Medical errors: an introduction to concepts

The prevalence of medical errors in health care systems has generated immense interest in recent years. The research on adverse events in hospitalized populations has consistently revealed high rates of adverse events. Some of these adverse events result from medical errors and a majority of these errors may be preventable. These errors can occur anywhere and at anytime in health care processes. The consequences of these errors may vary from little or no harm to being ultimately fatal to the patients. It is important to recognize that a degree of error is inevitable in any human task and human fallibility in health care should be accepted. The underlying precursors for many of these human errors may primarily be attributed to latent systemic factors inherent in today's increasingly complex health care system. The focus of adverse event analyses on individual shortcomings without appropriate attention to system issues leads to ineffective solutions. The cognitive influence on medical decision-making and error generation is also significant and should not be discounted.     

Harm caused by adverse events in primary care: a clinical observational study

Rationale, aims and objectives  Patient safety in primary care is important, but not well studied. The aim of our study was to determine the actual and potential harm caused by adverse events in primary care.
Method  Observational study in two general practices, including the patients of five doctors. Two methods were used to identify adverse events; (1) a prospective registration of adverse events by the general practitioner and (2) a retrospective audit of medical records. Actual harm was registered and a clinical analysis was made to estimate potential harm.
Results  A total of 31 adverse events were collected and analysed. The adverse events were spread over different adverse event categories. About half of the events did not have health consequences, but a third led to worsening of symptoms and a few resulted in unplanned hospital admission. Potential negative health consequences were likely in three-quarters of the events.
Conclusions  The identified adverse events had some impact on health outcomes, but a risk for harm existed in a majority of the events. Patient safety programmes in primary care should focus on adverse events and not just on harm.     

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.     

Medical error,disclosure and patient safety: A global view of quality care

Medical errors are a prominent issue in health care. Numerous studies point at the high prevalence of adverse events, many of which are preventable. Although there is a range of severity in errors, they all cause harm, to the patient, to the system, or both. While errors have many causes, including human interactions and system inadequacies, the focus on individuals rather than the system has led to an unsuitable culture for improving patient safety. Important areas of focus are diagnostic procedures and clinical laboratories because their results play a major role in guiding clinical decisions in patient management. Proper disclosure of medical errors and adverse events is also a key area for improvement. Globally, system improvements are beginning to take place, however, in Canada, policies on disclosure, error reporting and protection for physicians remain non-uniform. Achieving a national standard with mandatory reporting, in addition to a non-punitive system is recommended to move forward.     

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.     

Do medical inpatients who report poor service quality experience more adverse events and medical errors?

PURPOSE: Service quality deficiencies are common in health care. However, little is known about the relationship between service quality and the occurrence of adverse events and medical errors. We hypothesized that patients who reported poor service quality were at increased risk of experiencing adverse events and medical errors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients were interviewed during and after their admissions regarding problems experienced during the hospitalizations. We used this information to identify service quality deficiencies. We then performed a blinded, retrospective chart review to independently identify adverse events and errors. We used multivariable methods to analyze whether patients who reported service quality deficiencies (obtained by patient report) experienced any adverse event, close call, or low risk error (ascertained by chart review). RESULTS: The 228 participants (mean age 63 years, 37% male) reported 183 service quality deficiencies. Of the 52 incidents identified on chart review, patients experienced 34 adverse events, 11 close calls, and 7 low risk errors. The presence of any service quality deficiency more than doubled the odds of any adverse event, close call, or low risk error (adjusted odds ratio = 2.5; 95% confidence interval = 1.2-5.4). Service quality deficiencies involving poor coordination of care (adjusted odds ratio = 4.4; 95% confidence interval = 1.4-14.0) were associated with the occurrence of adverse events and medical errors. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported service quality deficiencies were associated with adverse events and medical errors. Patients who report service quality incidents may help to identify patient safety hazards.     

