Global, regional and national time trends in incidence of adverse effects of medical treatment, 1990-2019: an age-period-cohort analysis from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study.

BACKGROUND: Current adverse effects of medical treatment (AEMT) incidence estimates rely on limited record reviews and underreporting surveillance systems. This study evaluated global and national longitudinal patterns in AEMT incidence from 1990 to 2019 using the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) framework. METHODS: AEMT was defined as harm resulting from a procedure, treatment or other contact with the healthcare system. The overall crude incidence rate, age-standardised incidence rate and their changes over time were analysed to evaluate temporal trends. Data were stratified by sociodemographic index (SDI) quintiles, age groups and sex to address heterogeneity across and within nations. An age-period-cohort model framework was used to differentiate the contributions of age, period and cohort effects on AEMT incidence changes. The model estimated overall and age-specific annual percentage changes in incidence rates. FINDINGS: Although the global population increased 44.6% from 1990 to 2019, AEMT incidents rose faster by 59.3%. The net drift in the global incidence rate was 0.631% per year. The proportion of all cases accounted for by older adults and the incidence rate among older adults increased globally. The high SDI region had much higher and increasing incidence rates versus declining rates in lower SDI regions. The age effects showed that in the high SDI region, the incidence rate is higher among older adults. Globally, the period effect showed a rising incidence of risk after 2002. Lower SDI regions exhibited a significant increase in incidence risk after 2012. Globally, the cohort effect showed a continually increasing incidence risk across sequential birth cohorts from 1900 to 1950. CONCLUSION: As the global population ageing intensifies alongside the increasing quantity of healthcare services provided, measures need to be taken to address the continuously rising burden of AEMT among the older population.

Incidence and type of voluntary reported perianesthetic medication errors in community veterinary clinics in Calgary, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To collect medication error (ME) data during the perianesthetic period from small animal clinics. SAMPLE: 6 small animal general practice veterinary clinics. METHODS: Small animal general practice veterinary clinics were recruited in this prospective observational study, with staff given a presentation on medical errors and instructed on how to submit medication error reports to an online reporting system. Errors were classified according to type and timing. RESULTS: A total of 2,728 general anesthesia or sedation procedures were performed, with 49 ME reports submitted. One duplicated report of the same error was excluded, resulting in a ME rate of 1.8%. Most reports (69% [33/48]) were near misses. The remaining 31% were MEs that reached the patient but did not cause harm. Wrong dose errors were the most common type (63% [30/48]), of which 80% (24/30) were calculation errors. Premedication/sedation and maintenance were the most reported stages, at 47% (20/43) and 23% (10/43), respectively. None of the MEs reported resulted in an adverse event, with an approximately 2:1 ratio of near-miss to no-harm MEs. The observed patterns of MEs reported, including type and timing, represent a target for further education. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results quantify the ME rate in general practice veterinary clinics, providing an initial benchmark for MEs during the perianesthetic period.

Determining the psychometric properties of a written test to assess safe dental practice.

INTRODUCTION: Safe practice in medicine and dentistry has been a global priority area in which large knowledge gaps are present.Patient safety strategies aim at preventing unintended damage to patients that can be caused by healthcare practitioners. One of the components of patient safety is safe clinical practice. Patient safety efforts will help in ensuring safe dental practice for early detection and limiting non-preventable errors.A valid and reliable instrument is required to assess the knowledge of dental students regarding patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To determine the psychometric properties of a written test to assess safe dental practice in undergraduate dental students. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A test comprising 42 multiple-choice questions of one-best type was administered to final year students (52) of a private dental college. Items were developed according to National Board of Medical Examiners item writing guidelines. The content of the test was determined in consultation with dental experts (either professor or associate professor). These experts had to assess each item on the test for language clarity as A: clear, B: ambiguous and relevance as 1: essential, 2: useful, not necessary, 3: not essential. Ethical approval was taken from the concerned dental college. Statistical analysis was done in SPSS V.25 in which descriptive analysis, item analysis and Cronbach's alpha were measured. RESULT: The test scores had a reliability (calculated by Cronbach's alpha) of 0.722 before and 0.855 after removing 15 items. CONCLUSION: A reliable and valid test was developed which will help to assess the knowledge of dental students regarding safe dental practice. This can guide medical educationist to develop or improve patient safety curriculum to ensure safe dental practice.

