CJEM Articles: adverse events
Displaying 1-5 of 5 results
-
March
2012
14
2
Dean Fergusson, Elham Sabri, Janet Edwards, Robert S. Green
Objectives:
Postintubation hemodynamic instability (PIHI) is a potentially life-threatening adverse event of emergent endotracheal intubation. The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence, risk factors, and impact on patient outcomes associated with PIHI in intubations performed in emergency medicine.
Methods:
A structured chart audit was performed of all consecutive adult patients requiring emergent endotracheal intubations over a 16-month period at a tertiary care emergency department (ED). Data collection included medications, comorbidities, vital signs in the 30 minutes before and after intubation, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. PIHI was defined as a decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP) to ≤ 90 mm Hg, a decrease in SBP of ≥ 20% from baseline, a decrease in mean arterial pressure to ≤ 65 mm Hg, or the initiation of any vasopressor medication at any time in the 30 minutes following intubation.
Results:
Overall, 218 patients intubated in the ED were identified, and 44% (96 of 218) developed PIHI. On multivariate analysis, increasing age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.05), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 3.00, CI 1.19–7.57), and pre–emergent endotracheal intubation hemodynamic instability (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.27–4.99) were associated with the development of PIHI. The use of a neuromuscular blocking medication was associated with a decreased incidence of PIHI (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16–0.75).
Conclusions:
Based on our data, postintubation hypotension occurs in a significant proportion of ED patients requiring emergent airway control. Further investigation is needed to confirm the factors we found to be associated with PIHI and to determine if PIHI is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. -
January
2011
13
1
Blair L. Bigham, Ellen Bull, Janet Maher, Laurie J. Morrison, Merideth Morrison, Rob Burgess, Steven C. Brooks
Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel care for patients in challenging and dynamic environments that may contribute to an increased risk for adverse events. However, little is known about the risks to patient safety in the EMS setting. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic review of the literature, including nonrandomized, noncontrolled studies, conducted qualitative interviews of key informants, and, with the assistance of a pan-Canadian advisory board, hosted a 1-day summit of 52 experts in the field of EMS patient safety. The intent of the summit was to review available research, discuss the issues affecting prehospital patient safety, and discuss interventions that might improve the safety of the EMS industry. The primary objective was to define the strategic goals for improving patient safety in EMS. Participants represented all geographic regions of Canada and included administrators, educators, physicians, researchers, and patient safety experts. Data were collected through electronic voting and qualitative analysis of the discussions. The group reached consensus on nine recommendations to increase awareness, reduce adverse events, and suggest research and educational directions in EMS patient safety: increasing awareness of patient safety principles, improving adverse event reporting through creating nonpunitive reporting systems, supporting paramedic clinical decision making through improved research and education, policy changes, using flexible algorithms, adopting patient safety strategies from other disciplines, increasing funding for research in patient safety, salary support for paramedic researchers, and access to graduate training in prehospital research.
-
September
2010
12
5
A. Adam Cwinn, Alan Forster, Christian Vaillancourt, George Wells, Guy Hebert, Ian Stiell, Jason Leclair, Jeffrey Perry, Lisa Anne Calder, Melanie Nelson
Objective: To enhance patient safety, it is important to understand the frequency and causes of adverse events (defined as unintended injuries related to health care management). We performed this study to describe the types and risk of adverse events in high-acuity areas of the emergency department (ED).
Methods: This prospective cohort study examined the outcomes of consecutive patients who received treatment at 2 tertiary care EDs. For discharged patients, we conducted a structured telephone interview 14 days after their initial visit; for admitted patients, we reviewed the inpatient charts. Three emergency physicians independently adjudicated flagged outcomes (e.g., death, return visits to the ED) to determine whether an adverse event had occurred.