The second victim of adverse health care events

Nurses and other professionals drawn to health care by their desire to help others may be traumatized because they are involved in situations that bring harm rather than healing to patients. Health systems should develop early warning systems to alert unit or team leaders when health workers are at risk of harm from adverse events. This article focuses on health professionals who become second victims of adverse events that occur to patients.     

Intensive care unit safety incidents for medical versus surgical patients: a prospective multicenter study

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine if patient safety incidents and the system-related factors contributing to them systematically differ for medical versus surgical patients in intensive care units. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective study of 646 incidents involving adult medical patients and 707 incidents involving adult surgical patients that were reported to an anonymous patient safety registry over a 2-year period. We compared incident characteristics, patient harm, and associated system factors for medical versus surgical patients. RESULTS: The proportion of safety incidents reported for medical versus surgical patients differed for only 3 of 11 categories: equipment/devices (14% vs 19%; P = .02), "line, tube, or drain" events (8% vs 13%; P = .001), and computerized physician order entry (13% vs 6%; P < or = .001). The type of patient harm associated with incidents also did not differ. System factors were similar for medical versus surgical patients, with training and teamwork being the most important factors in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Medical and surgical patients in the intensive care unit experience very similar types of safety incidents with similar associated patient harm and system factors. Common initiatives to improve patient safety for medical and surgical patients should be undertaken with a specific focus on improving training and teamwork among the intensive care team.     

The Practice of Medicine: Understanding Diagnostic Error

The medical community abides by oaths and expectations as they care for patients, with the general consensus of “do no harm” to the patient. One of the most feared acts is a medical error that could have been avoided. Included in medical errors are diagnostic errors, which can occur in all areas of medicine. Understanding our decision-making process can improve our diagnostic skills and identify any influences leading to an error. This article will provide nurse practitioners with ways to become more self-aware with every patient encounter and improve their understanding of diagnostic error.     

ICU incident reporting systems

Intensive care is one of the largest and most expensive components of American health care. Studies suggest that errors and resulting adverse events are common in intensive care units (ICUs). The incidence may be as high as 2 errors per patient per day; 1 in 5 ICU patients may sustain a serious adverse event, and virtually all are exposed to serious risk for harm. Theories of error developed in aviation and other high-risk industries suggest that errors are likely to occur in all complex systems. Reporting of incidents, including both adverse events and near misses, is an essential component for improving safety. Voluntary, confidential reporting is likely to be more important than mandatory reporting. There have been a few efforts to apply such systems in medicine. In intensive care, the Australian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS)-ICU has been the most prominent.We have designed a Web-based ICU Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS). The goal is to identify high-risk situations and working conditions, to help change systems, and reduce the risk for error. The analysis and feedback of reports will inform the design of interventions to improve patient safety. The effort is aided substantially by collaboration with the 30 participating ICUs and important stakeholders including the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American Society for Health-care Risk Management, the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the Foundation for Accountability, and the Leapfrog Group. A demonstration and evaluation of the system is underway, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Re-search and Quality.     

Proactive error prevention in the intensive care unit

Care provided in the ICU accounts for nearly 30% of acute care hospital costs and, with the aging of Americans, there is an increased demand for critical care services [1]. Critical illness reduces an individual's physical resilience. Minute-to-minute care decisions and interventions mean life or death during this acute disease phase. Critically ill patients have limited ability to defend themselves from the consequences of health care error. This patient population has the least ability to communicate symptoms to health care providers. The risk of adverse events caused by medications or equipment malfunction is higher because patients in the ICU receive twice as many medications as patients in general care units [2] and often require mechanical support of normal body functions, such as breathing, eating, and eliminating body waste. Consequently, the patient in the ICU has a higher exposure to medical error than patients in other areas of the hospital.     

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.     

