Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients With Cardiovascular Conditions: A Multicenter Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine incidence and type of adverse events (adverse outcomes related to emergency care) among emergency department (ED) patients discharged with recent-onset atrial fibrillation, acute heart failure, and syncope. METHODS: This 5-year prospective cohort study included high-acuity adult patients discharged with the 3 sentinel diagnoses from 6 tertiary care Canadian EDs. We screened all ED visits for eligibility and performed telephone interviews 14 days postdischarge to identify flagged outcomes: death, hospital admission, return ED visit, health care provider visit, and new or worsening symptoms. We created case summaries describing index ED visit and flagged outcomes, and trained emergency physicians reviewed case summaries to identify adverse events. We reported adverse event incidence and rates with 95% confidence intervals and contributing factor themes. RESULTS: Among 4,741 subjects (mean age 70.2 years; 51.2% men), we observed 170 adverse events (3.6 per 100 patients; 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 4.2). Patients discharged with acute heart failure were most likely to experience adverse events (5.3%), followed by those with atrial fibrillation (2.0%) and syncope (0.8%). We noted variation in absolute adverse event rates across sites from 0.7 to 6.0 per 100 patients. The most common adverse event types were management issues, diagnostic issues, and unsafe disposition decisions. Frequent contributing factor themes included failure to recognize underlying causes and inappropriate management of dual diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Among adverse events after ED discharge for patients with these 3 sentinel cardiovascular diagnoses, we identified quality improvement opportunities such as strengthening dual diagnosis detection and evidence-based clinical practice guideline adherence.

Anesthesiology airway-related medicolegal cases from the Canadian Medical Protection Association.

PURPOSE: We analyzed closed civil legal cases in 2007-2016 from the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) involving specialist anesthesiologists where airway management was the central concern. METHODS: We included all airway-related civil legal cases involving specialist anesthesiologists that closed from 2007 to 2016. The following variables were abstracted by CMPA medical analysts: clinical context, peer expert opinions of contributing factors, and patient and legal outcomes. RESULTS: We found 46 of the 406 (11%) closed cases involving anesthesiologists to be airway-related. Twenty-six cases (57%) involved elective surgery and 31 patients (67%) were categorized as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status III. Twenty-five cases (54%) occurred outside the operating room (e.g., postanesthesia care unit, intensive care unit, or other satellite locations). In 19 (42%) cases, there was at least one predictor of a difficult airway. Peer experts identified judgement failures in 30 cases (65%), most commonly inadequate airway evaluation. In 30 cases (65%), the patient died or had a permanent brain injury. The medicolegal outcome favoured the patient in 27 (59%) cases, with a median [interquartile range] payment of 422,845 [257,637-935,673] CAD. CONCLUSIONS: Severe patient harm is common when airway management is the focus of a CMPA medicolegal complaint involving anesthesiologists. Patients were otherwise typically low risk cases presenting for elective surgery. Failure to assess or to change management based on the airway exam or encountered difficulty were the most common errors. Our findings support the continued need for adoption, adherence, and practice of guidelines for anticipated and unanticipated difficult airway management for every patient encounter.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons analysé les dossiers d'actions civiles de l'Association canadienne de protection médicale (ACPM) conclus entre 2007 et 2016 qui impliquaient des anesthésiologistes mettaient principalement en cause la gestion des voies respiratoires. MéTHODE: Nous avons inclus tous les dossiers d'actions civiles mettant en cause la gestion des voies respiratoires et impliquant des anesthésiologistes, conclus entre 2007 et 2016. Les analystes médicaux de l'ACPM ont examiné les variables suivantes: le contexte clinique, les opinions des experts sur les facteurs contributifs, ainsi que les issues des actions en justice et les résultats cliniques pour les patients. RéSULTATS: Parmi les 406 dossiers conclus impliquant des anesthésiologistes, 46 (11%) portaient sur des problèmes liés aux voies respiratoires. Vingt-six de ces dossiers (57%) portaient sur des cas de chirurgie non urgente et 31 patients (67%) étaient considérés comme ayant un état physique relevant de la classification I ou II de l'American Society of Anesthesiologists. Dans vingt-cinq dossiers (54%), les problèmes sont survenus en dehors de la salle d'opération (par ex., salle de réveil, unité de soins intensifs, ou autre emplacement satellite). Dans 19 dossiers (42%), il y avait au moins un prédicteur de difficultés dans la prise en charge des voies respiratoires. Les experts ont relevé des erreurs de jugement dans 30 dossiers (65%), la plupart du temps liées à une évaluation inadéquate des voies respiratoires. Dans 30 dossiers (65%), le patient est décédé ou a subi des lésions cérébrales permanentes. L'issue médicolégale a été favorable au patient dans 27 dossiers (59%), montant médian [écart interquartile] du paiement étant de 422 845 [257 637-935 673] CAD. CONCLUSION: Il est fréquent que des patients subissent des préjudices graves lorsque la prise en charge des voies respiratoires fait l'objet d'une plainte médicolégale auprès de l'ACPM qui met en cause des anesthésiologistes. Dans les dossiers analysés, les patients étaient généralement considérés à faible risque en vue d'une intervention chirurgicale non urgente. Les erreurs les plus fréquentes étaient une mauvaise évaluation des voies respiratoires ou la non-modification de la prise en charge des voies respiratoires à la suite de l'évaluation ou de difficultés rencontrées. Selon nos conclusions, il est impératif de continuer d'adopter, de respecter et de mettre en pratique les lignes directrices concernant la prise en charge de voies respiratoires difficiles, anticipées ou non, lors de chaque rencontre avec un patient.

