Real or fake? Sourcing and marketing of non-prescribed benzodiazepines amongst two samples of people who regularly use illicit drugs in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: There is concern around non-prescribed benzodiazepine use, particularly with increasing detections of counterfeit products containing high-risk novel compounds. The aims of this study were to investigate how and which non-prescribed benzodiazepines are being sourced; forms, appearance and packaging; and awareness of risks associated with non-prescribed benzodiazepines. METHODS: Data were collected from a sample of Australians who inject drugs or use ecstasy and/or other illicit stimulants on a monthly or more frequent basis, and who reported past 6-month use of non-prescribed benzodiazepines (n = 235 and n = 250, respectively). Data were collected on source, diversion from a known/trusted prescription, product name and aesthetic characteristics for the last non-prescribed benzodiazepine obtained. RESULTS: Amongst participants who injected drugs, 71% reported that their last non-prescribed benzodiazepines were diverted from a known/trusted prescription, compared to 59% of participants who used ecstasy/other stimulants. Sourcing via cryptomarkets was rare. Across both samples, the majority reported last obtaining substances sold/marketed as diazepam or alprazolam. Participants sourcing via non-diverted means were twice as likely to obtain alprazolam. Known sourcing of novel compounds was rare. Amongst participants who used ecstasy/other stimulants, 36% reported confidence in the content/dose of non-prescribed benzodiazepines even when the source is unknown. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Most participants obtained substances sold as classic/registered benzodiazepines, mostly via diverted prescriptions, with a substantial minority potentially unaware of counterfeits circulating. While diverted use undeniably presents risks, tightening of prescriptions in Australia could inadvertently lead to greater supply of novel benzodiazepines as seen internationally, reinforcing prioritisation of demand and harm reduction strategies.

The Safety of Inpatient Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events. RESULTS: In a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).

Learning from patient safety incidents involving acutely sick adults in hospital assessment units in England and Wales: a mixed methods analysis for quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Six per cent of hospital patients experience a patient safety incident, of which 12% result in severe/fatal outcomes. Acutely sick patients are at heightened risk. Our aim was to identify the most frequently reported incidents in acute medical units and their characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective mixed methods methodology: (1) an a priori coding process, applying a multi-axial coding framework to incident reports; and, (2) a thematic interpretative analysis of reports. SETTING: Patient safety incident reports (10 years, 2005-2015) collected from the National Reporting and Learning System, which receives reports from hospitals and other care settings across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Reports describing severe harm/death in acute medical unit were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident type, contributory factors, outcomes and level of harm were identified in the included reports. During thematic analysis, themes and metathemes were synthesised to inform priorities for quality improvement. RESULTS: A total of 377 reports of severe harm or death were confirmed. The most common incident types were diagnostic errors (n = 79), medication-related errors (n = 61), and failures monitoring patients (n = 57). Incidents commonly stemmed from lack of active decision-making during patient admissions and communication failures between teams. Patients were at heightened risk of unsafe care during handovers and transfers of care. Metathemes included the necessity of patient self-advocacy and a lack of care coordination. CONCLUSION: This 10-year national analysis of incident reports provides recommendations to improve patient safety including: introduction of electronic prescribing and monitoring systems; forcing checklists to reduce diagnostic errors; and increased senior presence overnight and at weekends.

Adverse event recording failed to reflect potential harms: a review of trial protocols of behavioral, lifestyle and psychological therapy interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how potential harms are assessed in trials of behavioral, lifestyle and psychological therapy interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a review of protocols from the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment and Public Health Research programmes. Protocols were included if the study was a randomized controlled trial and the intervention intended to change lifestyle or behavior to improve health or improve psychological outcomes. RESULTS: 95 of 151 protocols planned to record adverse events (AEs). Definitions of AEs were often not given and varied widely. Serious AEs were mostly defined using standards originally devised for pharmacological trials. Twenty-two protocols listed expected AEs. Few protocols described assessment of causation between AEs and intervention. Examples of useful AE recording practice were identified. CONCLUSION: Monitoring and recording AEs in behavioral intervention trials was variable and frequently based on reporting guidelines for pharmacological trials. This may mean potential harms are being missed. Future trials should consider: 1) Potential harms posed by the intervention 2) How to define serious AEs 3) What are expected AEs. Further research to achieve consensus on AE recording is required, including identification of core adverse outcomes in clinical areas or caused by interventions.

