Examining Causes and Prevention Strategies of Adverse Events in Deceased Hospital Patients: A Retrospective Patient Record Review Study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To improve patient safety and possibly prevent mortality from adverse events (AEs) in hospitals, it is important to gain insight in their underlying causes. We aimed to examine root causes and potential prevention strategies of AEs in deceased hospital patients. METHODS: Data on 571 AEs were used from two retrospective patient record review studies of patients who died during hospitalization in the Netherlands. Trained reviewers assessed contributing factors and potential prevention strategies. The results were analyzed together with data on preventability of the AE and the relationship of the AE with the death of the patient. RESULTS: In 47% of the AEs, patient-related causes were identified, in 35% human causes, in 9% organizational causes, and in 3% technical causes. Preventable AEs were caused by technical, organizational, and human causes (78%, 74%, and 74%, respectively) more often than by patient-related causes (33%). In addition, technical factors caused AEs leading to preventable death (78%) relatively often. Recommended strategies to prevent AEs were quality assurance/peer review, evaluation of safety behavior, improving procedures, and improving information and communication structures. CONCLUSIONS: Human failures played an important role in the causation of AEs in Dutch hospitals, because they occurred frequently and they were frequently the cause of preventable AEs. To a lesser extent, latent organizational and technical factors were identified. Patient-related factors were often identified, but the preventability of the AEs with these causes was low. For future research into causes of AEs, we recommend combining record review with interviewing.

Validity and reliability of a medical record review method identifying transitional patient safety incidents in merged primary and secondary care patients' records.

OBJECTIVE: Inadequate information transfer during transitions in healthcare is a major patient safety issue. Aim of this study was to pilot a review of medical records to identify transitional safety incidents (TSIs) for use in a large intervention study and assess its reliability and validity. DESIGN: A retrospective medical record review study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Combined primary and secondary care medical records of 301 patients who had visited their general practitioner and the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, in 2013 were randomly selected. Six trained reviewers assessed these medical records for presence of TSIs. OUTCOMES: To assess inter-rater reliability, 10% of medical records were independently reviewed twice. To assess validity, the identified TSIs were compared with a reference standard of three objectively identifiable TSIs. RESULTS: The reviewers identified TSIs in 52 (17.3%) of all transitional medical records. Variation between reviewers was high (range: 3-28 per 50 medical records). Positive agreement for finding a TSI between reviewers was 0%, negative agreement 80% and the Cohen's kappa -0.15. The reviewers identified 43 (22%) of 194 objectively identifiable TSIs. CONCLUSION: The reliability of our measurement tool for identifying TSIs in transitional medical record performed by clinicians was low. Although the TSIs that were identified by clinicians were valid, they missed 80% of them. Restructuring the record review procedure is necessary.

Excess length of stay and economic consequences of adverse events in Dutch hospital patients.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the average and extrapolated excess length of stay and direct costs of adverse events (AEs) and preventable AEs in Dutch hospitals, and to evaluate patient characteristics associated with excess length of stay and costs. METHODS: Data of a large retrospective patient record review study on AEs was used. A stratified sample of 20 Dutch hospitals was included. Excess length of stay and costs attributable to AEs and preventable AEs were calculated and extrapolated to a national estimate. The association between patient characteristics and excess length of stay (and costs thereof) attributable to AEs and preventable AEs was investigated through multilevel linear regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2975 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 325 experienced one or more AEs. Hospital patients experiencing an AE stayed 5.11 (95% CI 3.91-6.30) more days in hospital and cost €2600 (95% CI €1968-€3232) more compared to those without an AE. There was no significant difference in days and costs between preventable and non-preventable AEs. Extrapolated to a national level, AEs cost more than €300 million, which was 1.3% of the national hospital care budget. Patients with hospital-acquired infections had a statistically significant longer length of stay compared to the reference group (patients with AEs on the cardiovascular system). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that AEs lead to substantial excess length of stay and increased costs. Special attention should be paid to patients with AEs due to an hospital-acquired infection.

High risk of adverse events in hospitalised hip fracture patients of 65 years and older: results of a retrospective record review study.