Recommendations From a National Panel on Quality Improvement in Obstetrics.

This paper describes the recommendations of a national panel on quality improvement in obstetrics to identify priorities for action among five areas of greatest medico-legal risk. Using previously conducted medico-legal data analyses and a systematic literature review, the panel reviewed existing data and developed recommendations for areas of focus in quality improvement in five obstetrical high-risk areas. The panel recommended clarification of definitions in some areas, identified needs for data collection and standardization of practices in others. The most promising interventions to improve care in the five areas were grouped into: standardized processes (such as protocols and communication tools), checklists, audit and feedback, mentoring and coaching, inter-professional communication, simulation and training, and shared decision making guides. This national panel of experts created 18 action-oriented recommendations focused on quality improvement to reduce medico-legal risk and improve the safety of care for Canadian mothers and babies.

The feasibility of an interactive voice response system (IVRS) for monitoring patient safety after discharge from the ED.

BACKGROUND: Return ED visits are frequent and may be due to adverse events: adverse outcomes related to healthcare received. An interactive voice response system (IVRS) is a technology that translates human telephone input into digital data. Use of IVRS has been explored in many healthcare settings but to a limited extent in the ED. We determined the feasibility of using an IVRS to assess for adverse events after ED discharge. METHODS: This before and after study assessed detection of adverse events among consecutive high-acuity patients discharged from a tertiary care ED pre-IVRS and post-IVRS over two 2-week periods. The IVRS asked if the patient was having a health problem and if they wanted to speak to a nurse. Patients responding yes received a telephone interview. We searched health records for deaths, admissions to hospital and return ED visits. Three trained emergency physicians independently determined adverse event occurrence. We analysed the data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 968 patients studied, patients' age, sex, acuity and presenting complaint were comparable pre-IVRS and post-IVRS. Postimplementation, 393 (81.7%) of 481 patients had successful IVRS contact. Of these, 89 (22.6%) wanted to speak to a nurse. A total of 37 adverse events were detected over the two periods: 10 patients with 10 (6.5%) adverse events pre-IVRS and 16 patients with 27 (16.9%) adverse events post-IVRS. In the postimplementation period, the adverse events of seven patients were detected by the IVRS and five patients spontaneously requested assistance navigating post-ED care. CONCLUSIONS: This was a successful proof-of-concept study for applying IVRS technology to assess patient safety issues for discharged high-acuity ED patients.

Identifying a list of healthcare 'never events' to effect system change: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Never events (NEs) are patient safety incidents that are preventable and so serious they should never happen. To reduce NEs, several frameworks have been introduced over the past two decades; however, NEs and their harms continue to occur. These frameworks have varying events, terminology and preventability, which hinders collaboration. This systematic review aims to identify the most serious and preventable events for targeted improvement efforts by answering the following questions: Which patient safety events are most frequently classified as never events? Which ones are most commonly described as entirely preventable? METHODS: For this narrative synthesis systematic review we searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and CINAHL for articles published from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021. We included papers of any study design or article type (excluding press releases/announcements) that listed NEs or an existing NE framework. RESULTS: Our analyses included 367 reports identifying 125 unique NEs. Those most frequently reported were surgery on the wrong body part, wrong surgical procedure, unintentionally retained foreign objects and surgery on the wrong patient. Researchers classified 19.4% of NEs as 'wholly preventable'. Those most included in this category were surgery on the wrong body part or patient, wrong surgical procedure, improper administration of a potassium-containing solution and wrong-route administration of medication (excluding chemotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: To improve collaboration and facilitate learning from errors, we need a single list that focuses on the most preventable and serious NEs. Our review shows that surgery on the wrong body part or patient, or the wrong surgical procedure best meet these criteria.

Defining healthcare never events to effect system change: A protocol for systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: A never event is the most egregious of patient safety incidents. It refers to events that should theoretically never happen, such amputating the wrong limb. The term "never event" is used around the world by a variety of medical and patient safety organizations and is synonymous with sentinel events and serious reportable events. Unfortunately, there is little consensus about which events, in particular, are never events. These differing lists hinder potential collaboration or large-scale analyses. A recent systematic review by Hegarty et al. (2020) identified the need for a standardized definition for serious reportable events. The objective of our systematic review is to build on this by identifying which events are consistently or frequently identified as never events in order to isolate those which are core never events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted using Medline, Medline in Process, Scopus, PsychINFO, Embase via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO databases, as well as grey literature. We will include articles of any study design that discuss never events or one of its synonymous terms in the context of medical care. Four independent reviewers will conduct the title and abstract as well as the full-text screening, and 2 reviewers will abstract data. Data will be analyzed using narrative synthesis. Results will be categorized by year and geographic location, and by other factors determined during full-text screening. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The lack of consensus regarding never events hinders progress in reducing their occurrence. Differing data sources makes comparison challenging, and limits the ability for patient safety groups to work collaboratively and share learnings with others. Identifying a core set of never events will serve as a first step to focus our efforts to reduce these harmful incidents.