Patient Harm Due to Diagnostic Error of Neuro-Ophthalmologic Conditions.

PURPOSE: To prospectively examine diagnostic error of neuro-ophthalmic conditions and resultant harm at multiple sites. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 496 consecutive adult new patients seen at 3 university-based neuro-ophthalmology clinics in the United States in 2019 to 2020. METHODS: Collected data regarding demographics, prior care, referral diagnosis, final diagnosis, diagnostic testing, treatment, patient disposition, and impact of the neuro-ophthalmologic encounter. For misdiagnosed patients, we identified the cause of error using the Diagnosis Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy tool and whether the patient experienced harm due to the misdiagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was whether patients who were misdiagnosed before neuro-ophthalmology referral experienced harm as a result of the misdiagnosis. Secondary outcomes included appropriateness of referrals, misdiagnosis rate, interventions undergone before referral, and the primary type of diagnostic error. RESULTS: Referral diagnosis was incorrect in 49% of cases. A total of 26% of misdiagnosed patients experienced harm, which could have been prevented by earlier referral to neuro-ophthalmology in 97%. Patients experienced inappropriate laboratory testing, diagnostic imaging, or treatment before referral in 23%, with higher rates for patients misdiagnosed before referral (34% of patients vs. 13% with a correct referral diagnosis, P < 0.0001). Seventy-six percent of inappropriate referrals were misdiagnosed, compared with 45% of appropriate referrals (P < 0.0001). The most common reasons for referral were optic neuritis or optic neuropathy (21%), papilledema (18%), diplopia or cranial nerve palsies (16%), and unspecified vision loss (11%). The most common sources of diagnostic error were the physical examination (36%), generation of a complete differential diagnosis (24%), history taking (24%), and use or interpretation of diagnostic testing (13%). In 489 of 496 patients (99%), neuro-ophthalmology consultation (NOC) affected patient care. In 2% of cases, neuro-ophthalmology directly saved the patient's life or vision; in an additional 10%, harmful treatment was avoided or appropriate urgent referral was provided; and in an additional 48%, neuro-ophthalmology provided a diagnosis and direction to the patient's care. CONCLUSIONS: Misdiagnosis of neuro-ophthalmic conditions, mismanagement before referral, and preventable harm are common. Early appropriate referral to neuro-ophthalmology may prevent patient harm.

Patient harm associated with serial phlebotomy and blood waste in the intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at high risk of anemia, and phlebotomy is a potentially modifiable source of blood loss. Our objective was to quantify daily phlebotomy volume for ICU patients, including blood discarded as waste during vascular access, and evaluate the impact of phlebotomy volume on patient outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study between September 2014 and August 2015 at a tertiary care academic medical-surgical ICU. A prospective audit of phlebotomy practices in March 2018 was used to estimate blood waste during vascular access. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate phlebotomy volume as a predictor of ICU nadir hemoglobin < 80 g/L, and red blood cell transfusion. RESULTS: There were 428 index ICU admissions, median age 64.4 yr, 41% female. Forty-four patients (10%) with major bleeding events were excluded. Mean bedside waste per blood draw (144 draws) was: 3.9 mL from arterial lines, 5.5 mL central venous lines, and 6.3 mL from peripherally inserted central catheters. Mean phlebotomy volume per patient day was 48.1 ± 22.2 mL; 33.1 ± 15.0 mL received by the lab and 15.0 ± 8.1 mL discarded as bedside waste. Multivariable regression, including age, sex, admission hemoglobin, sequential organ failure assessment score, and ICU length of stay, showed total daily phlebotomy volume was predictive of hemoglobin <80 g/L (p = 0.002), red blood cell transfusion (p<0.001), and inpatient mortality (p = 0.002). For every 5 mL increase in average daily phlebotomy the odds ratio for nadir hemoglobin <80 g/L was 1.18 (95% CI 1.07-1.31) and for red blood cell transfusion was 1.17 (95% CI 1.07-1.28). CONCLUSION: A substantial portion of daily ICU phlebotomy is waste discarded during vascular access. Average ICU phlebotomy volume is independently associated with ICU acquired anemia and red blood cell transfusion which supports the need for phlebotomy stewardship programs.