Communication skills and error in the intensive care unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Poor communication in critical care teams has been frequently shown as a contributing factor to adverse events. There is now a strong emphasis on identifying the communication skills that can contribute to, or protect against, preventable medical errors. This review considers communication research recently conducted in the intensive care unit and other acute domains. RECENT FINDINGS: Error studies in the intensive care unit have shown good communication to be crucial for ensuring patient safety. Interventions to improve communication in the intensive care unit have resulted in reduced reports of adverse events, and simulated emergency scenarios have shown effective communication to be correlated with improved technical performance. In other medical domains where communication is crucial for safety, the relationship between communication skills and error has been examined more closely, with highly detailed teamwork assessment tools being developed. SUMMARY: Critical care teams perform many activities where effective communication is crucial for ensuring patient safety and reducing susceptibility to error. To develop valid team training and assessment tools for improving teamwork in the intensive care unit there is a requirement to better understand and identify the specific communication skills important for safety during the provision of intensive care medicine.     

Factors Associated with Adverse Events Resulting From Medical Errors in the Emergency Department: Two Work Better Than One

Background

The Emergency Department (ED) is an environment at risk for medical errors.

Objective

Our aim was to determine the factors associated with the adverse events resulting from medical errors in the ED among patients who were admitted.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study. For a 1-month period, we included all ED patients who were subsequently admitted to the medical ward. Detection of medical errors was made by the admitting physician and then validated by two experts who reviewed all available data and medical charts pertaining to the patient’s hospital stay, including the first review from the ward physician. Related adverse events resulting from medical errors were then classified by type and severity. Adverse events were defined as medical errors that needed an intervention or caused harm to the patient. Univariate analysis examined relationships between characteristics of both patients and physicians and the risk of adverse events.

Results

From 197 analyzed patients, 130 errors were detected, of these, 34 were categorized as adverse events among 19 patients (10%). Seventy-six percent of these were categorized as proficiency errors. The only factors associated with a lower risk of adverse events were the transition of care involving a handoff within the ED (0% vs. 19%; p = 0.03) and the involvement of a resident (junior doctor) in addition to the senior physician (37% vs. 67%; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

In our study, the involvement of more than one physician was associated with a lower risk of adverse events.     

129例院内上报护理不良事件分析

目的:分析该院院内上报护理不良事件发生的特点。方法:对由院内不良事件上报系统收集的不良事件进行回顾性研究,对发生不良事件的患者性别及年龄、责任人职称、发生时间及不良事件的结局和分类进行统计学分析。结果:药物相关不良事件发生率最高(57.4%),约50%的跌倒、坠床事件可导致患者重度伤害;白天发生不良事件率高于夜间(χ2=7.054,P=0.008),初级职称护士更易导致不良事件的发生(χ2=22.278,df=2,P=0.001);无伤害事件报告比例少(20.86%)。结论:对不良事件的分析可为护理安全管理提供重要的信息依据,目前国内护理不良事件报告制度需加以完善,研究需要进一步深入。     

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 cost of nurse-sensitive adverse events

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the methodology for nursing leaders to determine the cost of adverse events and effective levels of nurse staffing. BACKGROUND: The growing transparency of quality and cost outcomes motivates healthcare leaders to optimize the effectiveness of nurse staffing. Most hospitals have robust cost accounting systems that provide actual patient-level direct costs. These systems allow an analysis of the cost consumed by patients during a hospital stay. By knowing the cost of complications, leaders have the ability to justify the cost of improved staffing when quality evidence shows that higher nurse staffing improves quality. METHODS: An analysis was performed on financial and clinical data from hospital databases of 3,200 inpatients. The purpose was to establish a methodology to determine actual cost per case. Three diagnosis-related groups were the focus of the analysis. Five adverse events were analyzed along with the costs. RESULTS: A regression analysis reported that the actual direct cost of an adverse event was dollars 1,029 per case in the congestive heart failure cases and dollars 903 in the surgical cases. There was a significant increase in the cost per case in medical patients with urinary tract infection and pressure ulcers and in surgical patients with urinary tract infection and pneumonia. The odds of pneumonia occurring in surgical patients decreased with additional registered nurse hours per patient day. CONCLUSION: Hospital cost accounting systems are useful in determining the cost of adverse events and can aid in decision making about nurse staffing. Adverse events add costs to patient care and should be measured at the unit level to adjust staffing to reduce adverse events and avoid costs.