Results: We enrolled 503 patients; one-half (n = 254) were female and the median age was 57 (range 18–98) years. The majority of patients (n = 369, 73.3%) were discharged home. The most common presenting complaints were chest pain, generalized weakness and abdominal pain. Of the 107 patients with flagged outcomes, 43 (8.5%, 95% confidence interval 8.1%–8.9%) were considered to have had an adverse event through our peer review process, and over half of these (24, 55.8%) were considered preventable. The most common types of adverse events were as follows: management issues (n = 18, 41.9%), procedural complications (n = 13, 30.2%) and diagnostic issues (n = 10, 23.3%). The clinical consequences of these adverse events ranged from minor (urinary tract infection) to serious (delayed diagnosis of aortic dissection).
Conclusion: We detected a higher proportion of preventable adverse events compared with previous inpatient studies and suggest confirmation of these results is warranted among a wider selection of EDs.
-
July
2010
12
4
Corinne M. Hohl, Gina Tsai, Jeffrey R. Brubacher, Kevin Nemethy, Patricia Kretz, Peter J. Zed, Riyad B. Abu-Laban, Roy A. Purssell
Objective: The tolerability of drugs prescribed on emergency department (ED) discharge is unknown. Our objectives were to quantify and describe adverse drug-related events (ADREs) as reported by patients triaged as Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale scores 3, 4 or 5, discharged from the ED with prescriptions.
Methods: This prospective observational study was a planned substudy of a larger study on adherence to discharge prescriptions. This study was conducted in a tertiary care centre with an annual ED census of 69 000 visits. The primary outcome was the frequency of ADREs reported during a structured telephone questionnaire 2 weeks after ED discharge. An ADRE was deemed to have occurred if the patient reported a symptom consistent with a known ADRE that began and resolved within a plausible time frame after starting and stopping the drug, and if no alternative diagnosis was probable.
Results: Research assistants contacted 258/301 (85.7%) patients discharged from the ED with a prescription. An ADRE was reported by 54/258 patients (20.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.4%-26.3%). The most commonly reported ADREs were nausea, constipation and drowsiness. None required hospital admission or caused death. Participants reporting ADREs were not more likely to make an unplanned ED or clinic revisit (crude odds ratio [OR] 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.2; adjusted OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.4).
Conclusion: Approximately one-fifth of low-acuity patients prescribed medication on discharge from the ED report ADREs, but most of these are neither severe nor associated with an increase in use of health services. Attention to common preventable ADREs, such as opioid-associated constipation, could reduce the rate of ADREs in this population.
-
September
2008
10
5
David Provan, Kate Hanneman, Shannon Moore, Steven M. Friedman
Objective: We sought to determine whether patients or their families could identify adverse events in the emergency department (ED), to characterize patient reports of errors and to compare patient reports to events recorded by health care providers.
Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in a quaternary care inner city teaching hospital with approximately 40 000 annual visits. ED patients were recruited for participation in a standardized interview within 24 hours of ED discharge and a follow-up interview 3-7 days after discharge. Responses regarding events were tabulated and compared with physician and nurse notations in the medical record and hospital event reporting system.
Results: Of 292 eligible patients, 201 (69%) were interviewed within 24 hours of ED discharge, and 143 (71% of interviewees) underwent a follow-up interview 3-7 days after discharge. Interviewees did not differ from the base ED population in terms of age, sex or language. Analysis of patient interviews identified 10 adverse events (5% incident rate; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.41%-8.96%), 8 near misses (4% incident rate; 95% CI 1.73%-7.69%) and no medical errors. Of the 10 adverse events, 6 (60%) were characterized as preventable (2 raters; κ = 0.78, standard error [SE] 0.20; 95% CI 0.39-1.00; p = 0.01). Adverse events were primarily related to delayed or inadequate analgesia. Only 4 out of 8 (50%) near misses were intercepted by hospital personnel. The secondary interview elicited 2 out of 10 adverse events and 3 out of 8 near misses that had not been identified in the primary interview. No designation (0 out of 10) of an adverse event was recorded in the ED medical record or in the confidential hospital event reporting system.
Conclusion: ED patients can identify adverse events affecting their care. Moreover, many of these events are not recorded in the medical record. Engaging patients and their family members in identification of errors may enhance patient safety.
