Using the WHO International Classification of patient safety framework to identify incident characteristics and contributing factors for medical or surgical complication deaths.

This study aimed to operationalise and use the World Health Organisation's International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS) to identify incident characteristics and contributing factors of deaths involving complications of medical or surgical care in Australia. A sample of 500 coronial findings related to patient deaths following complications of surgical or medical care in Australia were reviewed using a modified-ICPS (mICPS). Over two-thirds (69.0%) of incidents occurred during treatment and 27.4% occurred in the operating theatre. Clinical process and procedures (55.9%), medication/IV fluids (11.2%) and healthcare-associated infection/complications (10.4%) were the most common incident types. Coroners made recommendations in 44.0% of deaths and organisations undertook preventive actions in 40.0% of deaths. This study demonstrated that the ICPS was able to be modified for practical use as a human factors taxonomy to identify sequences of incident types and contributing factors for patient deaths. Further testing of the mICPS is warranted.

Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched. REVIEW METHODS: Observational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337 025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Around one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.

Medication errors: an overview for clinicians.

Medication error is an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality, yet it can be a confusing and underappreciated concept. This article provides a review for practicing physicians that focuses on medication error (1) terminology and definitions, (2) incidence, (3) risk factors, (4) avoidance strategies, and (5) disclosure and legal consequences. A medication error is any error that occurs at any point in the medication use process. It has been estimated by the Institute of Medicine that medication errors cause 1 of 131 outpatient and 1 of 854 inpatient deaths. Medication factors (eg, similar sounding names, low therapeutic index), patient factors (eg, poor renal or hepatic function, impaired cognition, polypharmacy), and health care professional factors (eg, use of abbreviations in prescriptions and other communications, cognitive biases) can precipitate medication errors. Consequences faced by physicians after medication errors can include loss of patient trust, civil actions, criminal charges, and medical board discipline. Methods to prevent medication errors from occurring (eg, use of information technology, better drug labeling, and medication reconciliation) have been used with varying success. When an error is discovered, patients expect disclosure that is timely, given in person, and accompanied with an apology and communication of efforts to prevent future errors. Learning more about medication errors may enhance health care professionals' ability to provide safe care to their patients.

Learning from preventable deaths: exploring case record reviewers' narratives using change analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if applying change analysis to the narrative reports made by reviewers of hospital deaths increases the utility of this information in the systematic analysis of patient harm. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of causes and contributory factors underlying patient harm in 52 case narratives linked to preventable deaths derived from a retrospective case record review of 1000 deaths in acute National Health Service Trusts in 2009. PARTICIPANTS: 52 preventable hospital deaths. SETTING: England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The nature of problems in care and contributory factors underlying avoidable deaths in hospital. RESULTS: The change analysis approach enabled explicit characterisation of multiple problems in care, both across the admission and also at the boundary between primary and secondary care, and illuminated how these problems accumulate to cause harm. It demonstrated links between problems and underlying contributory factors and highlighted other threats to quality of care such as standards of end of life management. The method was straightforward to apply to multiple records and achieved good inter-rater reliability. CONCLUSION: Analysis of case narratives using change analysis provided a richer picture of healthcare-related harm than the traditional approach, unpacking the nature of the problems, particularly by delineating omissions from acts of commission, thus facilitating more tailored responses to patient harm.