How to HEEAL: A Patient and Peer-Centric Simulation Curriculum for Medical Error Disclosure.

Introduction: Medical errors are an unfortunate certainty with emotional and psychological consequences for patients and health care providers. No standardized medical curriculum on how to disclose medical errors to patients or peers exists. The novel HEEAL (honesty/empathy/education/apology-awareness/lessen chance for future errors) curriculum addresses this gap in medical education through a multimodality workshop. Methods: This 6-hour, two-part curriculum incorporated didactic and standardized patient (SP) simulation education with rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP). The morning focused on provider-patient error disclosure; the afternoon applied the same principles to provider-provider (peer) discussion. Summative simulations with SPs evaluated learners' skill baseline and improvement. Formative simulations run by expert simulation educators used RCDP to provide real-time feedback and opportunities for adjustment. Medical knowledge was measured through pre- and postintervention multiple-choice questions. Learners' confidence and attitude towards medical errors disclosure were surveyed pre- and postintervention with assistance of the Barriers to Error Disclosure Assessment tool, revised with the addition of several questions related to provider-provider disclosure. Results: Fourteen medical students participated in this pilot curriculum. Statistical significance was demonstrated in medical knowledge (p = .01), peer-disclosure skills (p = .001), and confidence in medical error disclosure (p < .001). Although there was improvement in patient-disclosure skills, this did not reach statistical significance (p = .05). Discussion: This curriculum addresses the need for designated training in medical error disclosure. Learners gained knowledge, skills, and confidence in medical error disclosure. We recommend this curriculum for medical students preparing for transition to residency.

Calculating the cost of medication errors: A systematic review of approaches and cost variables.

INTRODUCTION: Medication errors are an unnecessary cost to a healthcare system and patients of a country. This review aimed to systematically identify published cost variables used to calculate the cost of medication errors and to explore any updates on findings already known on calculating the cost of medication errors during the past 10 years. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Electronic databases, PubMed, Scopus, Emerald and JSTOR were searched, using keywords "medication error" AND "cost" and predetermined inclusion criteria. Duplicate articles were removed. Quality check was done using 10 criteria. Cost variables used in calculating the cost of medication errors were extracted from each article. RESULTS: Among 3088 articles, 33 articles were selected for review. Most studies were conducted in Western countries. Cost variables used (types and number) by different studies varied widely. Most studies (N=29) had used direct costs only. A few studies (N=4) had used both direct and indirect costs for the purpose. Perspectives considered when calculating cost of medication errors also varied widely. A total of 35 variables used to calculate medication error costs were extracted from selected articles. CONCLUSION: Variables used to calculate the cost of medication errors were not uniform across studies. Almost a decade after systematic reviews previously reporting on this area, a validated methodology to calculate the cost of medication errors has still not been reported to date and highlights the still pending necessity of a standard method to be established.

Paediatric medication incident reporting: a multicentre comparison study of medication errors identified at audit, detected by staff and reported to an incident system.

OBJECTIVES: To compare medication errors identified at audit and via direct observation with medication errors reported to an incident reporting system at paediatric hospitals and to investigate differences in types and severity of errors detected and reported by staff. METHODS: This is a comparison study at two tertiary referral paediatric hospitals between 2016 and 2020 in Australia. Prescribing errors were identified from a medication chart audit of 7785 patient records. Medication administration errors were identified from a prospective direct observational study of 5137 medication administration doses to 1530 patients. Medication errors reported to the hospitals' incident reporting system were identified and matched with errors identified at audit and observation. RESULTS: Of 11 302 clinical prescribing errors identified at audit, 3.2 per 1000 errors (95% CI 2.3 to 4.4, n=36) had an incident report. Of 2224 potentially serious prescribing errors from audit, 26.1% (95% CI 24.3 to 27.9, n=580) were detected by staff and 11.2 per 1000 errors (95% CI 7.6 to 16.5, n=25) were reported to the incident system. Although the prescribing error detection rates varied between the two hospitals, there was no difference in incident reporting rates regardless of error severity. Of 40 errors associated with actual patient harm, only 7 (17.5%; 95% CI 8.7% to 31.9%) were detected by staff and 4 (10.0%; 95% CI 4.0% to 23.1%) had an incident report. None of the 2883 clinical medication administration errors observed, including 903 potentially serious errors and 144 errors associated with actual patient harm, had incident reports. CONCLUSION: Incident reporting data do not provide an accurate reflection of medication errors and related harm to children in hospitals. Failure to detect medication errors is likely to be a significant contributor to low error reporting rates. In an era of electronic health records, new automated approaches to monitor medication safety should be pursued to provide real-time monitoring.

