Monitoring Preventable Adverse Events and Near Misses: Number and Type Identified Differ Depending on Method Used.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate how many preventable adverse events (PAEs) and near misses are identified through the methods structured record review, Web-based incident reporting (IR), and daily safety briefings, and to distinguish the type of events identified by each method. METHODS: One year of retrospective data from 2017 were collected from one patient cohort in a 422-bed acute care hospital. Preventable adverse events and near misses were collected from the hospital's existing resources and presented descriptively as number per 1000 patient-days. RESULTS: The structured record review identified 19.9 PAEs; the IR system, 3.4 PAEs; and daily safety briefings, 5.4 PAEs per 1000 patient-days. The most common PAEs identified by the record review method were drug-related PAEs, pressure ulcers, and hospital-acquired infections. The most common PAEs identified by the IR system and daily safety briefings were fall injury and pressure ulcers, followed by skin/superficial vessel injuries for the IR system and hospital-acquired infections for the daily safety briefings. Incident reporting and daily safety briefings identified 7.8 and 31.9 near misses per 1000 patient-days, respectively. The most common near misses were related to how care is organized. CONCLUSIONS: The different methods identified different amounts and types of PAEs and near misses. The study supports that health care organizations should adopt multiple methods to get a comprehensive review of the number and type of events occurring in their setting. Daily safety briefings seem to be a particularly suitable method for assessing an organization's inherent security and may foster a nonpunitive culture.

Evaluation of the Green Cross Method Regarding Patient Safety Culture and Incidence Reporting.

OBJECTIVES: The Green Cross (GC) method is a visual method for health service staff to recognize risks and preventable adverse events (PAEs) on a daily basis. The aim was to compare patient safety culture and the number of reported PAEs in units using the GC method with units that do not. METHODS: This study has a retrospective cross-sectional design in the setting of psychiatric and somatic care departments in a Swedish hospital. In total, 1476 staff members from 62 different units participate in the study. RESULTS: Units who had implemented the GC method scored higher than non-GC units in overall quality. The dimensions Feedback and communication about error, Nonpunitive response to errors, Organizational learning-continuous improvement, Handoffs and transitions between units and shifts, and Teamwork within units scored significantly higher in GC units. More risks were reported in the incident reporting system in GC units than in non-GC units, but the number of PAEs was similar. Units with nursing staff who used the GC method scored higher on patient safety culture than those who did not use the method. This difference was not seen in physician units. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the GC method has a positive impact on patient safety culture and PAE reporting. However, the method does not seem to have the same impact in physician units as in units with nursing staff, which calls for further investigation.