Randomized Trial of Reducing Ambulatory Malpractice and Safety Risk: Results of the Massachusetts PROMISES Project.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate application of quality improvement approaches to key ambulatory malpractice risk and safety areas. STUDY SETTING: In total, 25 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices (16 intervention; 9 control) in Massachusetts. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled trial of a 15-month intervention including exposure to a learning network, webinars, face-to-face meetings, and coaching by improvement advisors targeting "3+1" high-risk domains: test result, referral, and medication management plus culture/communication issues evaluated by survey and chart review tools. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Chart reviews conducted at baseline and postintervention for intervention sites. Staff and patient survey data collected at baseline and postintervention for intervention and control sites. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Chart reviews demonstrated significant improvements in documentation of abnormal results, patient notification, documentation of an action or treatment plan, and evidence of a completed plan (all P<0.001). Mean days between laboratory test date and evidence of completed action/treatment plan decreased by 19.4 days (P<0.001). Staff surveys showed modest but nonsignificant improvement for intervention practices relative to controls overall and for the 3 high-risk domains that were the focus of PROMISES. CONCLUSIONS: A consortium of stakeholders, quality improvement tools, coaches, and learning network decreased selected ambulatory safety risks often seen in malpractice claims.

Comparison of a Voluntary Safety Reporting System to a Global Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in an Oncology Population.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of research on adverse event (AE) detection in oncology patients, despite the propensity for iatrogenic harm. Two common methods include voluntary safety reporting (VSR) and chart review tools, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Our objective was to compare frequency and type of AEs detected by a modified GTT compared with VSR for identifying AEs in oncology patients in a larger clinical trial. METHODS: Patients across 6 oncology units (from July 1, 2013, through May 29, 2015) were randomly selected. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted by a team of nurses and physicians to identify AEs using the GTT. The VSR system was queried by the department of quality and safety of the hospital. Adverse event frequencies, type, and harm code for both methods were compared. RESULTS: The modified GTT detected 0.90 AEs per patient (79 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.71-1.12] AEs per patient) that were predominantly medication AEs (53/79); more than half of the AEs caused harm to the patients (41/79, 52%), but only one quarter were preventable (21/79; 27%). The VSR detected 0.24 AEs per patient (21 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.15-0.37] AEs per patient), a large plurality of which were medication/intravenous related (8/21); more than half did not cause harm (70%). Only 2% of the AEs (2/100) were detected by both methods. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the modified GTT nor the VSR system alone is sufficient for detecting AEs in oncology patient populations. Further studies exploring methods such as automated AE detection from electronic health records and leveraging patient-reported AEs are needed.

Medication safety in a psychiatric hospital.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the epidemiology of medication errors (MEs) and adverse drug events (ADEs) in a psychiatric hospital. METHODS: We conducted a 6-month prospective observational study in a 172-bed academic psychiatric hospital. Errors and ADEs were found by way of chart review, staff reports and pharmacy intervention reports. Physicians rated incidents as to the presence of injury, preventability and severity of an injury. Serious MEs were nonintercepted MEs with potential for harm (near misses) and preventable ADEs. RESULTS: We studied 1871 admissions with 19,180 patient-days. The rate of ADEs and serious MEs were 10 and 6.3 per 1000 patient-days, respectively. Preventable ADEs accounted for 13% of all ADEs (25/191). The most common classes of drugs associated with ADEs were atypical antipsychotics (37%). Nonpsychiatric drugs accounted for only 4% of nonpreventable ADEs but were associated with nearly one third of all preventable ADEs and near misses. MEs were most frequently associated with physician orders (68%), but there was also a high rate of nursing transcription errors (20%). CONCLUSIONS: ADEs and serious MEs were common among psychiatric inpatients and similar to rates in studies of general hospital inpatients. Medication safety interventions targeting psychiatric care need further study.

Recovery from medical errors: the critical care nursing safety net.

BACKGROUND: Safety initiatives have primarily focused on physicians despite the fact that nurses provide the majority of direct inpatient care. Patient surveillance and preventing errors from harming patients represent essential nursing responsibilities but have received relatively little study. METHODS: The study was conducted between July 2003 and July 2004 in a 10-bed academic coronary care unit. Direct observation of nursing care and solicited and institutional incident reports were used to find potential incidents. Two physician reviewers rated incidents as to the presence, preventability, and potential severity of harm of errors and associated factors. RESULTS: Overall data were collected for 147 days, including 150 hours of direct observation. One hundred forty-two recovered medical errors were found, including 61% (86/142) during direct observations. Most errors (69%; 98/142) were intercepted before reaching the patients. Errors that reached patients included 13% that were mitigated before resulting in harm and 18% that were ameliorated before more severe harm could occur. DISCUSSION: Protecting patients from the potentially dangerous consequences of medical errors is one of the many ways critical care nurses improve patient safety. Interventions designed to increase the ability of nurses to recover and promptly report errors have the potential to improve patient outcomes.