Trust in public health policy in the time of the COVID-19 epidemic in Israel.

The government of Israel provides universal health care through four health care organizations ("sick funds") that enjoy general public trust. In hindsight, the response of the government to the COVID-19 epidemic seems reasonable. In the first year of the epidemic, tests and vaccines were developed and other measures were taken, including social distancing, focusing on risk factors for infection and disease severity, and improving treatment. The COVID-19 mortality rate between January 2000 and June 2021 was around 750 per million inhabitants, well below the OECD average of 1300. Still, although the control measures were largely well received, the media and an ad hoc non-governmental Emergency Council for the coronavirus crisis in Israel criticized the government's response to the epidemic thereby contributing to a decline in public trust in government policy. This commentary provides an overview of the importance of trust in medical institutions and the difficulties of evaluating healthcare decisions in an attempt to justify three conclusions. First, when physicians and self-appointed experts publicly disapprove of a government policy, they should consider the trade-off between improving care and undermining public trust. Second, when evaluating a medical decision, experts should not ask, "Would I have acted differently?" but rather, "Was the decision under review completely unreasonable?" Thirdly, criticism is certainly worth listening to. However, I believe that by calling for organized resistance against the government, the publicly announced establishment of the Emergency Council for the Corona crisis blatantly crossed the line between constructive criticism and destructive mistrust.

Diagnostic error in mental health: a review.

Diagnostic errors are associated with patient harm and suboptimal outcomes. Despite national scientific efforts to advance definition, measurement and interventions for diagnostic error, diagnosis in mental health is not well represented in this ongoing work. We aimed to summarise the current state of research on diagnostic errors in mental health and identify opportunities to align future research with the emerging science of diagnostic safety. We review conceptual considerations for defining and measuring diagnostic error, the application of these concepts to mental health settings, and the methods and subject matter focus of recent studies of diagnostic error in mental health. We found that diagnostic error is well understood to be a problem in mental healthcare. Although few studies used clear definitions or frameworks for understanding diagnostic error in mental health, several studies of missed, wrong, delayed and disparate diagnosis of common mental disorders have identified various avenues for future research and development. Nevertheless, a lack of clear consensus on how to conceptualise, define and measure errors in diagnosis will pose a barrier to advancement. Further research should focus on identifying preventable missed opportunities in the diagnosis of mental disorders, which may uncover generalisable opportunities for improvement.

ReThinking clinical reasoning: A paradigm shift.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that our healthcare systems and medical education programs are fundamentally flawed. In North America and Europe, most systems were built upon values and structures that have historically benefitted middle and upper class males of European descent in the global north. As a result, there continue to be systemic biases that are pervasive throughout our healthcare systems and medical education programs. This has led to inequities in health outcomes and clinical reasoning practices which marginalize several communities. These biases are perpetuated as we continue to lead medical education research and practice with traditional values and views of evidence. To address these issues, we proposed a 'flipped' conference in which three interdisciplinary writing teams, comprised of both junior and senior academics, clinicians, and researchers, were invited to rethink the foundations of clinical reasoning. In the months leading up to the conference, each writing team explored a specific topic related to clinical reasoning and racial equity. The papers, presented during the virtual conference are now available in this issue of the Journal for the Evaluation of Clinical Practice. In addition, 6 more publications were added to this special topic to showcase new evidence and theory that builds on the recommendations in the three core papers.

