CJEM Articles: patient safety
Displaying 1-6 of 6 results
-
September
2011
13
5
Astrid Guttmann, Brian H. Rowe, Caroline M. Hatcher, Chad A. Leaver, Geoffrey M. Anderson, Marian Vermeulen, Merrick Zwarenstein, Michael J. Schull
Background:
The evaluation of emergency department (ED) quality of care is hampered by the absence of consensus on appropriate measures. We sought to develop a consensus on a prioritized and parsimonious set of evidence-based quality of care indicators for EDs.
Methods:
The process was led by a nationally representative steering committee and expert panel (representatives from hospital administration, emergency medicine, health information, government, and provincial quality councils). A comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify candidate indicators. The expert panel reviewed candidate indicators in a modified Delphi panel process using electronic surveys; final decisions on inclusion of indicators were made by the steering committee in a guided nominal group process with facilitated discussion. Indicators in the final set were ranked based on their priority for measurement. A gap analysis identified areas where future indicator development is needed. A feasibility study of measuring the final set of indicators using current Canadian administrative databases was conducted.
Results:
A total of 170 candidate indicators were generated from the literature; these were assessed based on scientific soundness and their relevance or importance. Using predefined scoring criteria in two rounds of surveys, indicators were coded as “retained” (53), “discarded” (78), or “borderline” (39). A final set of 48 retained indicators was selected and grouped in nine categories (patient satisfaction, ED operations, patient safety, pain management, pediatrics, cardiac conditions, respiratory conditions, stroke, and sepsis or infection). Gap analysis suggested the need for new indicators in patient satisfaction, a healthy workplace, mental health and addiction, elder care, and community-hospital integration. Feasibility analysis found that 13 of 48 indicators (27%) can be measured using existing national administrative databases.
Discussion:
A broadly representative modified Delphi panel process resulted in a consensus on a set of 48 evidence-based quality of care indicators for EDs. Future work is required to generate technical definitions to enable the uptake of these indicators to support benchmarking, quality improvement, and accountability efforts.
-
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
2009
11
5
A. Adam Cwinn, Alan J. Forster, Guy Hebert, Ian G. Stiell, Lisa Calder, Matthew A. Cwinn
Objective: Information gaps, defined as previously collected information that is not available to the treating physician, have implications for patient safety and system efficiency. For patients transferred to an emergency department (ED) from a nursing home or seniors residence, we determined the frequency and type of clinically important information gaps and the impact of a regional transfer form.
Methods: During a 6-month period, we studied consecutive patients who were identified through the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database. Patients were over 60 years of age, lived in a nursing home or seniors residence, and arrived by ambulance to a tertiary care ED. We abstracted data from original transfer and ED records using a structured data collection tool. We measured the frequency of prespecified information gaps, which we defined as the failure to communicate information usually required by an emergency physician (EP). We also determined the use of the standardized patient transfer form that is used in Ontario and its impact on the rate of information gaps that occur in our community.
Results: We studied 457 transfers for 384 patients. Baseline dementia was present in 34.1% of patients. Important information gaps occurred in 85.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.0%-88.0%) of cases. Specific information gaps along with their relative frequency included the following: the reason for transfer (12.9%), the baseline cognitive function and communication ability (36.5%), vital signs (37.6%), advanced directives (46.4%), medication (20.4%), activities of daily living (53.0%) and mobility (47.7%). A standardized transfer form was used in 42.7% of transfers. When the form was used, information gaps were present in 74.9% of transfers compared with 93.5% of the transfers when the form was not used (p < 0.001). descriptors of the patient's chief complaint were frequently absent (81.0% for head injury [any information about loss of consciousness], 42.4% for abdominal pain and 47.1% for chest pain [any information on location, severity and duration]).
Conclusion: Information gaps occur commonly when elderly patients are transferred from a nursing home or seniors residence to the ED. A standardized transfer form was associated with a limited reduction in the prevalence of information gaps; even when the form was used, a large percentage of the transfers were missing information. We also determined that the lack of descriptive detail regarding the presenting problem was common. We believe this represents a previously unidentified information gap in the literature about nursing home transfers. Future research should focus on the clinical impact of information gaps. System improvements should focus on educational and regulatory interventions, as well as adjustments to the transfer form. -
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.