Patient-related factors associated with an increased risk of being a reported case of preventable harm in first-line health care: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety issues in primary health care and in emergency departments have not been as thoroughly explored as patient safety issues in the hospital setting. Knowledge is particularly sparse regarding which patients have a higher risk of harm in these settings. The objective was to evaluate which patient-related factors were associated with risk of harm in patients with reports of safety incidents. METHODS: A case-control study performed in primary health care and emergency departments in Sweden. In total, 4536 patients (cases) and 44,949 controls were included in this study. Cases included patients with reported preventable harm in primary health care and emergency departments from January 1st, 2011 until December 31st, 2016. RESULTS: Psychiatric disease, including all psychiatric diagnoses regardless of severity, nearly doubled the risk of being a reported case of preventable harm (odds ratio, 1.96; p < 0.001). Adjusted for income and education there was still an increased risk (odds ratio, 1.69; p < 0.001). The preventable harm in this group was to 46% diagnostic errors of somatic disease. CONCLUSION: Patients with psychiatric illness are at higher risk of preventable harm in primary care and the emergency department. Therefore, this group needs extra attention to prevent harm.

Examining the Relationship of an All-Cause Harm Patient Safety Measure and Critical Performance Measures at the Frontline of Care.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Institute of Medicine Vital Signs report called for a new patient safety composite measure to lessen the reporting burden of patient harm. Before this report, two patient safety organizations had developed an electronic all-cause harm measurement system leveraging data from the electronic health record, which identified and grouped harms into five broad categories and consolidated them into one all-cause harm outcome measure. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between this all-cause harm patient safety measure and the following three performance measures important to overall hospital safety performance: safety culture, employee engagement, and patient experience. METHODS: We studied the relationship between all-cause harm and three performance measures on eight inpatient care units at one hospital for 7 months. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated strong correlations between an all-cause harm measure and patient safety culture, employee engagement, and patient experience at the hospital unit level. Four safety culture domains showed significant negative correlations with all-cause harm at a P value of 0.05 or less. Six employee engagement domains were significantly negatively correlated with all-cause harm at a P value of 0.01 or less, and six of the ten patient experience measures were significantly correlated with all-cause harm at a P value of 0.05 or less. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that there is a strong relationship between all-cause harm and these performance measures indicating that when there is a positive patient safety culture, a more engaged employee, and a more satisfying patient experience, there may be less all-cause harm.

Association Between Treatment by Fraud and Abuse Perpetrators and Health Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Fraud and abuse contribute to unnecessary spending in the Medicare program, and federal agencies have prioritized fund recovery and the exclusion of health care practitioners who violate policy. However, the human costs of fraud and abuse in terms of patient health are unknown. Objective: To assess whether Medicare beneficiaries' receipt of health care services from fraud and abuse perpetrators (FAPs) is associated with worse health outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cross-sectional study comparing mortality and emergency hospitalization rates of 8204 patients treated by an FAP with those among patients treated by a randomly selected non-FAP in 2013. Known FAPs were identified from the December 2018 List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (LEIE) published by the Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Health and Human Services. Patients were identified in a 5% sample of Medicare claims data and were enrolled in the Fee-for-Service program. Exposures: Treatment by a health care professional subsequently excluded from Medicare for fraud, patient harm, or a revoked license. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality between 2013 and 2015 and 2013 emergency hospitalizations. Results: A total of 8204 Medicare beneficiaries in the study sample (mean [SD] age, 69.2 [14.2] years; 58.2% female, and 23.0% nonwhite) saw an FAP for the first time in 2013. Of these, 5054 (61.6%) were treated by fraud perpetrators, 1157 (14.1%) by patient harm perpetrators, and 1193 (24.3%) by revoked license perpetrators. Compared with 296 298 beneficiaries treated by non-FAPs (mean [SD] age, 71.1 [12.4] years; 58.6% female, and 16.5% nonwhite), beneficiaries exposed to an FAP were more likely to be eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (34.7% [2845 of 8204] vs 21.9% [64 989 of 296 298]; P < .001) and more likely to be disabled at an age younger than 65 years (27.2% [2231 of 8204] vs 18.6% [55 168 of 296 298]; P < .001). All FAP exposures were associated with higher mortality and emergency hospitalization rates after risk adjustment and propensity score weighting: for mortality, exposures to fraud FAPs were associated with an increase of 4.58 percentage points (95% CI, 2.02-7.13; P < .001); to patient harm FAPs, with an increase of 3.34 percentage points (95% CI, 1.40-5.27; P = .001); and to revoked license FAPs, with an increase of 3.33 percentage points (95% CI, 1.58-5.09; P < .001). Increases were similar for emergency hospitalization rates: for fraud FAP exposures, 3.24 percentage points (95% CI, 0.01-6.46; P = .049); for patient harm FAP exposures, 9.34 percentage points (95% CI, 6.02-12.65; P < .001); and for revoked license FAP exposures, 9.28 percentage points (95% CI, 6.43-12.13; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that receiving medical care from FAPs may be associated with significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality and emergency hospitalization after risk adjustment. Identifying and permanently removing FAPs from the Medicare program may be associated with improved beneficiary health in addition to financial savings.

