A comparative study on patient safety with reference to methods of detection of adverse events in a tertiary care hospital in North India
Keywords:Current record review, Incident reporting, Mortality meets, Adverse events, Preventability
Background:Considerable investments have been made to devise methods to detect actual and potential adverse events in health care in order to address risk and improve patient safety. Objective of the study was to compare the methods of detection of number of adverse events taking place in admitted patients.
Method: A prospective study for a period of one year. Three adverse events detection modules were studied, i.e. current record review, Incident reporting and cases discussed in Mortality Meets. A World Health Organization structured questionnaire on patient safety Review form-1 (RF-1) and Review form-2 (RF-2) was used. RF-1 form was used to screen adverse events. Screened positive patients were subjected to RF-2 form to calculate preventability of adverse events. Adverse events as well as preventability were compared to detect the preferred module of detection of errors in care.
Results: Current record review was able to detect 15.5% of adverse events with 71.33% preventability. Incident reporting module was able to detect only 0.73% of adverse events with 39% of preventability and mortality meets were able to study only 0.17% of adverse events with 47% of preventability.
Conclusion: Current record review was found to be preferred module of detection of adverse events.
Olsen S, Neale G, Schwab K, Psaila B, Patel T, Chapman EJ, Vincent C. Hospital staff should use more than one method to detect adverse events and potential adverse events: incident reporting, pharmacist surveillance and local real‐time record review may all have a place. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2007;16(1):40-4.
World Health Organization. Assessing and tackling patient harm: a methodological guide for data-poor hospitals. Geneva: WHO;2010.
Hamby LS. Using prospective outcomes data to improve morbidity and mortality conferences. Curr Surg. 2000;57:384-8.
Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The quality in Australian health care study. Med J Aust. 1995; 163: 458-71.
Andrews LB, Stocking C, Krizek T, Gottlieb L, Krizek C, Vargish T. An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care. Lancet. 1997;349(9048):309-13.
Levinson DR. Adverse events in hospitals: national incidence among medicare beneficiaries; department of health. 2010;15:OEI-06-09-00090.
Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, Hackbarth AD, Goldmann DA. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2124-34.
Michel P, Quenon JL, de Sarasqueta AM, Scemama O. Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals. BMJ. 2004;328:199.
Szekendi MK, Sullivan C, Bobb A, Feinglass J, Rooney D, Barnard C. Active surveillance using electronic triggers to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:184-90.
Kumar S, Chaudhary S. Medical errors and consequent adverse events in critically ill surgical patients in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Delhi. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2009;2(2):80-4.
Kirschner S, Lützner J, Günther KP. Adverse events in total knee arthroplasty: results of a physician independent survey in 260 patients. Patient Safety in Surgery. 2010; 4:12.
Michael S, Fryksmark U, Köster M, Haglund B. The incidence of adverse events in Swedish hospitals: a retrospective medical record review study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21(4):285-91.
Bates DW, O’Neil AC, Petersen LA, Lee TH, Brennan TA. Evaluation of screening criteria for adverse events in medical patients. Med Care. 1995;33:452-62.
O’Neil AC, Petersen LA, Cook EF, Bates DW, Lee TH, Brennan TA. Physician reporting compared with medical record review to identify adverse medical events. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:370-6.
Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ. 2001;322;517-9.