Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I

BACKGROUND. As part of an interdisciplinary study of medical injury and malpractice litigation, we estimated the incidence of adverse events, defined as injuries caused by medical management, and of the subgroup of such injuries that resulted from negligent or substandard care. METHODS. We reviewed 30,121 randomly selected records from 51 randomly selected acute care, nonpsychiatric hospitals in New York State in 1984. We then developed population estimates of injuries and computed rates according to the age and sex of the patients as well as the specialties of the physicians. RESULTS. Adverse events occurred in 3.7 percent of the hospitalizations (95 percent confidence interval, 3.2 to 4.2), and 27.6 percent of the adverse events were due to negligence (95 percent confidence interval, 22.5 to 32.6). Although 70.5 percent of the adverse events gave rise to disability lasting less than six months, 2.6 percent caused permanently disabling injuries and 13.6 percent led to death. The percentage of adverse events attributable to negligence increased in the categories of more severe injuries (Wald test chi 2 = 21.04, P less than 0.0001). Using weighted totals, we estimated that among the 2,671,863 patients discharged from New York hospitals in 1984 there were 98,609 adverse events and 27,179 adverse events involving negligence. Rates of adverse events rose with age (P less than 0.0001). The percentage of adverse events due to negligence was markedly higher among the elderly (P less than 0.01). There were significant differences in rates of adverse events among categories of clinical specialties (P less than 0.0001), but no differences in the percentage due to negligence. CONCLUSIONS. There is a substantial amount of injury to patients from medical management, and many injuries are the result of substandard care.     

Avascular necrosis after treatment of DDH: the protective influence of the ossific nucleus

We retrospectively reviewed the results of open or closed reduction for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in 49 children younger than 12 months old, who had 57 hip dislocations. Group A (18 hips) developed partial or complete avascular necrosis (AVN), and group B (39 hips) did not develop AVN. Thirty-eight hips were treated by closed reduction, and 17 had open reduction. One patient with bilateral hip dislocation initially had closed reductions followed by bilateral open reduction 3 months later. With the numbers available for study, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of AVN with respect to variables such as preliminary traction, closed versus open reduction, Pavlik harness use, and age at the time of operative intervention. However, the presence of the ossific nucleus before reduction, detected either by radiographs (p < 0.001) or ultrasonography (p = 0.033) was statistically significant in predicting AVN. Only one (4%) of 25 hips with an ossific nucleus developed AVN, whereas 17 (53%) of 32 hips without an ossific nucleus before reduction developed AVN. Our results suggest that the presence of the ossific nucleus before closed or open reduction for DDH may decrease the risk of AVN.     

Adoption of Electronic Medical Record-Based Decision Support for Otitis Media in Children

ObjectiveSubstantial investment in electronic health records (EHRs) has provided an unprecedented opportunity to use clinical decision support (CDS) to increase guideline adherence. To inform efforts to maximize adoption, we characterized the adoption of an otitis media (OM) CDS system, the impact of performance feedback on adoption, and the effects of adoption on guideline adherence.ConclusionsPerformance feedback increased CDS adoption, but additional strategies are needed to integrate CDS into primary care workflows.     

Abdominosacral resection for midrectal cancer.

Abdominosacral resection is the most reliable radical sphincter-saving operation for midrectal cancers which are too low for anterior resection. The posterior incision provides maximum exposure for wide resection of the tumor, a measured distal margin, and an accurate anastomosis. The procedure can be carried out consistently to the pelvic floor without disrupting the anal sphincters and their innervation. Sphincter function is consistently preserved. Mortality rate is no higher than for other radical rectal resections. Morbidity can be limited by the selective use of protective colostomy. The use of mechanical retractors and the end-to-end stapler facilitates the operation and should encourage its wider application. The transsacral approach allows mobilization of the rectum to the levators in every case, and resection is limited only by the distance of the tumor from the sphincter, and not by poor exposure due to obesity or a narrow pelvis. In the treatment of 926 consecutive patients with rectal cancer, sphincter-saving resection was possible in 79%. In our experience, abdominosacral resection extends the range of sphincter-saving resection beyond that which is possible by the abdominal approach alone, with no compromise in safety and no increased risk of local recurrence or death from cancer.     

Hospital characteristics associated with adverse events and substandard care

To explore the epidemiology of adverse events (AEs), which were defined as injuries due to medical treatment, and that subset of AEs caused by negligence, we studied interhospital variation in these outcomes in a sample of 31,000 medical records drawn from a random selection of 51 hospitals in New York in 1984. We found a substantial variation in both AE rates (0.2% to 7.9%; mean, 3.2%) and the percentage of AEs due to negligence (1% to 60%; mean, 24.9%) among hospitals. Univariate analyses of AEs revealed that primary teaching institutions had significantly higher rates (4.1%) and rural hospitals had significantly lower ones (1.0%). The percentage of AEs due to negligence was lower in primary teaching (10.7%) and for-profit (9.5%) hospitals and was significantly higher in hospitals with predominantly (greater than 80%) minority patients who had been discharged (37%). These findings were corroborated by multivariate analysis. Our results suggest that AEs and negligence are not randomly distributed and that certain types of hospitals have significantly higher rates of injuries due to substandard care. These observations may represent an important improvement on existing measures of quality because they take into account the fact that some hospitals' populations may be at risk of suffering a poor outcome.