Patients' and doctors' views and experiences of the patient safety trajectory of breast cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Successful breast cancer outcomes can be jeopardised by adverse events. Understanding and integrating patients' and doctors' perspectives into care trajectories could improve patient safety. This study assessed their views on, and experiences of, medical error and patient safety. METHODS: A cross-sectional, quantitative 20-40 item questionnaire for patients attending Cork University Hospital Cancer Centre and breast cancer doctors in the Republic of Ireland was developed. Domains included demographics, medical error experience, patient safety opinions and concerns. RESULTS: 184 patients and 116 doctors completed the survey. Of the doctors, 41.4% felt patient safety had deteriorated over the previous five years and 54.3% felt patient safety measures were inadequate compared to 13.0% and 27.7% of patients respectively. Of the 30 patients who experienced medical errors/negligence claims, 18 reported permanent or long-term physical and emotional effects. Forty-two of 48 (87.5%) doctors who experienced medical errors/negligence claims reported emotional health impacts. Almost half of doctors involved in negligence claims considered early retirement. Forty-four patients and 154 doctors didn't experience errors but reported their patient safety concerns. Doctors were more concerned about communication and administrative errors, staffing and organisational factors compared to patients. Multiple barriers to error reporting were highlighted. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to assess patients' and doctors' patient safety views and medical error/negligence claims experiences in breast cancer care in Ireland. Experience of medical error/negligence claims had long-lasting implications for both groups. Doctors were concerned about a multitude of errors and causative factors. Failure to embed these findings is a missed opportunity to improve safety.

Disclosure following a medical error: lessons learned from a national initiative of workshops with patients, healthcare teams, and executives.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increase in disclosures of medical errors, transparency remains a challenge. Recognized barriers include shame, fear of litigation, disciplinary actions, and loss of patient trust. In 2018, the Israeli Ministry of Health initiated a series of workshops about disclosure of medical errors. The workshops involved medical center executives, healthcare providers, patients, and family members of patients who had previously been harmed by a medical error. This study presents the lessons learned about perceived challenges in disclosure of errors in 15 such workshops. METHODS: Data collection included participant observations in 15 workshops, full audio recordings of all of the workshops, and documentation of detailed field notes. Analysis was performed under thematic analysis guidelines. RESULTS: We identified four main themes: "Providers agree on the value of disclosure of a medical error to the patient"; "Emotional challenges of disclosure of medical error to patients"; "The medico-legal discourse challenges transparency"; and "Providers and patients call for a change in the culture regarding disclosure of medical errors". Participant observations indicated that the presence of a patient who had experienced a tragedy in another hospital, and who was willing to share it created an intimate atmosphere that enabled an open conversation between parties. CONCLUSION: The study shows the moral, human, and educational values of open discourse in a protective setting after the occurrence of a medical error. We believe that workshops like these may help foster a culture of institutional disclosure following medical errors. We recommend that the Ministry of Health extend such workshops to all healthcare facilities, establish guidelines and mandate training for skills in disclosure for all providers.

Fostering Students' Personal and Professional Growth: Responding to Error During the Internal Medicine Clerkship.

OBJECTIVES: Developing professionalism is critical to medical education; accordingly, professionalism curricula may be implemented longitudinally throughout undergraduate medical education. Here we share our experiences addressing student response to medical error as a component of professionalism education during the core clerkship year. METHODS: This pretest-posttest study reports medical students' knowledge regarding learning and growing in response to medical error. Students complete an online module, Beyond Recovery: Learning and Growing in the Wake of an Error, during the Internal Medicine Clerkship. We analyzed matched pre- and posttest responses using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Pre- and posttest queries addressed 5 key elements during clinician assessment of medical error: self-expectations of perfection, long-term guilt following an error, likelihood of leaving the medical profession following an error, ability to address error with patients and families, and ability to grow in response to medical error. Results indicate students felt significantly more comfortable after completing the module in key components of managing emotions and responses in the wake of an error. CONCLUSION: Benefits observed in medical students' perspectives include improved ability to move forward following medical error, ability to engage with affected patients and families, and capacity to learn from mistakes. Despite these positives, students' high self-expectations of perfectionism were unchanged.

[17 years of the critical incident reporting and learning system "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" for primary care: Analysis of reports]. / 17 Jahre hausärztliches Fehlerberichts- und Lernsystem "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" ­ Analyse des Berichtsbestandes.

