs. IMPLICATIONS: The detection of errors having only the potential for harm by means of computerized surveillance has shown to be a useful technique in order to understand and prevent ADEs. Apart from the use of sophisticated computer techniques the participation of pharmacists in the drug prescribing process results in a tremendous error reduction. The greatest task in changing the health care system into a system with safety as its first priority is to create a culture of constant learning from mistakes among health care professionals. The appreciation of the health care teams' ideas and perceptions for improvement, and their implementation through small improvement cycles, may represent the leading strength in error reduction and health care improvement.     

The impact of critical care pharmacists on enhancing patient outcomes

The highly specialized knowledge and skills needed to care for critically ill patients requires a multidisciplinary team approach. Pharmacists are integral members of this team. They make valuable contributions to improve clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes of patients. The purpose of this article is to review the literature pertaining to pharmacists' contributions within a multidisciplinary intensivist-led intensive care unit (ICU) team. Pharmacist interventions include correcting/clarifying orders, providing drug information, suggesting alternative therapies, identifying drug interactions, and therapeutic drug monitoring. Pharmacist involvement in improving clinical outcomes of critically ill patients is associated with optimal fluid management and substantial reductions in the rates of adverse drug events, medication administration errors, and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Furthermore, economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services in the ICU consistently reveal the potential for considerable cost savings.     

Critical care without walls

Critical care medicine is a relatively young specialty that was developed in response to potentially reversible life-threatening illness and was facilitated by developments such as new drugs, support equipment, and monitoring technology. It has been largely practiced within the four walls of an intensive care unit (ICU). However, now there are increasing numbers of critically ill and at-risk patients in acute hospitals who are suffering potentially preventable, serious complications that may result in death because of a lack of appropriate systems, skills, and expertise outside of the ICU. Critical care specialists are expanding their roles beyond the four walls of their ICUs and becoming involved with strategies such as the medical emergency team, a concept designed to recognize critical illness early and to respond rapidly to resuscitate patients wherever they are in the hospital.     

Number needed to treat and cost of recombinant human erythropoietin to avoid one transfusion-related adverse event in critically ill patients

OBJECTIVE: To calculate the absolute risk reduction of transfusion-related adverse events, the number of patients needed to treat, and cost to avoid one transfusion-related adverse event by using erythropoietin in critically ill patients DESIGN: Number needed to treat with sensitivity analysis. SETTING: Teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Hypothetical cohort of critically ill patients who were candidates to receive erythropoietin. INTERVENTIONS: Using vs. not using erythropoietin to reduce the need for packed red blood cell transfusions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used published estimates of known transfusion risks: transfusion-related acute lung injury, transfusion-related errors, hepatitis B and C, human immunodeficiency virus, human T-cell lymphotropic virus, and bacterial contamination, stratified by severity. Based on the estimated risk and frequency of transfusions with and without erythropoietin, we calculated the absolute risk reduction of transfusion-related adverse events, the number needed to treat, and cost to avoid one transfusion-related adverse event by using erythropoietin. The estimated incidence of transfusion-related adverse event was 318 permillion units transfused for all transfusion-related adverse events, 58 per million for serious transfusion-related adverse events, and 21 per million for likely fatal transfusion-related adverse events. The routine use of erythropoietin resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 191 per million for all transfusion-related adverse events, 35 per million for serious transfusion-related adverse events, and 12 per million for likely fatal transfusion-related adverse events. The number needed to treat was 5,246 to avoid one transfusion-related adverse event, 28,785 to avoid a serious transfusion-related adverse event, and 81,000 for a likely fatal transfusion-related adverse event. The total cost was $4,700,000 to avoid one transfusion-related adverse event, $25,600,000 to avoid one serious transfusion-related adverse event, and $71,800,000 to avoid a likely fatal transfusion-related adverse event. The magnitude of these results withstood extensive sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of avoidance of adverse events, erythropoietin does not appear to be an efficient use of limited resources for routine use in critically ill patients.     

The epidemiology of medical errors: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Medical errors are one of the most important quality problems in health care today. The best insight into the incidences and characteristics of medical errors is through studies on adverse events (AEs) since a considerable fraction of AEs are results of errors and as such preventable. Even though prevention is where effort should be directed to, only a few studies report on the preventability of AEs. Our aim is to give an overview of the literature reporting on AEs and their preventability. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline and Embase for literature published between 1980 and June 2002. All articles reporting primary data on incidences of AEs and their preventability were included. RESULTS: The 8 articles retrieved were divided into two categories. 1) Four large scale retrospective studies: They reported incidences of AEs between 2.9% and 16.6% of all hospitalizations that were judged as preventable in 48.0-69.6% and negligent in up to 32.3%. 2) Four prospective studies: The reported rates of AEs vary remarkably (0.0037-39.0%) because of different detection methods used, different definitions applied and different health care settings studied. One prospective observational study identified AEs in 39.0% of hospitalized patients with a preventability of 18.0%. Two other studies, using process oriented incidence reporting detected rather low rates of AEs (4.2-5.4%) which were preventable in up to 62.5%. One prospective study in the outpatient setting, using voluntary incidence reporting detected only about 3.7 events per 100,000 clinic visits of which a high fraction was judged to be preventable (83.0%). IMPLICATIONS: Incidence, medical outcome and costs of AEs warrant this issue to be high on any countries health care agenda. The U.S., Australia and Britain have adopted this challenge by creating a centre for quality improvement and patient safety within the health service and by enacting new laws. But real improvement of patient safety will need a fundamental change in medicine from a culture of individual blame and guilt to a culture of learning, system thinking and executive responsibility.     

Predictors of adverse events in patients after discharge from the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Patients discharged from the intensive care unit may be at risk of adverse events because of complex care needs. OBJECTIVE: To identify the types, frequency, and predictors of adverse events that occur in the 72 hours after discharge from an intensive care unit when no evidence of adverse events was apparent before discharge. METHODS: A predictive cohort study of 300 patients from an adult intensive care unit was undertaken. An internationally accepted protocol for chart audit was used. Frequency of adverse events was calculated, and logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 147 adverse events, 17 (11.6%) of which were defined as major, were incurred by 92 patients (30.7%). The 3 most common adverse events, hospital-incurred infection or sepsis (n = 32, 21.8%), hospital-incurred accident or injury (n = 17, 11.6%), and other complication such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary edema, or myocardial infarction (n = 17, 11.6%) accounted for 44.9% (n = 66) of all adverse events. Two predictors, respiratory rate less than 10/min or greater than or equal to 25/min and pulse rate exceeding 110/min, were significant independent predictors; requiring a high level of nursing care at the time of discharge was a significant predictor in univariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Taking, recording, and reporting vital signs are important. Nursing care requirements of patients at discharge from the intensive care unit may be worthy of further investigation in studies of patients after discharge.