The Emergency Department Trigger Tool: A Novel Approach to Screening for Quality and Safety Events.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Trigger tools improve surveillance for harm by focusing reviews on records with "triggers" whose presence increases the likelihood of an adverse event. We refine and automate a previously developed emergency department (ED) trigger tool and present record selection strategies to further optimize yield. METHODS: We specified 97 triggers for extraction from our electronic medical record, identifying 76,894 ED visits with greater than or equal to 1 trigger. We reviewed 1,726 records with greater than or equal to 1 trigger, following a standard trigger tool review process. We validated query performance against manual review and evaluated individual triggers, retaining only those associated with adverse events in the ED. We explored 2 approaches to enhance record selection: on number of triggers present and using trigger weights derived with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression. RESULTS: The automated query performed well compared with manual review (sensitivity >70% for 80 triggers; specificity >92% for all). Review yielded 374 adverse events (21.6 adverse events per 100 records). Thirty triggers were associated with risk of harm in the ED. An estimated 10.3% of records with greater than 1 of these triggers would include an adverse event in the ED. Selecting only records with greater than or equal to 4 or greater than or equal to 9 triggers improves yield to 17% and 34.8%, respectively, whereas use of least absolute shrinkage and selection operator trigger weighting enhances the yield to as high as 52%. CONCLUSION: The ED trigger tool is a promising approach to improve yield, scope, and efficiency of review for all-cause harm in emergency medicine. Beginning with a broad set of candidate triggers, we validated a computerized query that eliminates the need for manual screening for triggers and identified a refined set of triggers associated with adverse events in the ED. Review efficiency can be further enhanced with enhanced record selection.

Duration of second victim symptoms in the aftermath of a patient safety incident and association with the level of patient harm: a cross-sectional study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: To describe healthcare providers' symptoms evoked by patient safety incidents (PSIs), the duration of these symptoms and the association with the degree of patient harm caused by the incident. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: 32 Dutch hospitals that participate in the 'Peer Support Collaborative'. PARTICIPANTS: 4369 healthcare providers (1619 doctors and 2750 nurses) involved in a PSI at any time during their career. INTERVENTIONS: All doctors and nurses working in direct patient care in the 32 participating hospitals were invited via email to participate in an online survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of symptoms, symptom duration and its relationship with the degree of patient harm. RESULTS: In total 4369 respondents were involved in a PSI and completely filled in the questionnaire. Of these, 462 reported having been involved in a PSI with permanent harm or death during the last 6 months. This had a personal, professional impact as well as impact on effective teamwork requirements. The impact of a PSI increased when the degree of patient harm was more severe. The most common symptom was hypervigilance (53.0%). The three most common symptoms related to teamwork were having doubts about knowledge and skill (27.0%), feeling unable to provide quality care (15.6%) and feeling uncomfortable within the team (15.5%). PSI with permanent harm or death was related to eightfold higher likelihood of provider-related symptoms lasting for more than 1 month and ninefold lasting longer than 6 months compared with symptoms reported when the PSI caused no harm. CONCLUSION: The impact of PSI remains an underestimated problem. The higher the degree of harm, the longer the symptoms last. Future studies should evaluate how these data can be integrated in evidence-based support systems.

Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Disutility allows to identify how much population values intervention-related harms contributing to knowledge on the benefits/harms ratio of cancer screening programs. This systematic review evaluates disutility related to cancer screening applying a utility theory framework. METHODS: Using a predefined protocol, Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google scholar and supplementary sources were systematically searched. The framework grouped disutilities associated with breast, cervical, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening programs into the screening, diagnostic work up, and treatment phases. We assessed the quality of included studies according to the relevance to target population, risk of bias, appropriateness of measure and the time frame. RESULTS: Out of 2840 hits, we included 38 studies, of which 27 measured (and others estimated) disutilities. Around 70% of studies had medium to high-level quality. Measured disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss were 0-0.03 and 0-0.0013 respectively in screening phases. Both disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss had similar ranges in diagnostic work up (0-0.26), and treatment (0.09-0.27) phases. We found no measured disutilities available for lung cancer screening and-little evidence for disutilities in treatment phase. Almost 40% of the estimated disutility values were above the range of measured ones. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer screening programs led to low disutities related to screening phase, and low to moderate disutilities related to diagnostic work up and treatment phases. These disutility values varied by the measurement instrument applied, and were higher in studies with lower quality. The estimated disutility values comparing to the measured ones tended to overestimate the harms.

Medicare Beneficiaries' Exposure To Fraud And Abuse Perpetrators.

In the period 2012-15, 1,364 fraud and abuse perpetrators (FAPs) treated over 1.2 million Medicare beneficiaries and received more than $630 million in Medicare payments. Compared to beneficiaries treated by non-FAPs, beneficiaries exposed to FAPs were more likely to be nonwhite, dually enrolled in Medicaid, and disabled and younger than age sixty-five.

Disclosure of adverse events: a data linkage study reporting patient experiences among Australian adults aged ≥45 years.

Objective Since Australia initiated national open disclosure standards in 2002, open disclosure policies have been adopted in all Australian states and territories. Yet, research evidence regarding their adoption is limited. The aim of the present study was to determine the frequency with which patients who report an adverse event had information disclosed to them about the incident, including whether they participated in a formal open disclosure process, their experiences of the process and the extent to which these align with the current New South Wales (NSW) policy. Methods A cross-sectional survey about patient experiences of disclosure associated with an adverse event was administered to a random sample of 20000 participants in the 45 and Up Study who were hospitalised in NSW, Australia, between January and June 2014. Results Of the 18993 eligible potential participants, completed surveys were obtained from 7661 (40% response rate), with 474 (7%) patients reporting an adverse event. Of those who reported an adverse event, a significant majority reported an informal or bedside disclosure (91%; 430/474). Only 79 patients (17%) participated in a formal open disclosure meeting. Most informal disclosures were provided by nurses, with only 25% provided by medical practitioners. Conclusions Experiences of open disclosure may be enhanced by informing patients of their right to full disclosure in advance of or upon admission to hospital, and recognition of and support for informal or bedside disclosure for appropriate types of incidents. A review of the open disclosure guidelines in relation to the types of adverse events that require formal open disclosure and those more suitable to informal bedside disclosure is indicated. Guidelines for bedside disclosure should be drafted to assist medical practitioners and other health professionals facilitate and improve their communications about adverse events. Alignment of formal disclosure with policy requirements may also be enhanced by training multidisciplinary teams in the process. What is known about the topic? While open disclosure is required in all cases of serious adverse events, patients' experiences are variable, and lack of, or poor quality disclosures are all too common. What does this paper add? This paper presents experiences reported by patients across New South Wales in a large cross-sectional survey. Unlike previous studies of open disclosure, recently hospitalised patients were identified and invited using data linkage with medical records. Findings suggest that most patients receive informal disclosures rather than a process that aligns with the current policy guidance. What are the implications for practitioners? Experiences of open disclosure may be enhanced by informing patients of their right to full disclosure in advance of or upon admission to hospital, and recognition of and support for informal or bedside disclosure for appropriate types of incidents.