BACKGROUND: The topic of patient safety has been a subject of much discussion since the end of the last millennium. Ensuring patient safety is a central challenge in health care. An important tool to raise awareness for and learn from adverse events and thus promote patient safety are error-reporting and learning systems (Critical Incident Reporting System = CIRS). METHODS: More than 17 years after its establishment, the CIRS "jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de" (JFZ) for German primary care has undergone a revision in terms of content and technology. The revised web-based system can be used for reporting as well as for classifying and analyzing incident reports. During this process, a descriptive analysis of the current report inventory was carried out, with a focus on serious medication errors. This included all 781 valid incident reports received between September 2004 and December 2021. RESULTS: In 576 of the 781 reports (73.8%), the GP practice was directly involved in the critical incident. Among error types, process errors predominated (79.8% of the classifications, 99.1% of the reports) compared with knowledge and skills errors (20.2% of the classifications, 39.7% of the reports). Communication errors (63.0%) were the most common contributing factor to critical incidents, followed by flaws in tasks and measures (39.7%). Serious and permanent patient harm was rarely reported (8.3% of the reports), whereas temporary patient harm was more common (40.3% of the reports). Incident reports about medication errors with at least serious patient harm included, in particular, substances that affected blood clotting, corticosteroids, and opiates. DISCUSSION: Our results complement the rates that are reported internationally for error types, patient harm, and contributing factors. Serious but preventable adverse events, so-called never events, are frequently associated with the medication process in both JFZ reports and the literature. CONCLUSION: Critical incident reporting systems cannot provide accurate information about the frequency of errors in health care, but they can offer important insights into, for example, serious medication errors. Therefore, they offer both employees and healthcare institutions an opportunity for individual and institutional learning.

Peer Support to Promote Surgeon Well-being: The APSA Program Experience.

BACKGROUND: Peer support programs have evolved to train physicians to provide outreach and emotional first aid to their colleagues when they experience the inevitable challenge of a serious adverse event, whether or not it is related to a medical error. Most pediatric surgeons have experienced the trauma of a medical error, yet, in a survey of APSA membership, almost half said that no one reached out to them, and few were satisfied with their institution's response to the error. Thus, the APSA Wellness Committee developed an APSA-based peer support program to meet this need. METHODS: Peer supporters were nominated by fellow APSA members, and the group was vetted to ensure diversity in demographics, practice setting, and seniority. Formal virtual training was conducted before the program went live in 2020. Trained supporters were surveyed 6 months after the program launched to evaluate their experiences with providing peer support. RESULTS: 15 referrals were made in the first year, 60 % of which were self-initiated. Most referrals were for distress related to adverse events or toxic work environments (33 % each). While only about 25 % of trained supporters had provided formal support through the APSA program, more than 80 % reported using the skills to support colleagues and trainees within their own institutions. CONCLUSION: Our experience in the first year of the APSA peer support program demonstrates the feasibility of building and maintaining a national program to provide emotional first aid by a professional society to expand the safety net for surgeons who are suffering.

Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors cause substantial preventable harms worldwide, but rigorous estimates for total burden are lacking. We previously estimated diagnostic error and serious harm rates for key dangerous diseases in major disease categories and validated plausible ranges using clinical experts. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the annual US burden of serious misdiagnosis-related harms (permanent morbidity, mortality) by combining prior results with rigorous estimates of disease incidence. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of US-based nationally representative observational data. We estimated annual incident vascular events and infections from 21.5 million (M) sampled US hospital discharges (2012-2014). Annual new cancers were taken from US-based registries (2014). Years were selected for coding consistency with prior literature. Disease-specific incidences for 15 major vascular events, infections and cancers ('Big Three' categories) were multiplied by literature-based rates to derive diagnostic errors and serious harms. We calculated uncertainty estimates using Monte Carlo simulations. Validity checks included sensitivity analyses and comparison with prior published estimates. RESULTS: Annual US incidence was 6.0 M vascular events, 6.2 M infections and 1.5 M cancers. Per 'Big Three' dangerous disease case, weighted mean error and serious harm rates were 11.1% and 4.4%, respectively. Extrapolating to all diseases (including non-'Big Three' dangerous disease categories), we estimated total serious harms annually in the USA to be 795 000 (plausible range 598 000-1 023 000). Sensitivity analyses using more conservative assumptions estimated 549 000 serious harms. Results were compatible with setting-specific serious harm estimates from inpatient, emergency department and ambulatory care. The 15 dangerous diseases accounted for 50.7% of total serious harms and the top 5 (stroke, sepsis, pneumonia, venous thromboembolism and lung cancer) accounted for 38.7%. CONCLUSION: An estimated 795 000 Americans become permanently disabled or die annually across care settings because dangerous diseases are misdiagnosed. Just 15 diseases account for about half of all serious harms, so the problem may be more tractable than previously imagined.

