Can medical record reviewers reliably identify errors and adverse events in the ED?

BACKGROUND: Chart review has been the mainstay of medical quality assurance practices since its introduction more than a century ago. The validity of chart review, however, has been vitiated by a lack of methodological rigor. OBJECTIVES: By measuring the degree of interrater agreement among a 13-member review board of emergency physicians, we sought to validate the reliability of a chart review-based quality assurance process using computerized screening based on explicit case parameters. METHODS: All patients presenting to an urban, tertiary care academic medical center emergency department (annual volume of 57,000 patients) between November 2012 and November 2013 were screened electronically. Cases were programmatically flagged for review according to explicit criteria: return within 72hours, procedural evaluation, floor-to-ICU transfer within 24hours of admission, death within 24hours of admission, physician complaints, and patient complaints. Each case was reviewed independently by a 13-member emergency department quality assurance committee all of whom were board certified in emergency medicine and trained in the use of the tool. None of the reviewers were involved in the care of the specific patients reviewed by them. Reviewers used a previously validated 8-point Likert scale to rate the (1) coordination of patient care, (2) presence and severity of adverse events, (3) degree of medical error, and (4) quality of medical judgment. Agreement among reviewers was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each parameter. RESULTS: Agreement and the degree of significance for each parameter were as follows: coordination of patient care (ICC=0.67; P<.001), presence and severity of adverse events (ICC=0.52; P=.001), degree of medical error (ICC=0.72; P<.001), and quality of medical judgment (ICC=0.67; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Agreement in the chart review process can be achieved among physician-reviewers. The degree of agreement attainable is comparable to or superior to that of similar studies reported to date. These results highlight the potential for the use of computerized screening, explicit criteria, and training of expert reviewers to improve the reliability and validity of chart review-based quality assurance.

Assessing the rates of error and adverse events in the ED.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of errors and adverse events in emergency medicine is poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to systematically determine the rates and types of errors and adverse events in an academic, tertiary care emergency department (ED). METHODS: Prospective data were collected on all patients presenting to a tertiary-care academic medical center ED with an annual census of 55,000 patients between January 2009 and November 2012. Cases of patients meeting predetermined criteria were systematically identified by an electronic medical record system. Criteria for review included patients who (1) returned to the ED within 72 hours and were admitted on their second visit, (2) were admitted from the ED to the floor and then transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 hours, (3) expired within 24 hours of ED arrival, (4) required airway management, or (5) were referred to the QA committee as the result of complaints. Cases were randomly assigned to individual physicians not involved with the care. All cases were reviewed using a structured electronic tool that assessed the occurrence of error and adverse events. Institutional review board jurisdiction was waived by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center IRB. RESULTS: During the study period, 152,214 cases were screened and 2131 cases (1.4%) met prespecified criteria for review. The incidence of error in these cases was 9.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.3%-10.8%), representing an overall incidence of 0.13% among all ED patients. In cases that involved error, 50.5% occurred among patients who returned to the ED within 72 hours; 17.3% occurred among floor-to-ICU transfers; 5.4% occurred among mortality cases; 2.0% occurred among airway cases; and 24.8% occurred among cases referred as the result of complaints. The incidence of adverse events in the reviewed cohort was 8.3% (CI, 7.2%-9.6%), representing an overall incidence of 0.11% among all ED patients. In cases that involved adverse events, 48.6% occurred among patients who returned to the ED within 72 hours; 16.4% occurred among floor-to-ICU transfers; 9.0% occurred among mortality cases; 1.1% occurred among airway cases; and 24.9% occurred among cases referred as the result of complaints. CONCLUSION: Although the overall incidence of error and adverse events in EDs is low, the likelihood of such events is markedly increased among patients who return to the ED within 72 hours, among patients who require floor-to-ICU transfer within 24 hours, and among those whose cases come to attention as the result of complaints.

Predictors of bacteremia in emergency department patients with suspected infection.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study is to identify clinical variables associated with bacteremia. Such data could provide a rational basis for blood culture testing in emergency department (ED) patients with suspected infection. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of ED patients with suspected infection. Data collected included demographics, vital signs, medical history, suspected source of infection, laboratory and blood culture results and outcomes. Bacteremia was defined as a positive blood culture by Centers for Disease Control criteria. Clinical variables associated with bacteremia on univariate logistic regression were entered into a multivariable model. RESULTS: There were 5630 patients enrolled with an average age of 59.9 ± 19.9 years, and 54% were female. Blood cultures were obtained on 3310 (58.8%). There were 409 (12.4%) positive blood cultures, of which 68 (16.6%) were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and 161 (39.4%) were Gram negatives. Ten covariates (respiratory failure, vasopressor use, neutrophilia, bandemia, thrombocytopenia, indwelling venous catheter, abnormal temperature, suspected line or urinary infection, or endocarditis) were associated with all-cause bacteremia in the final model (c-statistic area under the curve [AUC], 0.71). Additional factors associated with MRSA bacteremia included end-stage renal disease (odds ratio [OR], 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-7.8) and diabetes (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.6) (AUC, 0.73). Factors strongly associated with Gram-negative bacteremia included vasopressor use in the ED (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.6), bandemia (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.3-5.3), and suspected urinary infection (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.8-5.8) (AUC, 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several clinical factors associated with bacteremia as well as MRSA and Gram-negative subtypes, but the magnitude of their associations is limited. Combining these covariates into a multivariable model moderately increases their predictive value.