Review of medication errors that are new or likely to occur more frequently with electronic medication management systems.

Objective The aim of the present study was to identify and quantify medication errors reportedly related to electronic medication management systems (eMMS) and those considered likely to occur more frequently with eMMS. This included developing a new classification system relevant to eMMS errors. Methods Eight Victorian hospitals with eMMS participated in a retrospective audit of reported medication incidents from their incident reporting databases between May and July 2014. Site-appointed project officers submitted deidentified incidents they deemed new or likely to occur more frequently due to eMMS, together with the Incident Severity Rating (ISR). The authors reviewed and classified incidents. Results There were 5826 medication-related incidents reported. In total, 93 (47 prescribing errors, 46 administration errors) were identified as new or potentially related to eMMS. Only one ISR2 (moderate) and no ISR1 (severe or death) errors were reported, so harm to patients in this 3-month period was minimal. The most commonly reported error types were 'human factors' and 'unfamiliarity or training' (70%) and 'cross-encounter or hybrid system errors' (22%). Conclusions Although the results suggest that the errors reported were of low severity, organisations must remain vigilant to the risk of new errors and avoid the assumption that eMMS is the panacea to all medication error issues. What is known about the topic? eMMS have been shown to reduce some types of medication errors, but it has been reported that some new medication errors have been identified and some are likely to occur more frequently with eMMS. There are few published Australian studies that have reported on medication error types that are likely to occur more frequently with eMMS in more than one organisation and that include administration and prescribing errors. What does this paper add? This paper includes a new simple classification system for eMMS that is useful and outlines the most commonly reported incident types and can inform organisations and vendors on possible eMMS improvements. The paper suggests a new classification system for eMMS medication errors. What are the implications for practitioners? The results of the present study will highlight to organisations the need for ongoing review of system design, refinement of workflow issues, staff education and training and reporting and monitoring of errors.

A comparison of two structured taxonomic strategies in capturing adverse events in U.S. hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Quality and Safety Review System (QSRS) and the proposed triadic structure for the 11th version of the International Classification of Disease (ICD-11) in their ability to capture adverse events in U.S. hospitals. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: One thousand patient admissions between 2014 and 2016 from three general, acute care hospitals located in Maryland and Washington D.C. STUDY DESIGN: The admissions chosen for the study were a random sample from all three hospitals. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: All 1000 admissions were abstracted through QSRS by one set of Certified Coding Specialists and a different set of coders assigned the draft ICD-11 codes. Previously assigned ICD-10-CM codes for 230 of the admissions were also used. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found less than 20 percent agreement between QSRS and ICD-11 in identifying the same adverse event. The likelihood of a mismatch between QSRS and ICD-11 was almost twice that of a match. The findings were similar to the agreement found between QSRS and ICD-10-CM in identifying the same adverse event. When coders were provided with a list of potential adverse events, the sensitivity and negative predictive value of ICD-11 improved. CONCLUSIONS: While ICD-11 may offer an efficient way of identifying adverse events, our analysis found that in its draft form, it has a limited ability to capture the same types of events as QSRS. Coders may require additional training on identifying adverse events in the chart if ICD-11 is going to prove its maximum benefit.

Managing What Is Measured: A Rural Hospital's Experience in Reducing Patient Harm.

Effecting improvement in the small, rural hospital setting is often challenging. Harris Regional Hospital (HRH) is a small, acute care hospital in rural western North Carolina acquired by Duke LifePoint Healthcare in August, 2014. Since that time, HRH has been on a quality journey characterized by a data-driven approach to reducing patient harm events. Using a framework that comprised leadership, performance improvement, and cultural development to cultivate an environment of mutual respect and trust, HRH has demonstrated sustained improvement in patient harm events over a 29-month period from January 2015 to June 2017. The purpose of this article is to provide examples of scalable, effective tactics contributing to quality improvement in the rural hospital environment.