Survival of formalin intoxication in a 13-year-old Thoroughbred gelding.

BACKGROUND: Formalin intoxication via the gastrointestinal route has not been previously reported in the horse. Whereas ingestion of formalin in humans, although rare, is well documented. Majority of human cases are either accidental, suicidal or homicidal and often lead to fatality, with a reported lethal formaldehyde dose equating to 0.12 - 0.16 g/kg bwt. OBJECTIVES: To describe a single case report of the clinical management of an adult horse referred to a veterinary teaching hospital following accidental administration of 10% formalin via nasogastric tube. METHODS: A 13-year-old Thoroughbred gelding originally presented to the referring veterinarian for colic where 1.8 L of 10% formalin was accidentally administered instead of mineral oil via nasogastric intubation, a potentially lethal dose of formaldehyde (0.12 g/kg bwt). Approximately 20-hours following 10% formalin administration the horse was admitted to the referral hospital with moderate tachycardia, occasional ectopic beats, tacky and hyperaemic mucous membranes, delayed capillary refill time, reduced borborygmi, and pronounced digital pulses. Diagnostic investigations included laboratory blood analysis, urinalysis, electrocardiogram, abdominal ultrasound, palpation per rectum and gastroscopy. RESULTS: Patient assessment found evidence of toxicity to the gastrointestinal tract, hypovolaemia and risk for laminitis. Intensive care included fluid and electrolyte therapy, anti-inflammatories and analgesia, continuous digital cryotherapy, gastro-protectants and other methods of gastrointestinal support. The horse was discharged from hospital on day 14 with no long-term complications and the client-veterinarian relationship was preserved. DISCUSSION: In human cases of ingestion, gastrointestinal injury is typically accompanied by severe metabolic acidosis and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome due to toxicity of other body systems that can contribute to non-survival. Formaldehyde toxicity in the present case predominantly affected the gastrointestinal tract, most likely a direct result of the route of administration. Aside from gastrointestinal injury, primary toxicity of other body systems was not confirmed. To prevent this medical error recurring, the referring veterinary clinic revised their labelling and storage of 10% formalin. CONCLUSION: This is the first report of systemic formalin intoxication in the horse. Following a high dose of 10% formalin (0.12 g/kg bwt formaldehyde) enterally, the horse survived having received intensive supportive care based on human guidelines for ingested formalin.

Retrospective cohort study of wrong-patient imaging order errors: how many reach the patient?

Studying near-miss errors is essential to preventing errors from reaching patients. When an error is committed, it may be intercepted (near-miss) or it will reach the patient; estimates of the proportion that reach the patient vary widely. To better understand this relationship, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using two objective measures to identify wrong-patient imaging order errors involving radiation, estimating the proportion of errors that are intercepted and those that reach the patient. This study was conducted at a large integrated healthcare system using data from 1 January to 31 December 2019. The study used two outcome measures of wrong-patient orders: (1) wrong-patient orders that led to misadministration of radiation reported to the New York Patient Occurrence Reporting and Tracking System (NYPORTS) (misadministration events); and (2) wrong-patient orders identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) measure, a measure identifying orders placed for a patient, retracted and rapidly reordered by the same clinician on a different patient (near-miss events). All imaging orders that involved radiation were extracted retrospectively from the healthcare system data warehouse. Among 293 039 total eligible orders, 151 were wrong-patient orders (3 misadministration events, 148 near-miss events), for an overall rate of 51.5 per 100 000 imaging orders involving radiation placed on the wrong patient. Of all wrong-patient imaging order errors, 2% reached the patient, translating to 50 near-miss events for every 1 error that reached the patient. This proportion provides a more accurate and reliable estimate and reinforces the utility of systematic measure of near-miss errors as an outcome for preventative interventions.