OBJECTIVES: Hip fracture patients of 65 years and older are a complex patient group who often suffer from complications and difficult rehabilitation with disappointing results. It is unknown to what extent suboptimal hospital care contributes to these poor outcomes. This study reports on the scale, preventability, causes and prevention strategies of adverse events in patients, aged 65 years and older, admitted to the hospital with a primary diagnosis of hip fracture. DESIGN, SETTING AND OUTCOME MEASURES: A retrospective record review study was conducted of 616 hip fracture patients (≥65 years) admitted to surgical or orthopaedic departments in four Dutch hospitals in 2007. Experienced physician reviewers determined the presence and preventability of adverse events, causes and prevention strategies using a structured review form. The main outcome measures were frequency of adverse events and preventable adverse events in hospitalised hip fracture patients of 65 years and older, and strategies to prevent them in the future. RESULTS: 114 (19%) of the 616 patients in the study experienced one or more adverse events; 49 of these were preventable. The majority of the adverse events (70%) was related to the surgical procedure and many resulted in an intervention or additional treatment (67%). Human causes contributed to 53% of the adverse events, followed by patient-related factors (39%). Training and close monitoring of quality of care and the health professional's performance were the most often selected strategies to prevent these adverse events in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The high percentage of preventable adverse events found in this study shows that care for older hospitalised hip fracture patients should be improved. More training and quality assurance is required to provide safer care and to reduce the number of preventable adverse events in this vulnerable patient group.

Effects of patient safety culture interventions on incident reporting in general practice: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A constructive safety culture is essential for the successful implementation of patient safety improvements. AIM: To assess the effect of two patient safety culture interventions on incident reporting as a proxy of safety culture. DESIGN AND SETTING: A three-arm cluster randomised trial was conducted in a mixed method study, studying the effect of administering a patient safety culture questionnaire (intervention I), the questionnaire complemented with a practice-based workshop (intervention II) and no intervention (control) in 30 general practices in the Netherlands. METHOD: The primary outcome, the number of reported incidents, was measured with a questionnaire at baseline and a year after. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial model. Secondary outcomes were quality and safety indicators and safety culture. Mixed effects linear regression was used to analyse the culture questionnaires. RESULTS: The number of incidents increased in both intervention groups, to 82 and 224 in intervention I and II respectively. Adjusted for baseline number of incidents, practice size and accreditation status, the study showed that practices that additionally participated in the workshop reported 42 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.81 to 177.50) times more incidents compared to the control group. Practices that only completed the questionnaire reported 5 (95% CI = 1.17 to 25.49) times more incidents. There were no statistically significant differences in staff perception of patient safety culture at follow-up between the three study groups. CONCLUSION: Educating staff and facilitating discussion about patient safety culture in their own practice leads to increased reporting of incidents. It is beneficial to invest in a team-wise effort to improve patient safety.

Do patient characteristics influence nursing adherence to a guideline for preventing delirium?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine if the characteristics of patients influence nursing adherence to a quality improvement guideline. This guideline consists of delirium risk screening and preventive care, including the use of the Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS). DESIGN: A retrospective patient record review study was performed in 18 Dutch hospitals that were implementing a quality improvement project regarding delirium care. The records of patients 70 years of age or older were reviewed over an 11-month period. METHODS: Patient characteristics, as well as the extent of risk screening and the application of the DOSS within the screened and nonscreened groups, were recorded by experienced research nurses. Characteristics were compared between these groups and within the high-risk group using multilevel logistic regression analysis. FINDINGS: A total of 1,881 patient records were analyzed. In 55% of the total sample, a risk screening was conducted, of which 44% were identified as patients with a high risk for delirium. Acute admissions were screened significantly less often. The DOSS was used in 48% of the patients in the high-risk group, but also in 13% of the patients without an identified risk and in 15% of the nonscreened patients. The factors influencing the use of the DOSS in screened and nonscreened patients included age, domestic circumstances, suffering from dementia, and acute admission. In the nonscreened group, comorbidity also showed significance. CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics influence nursing in preventive delirium care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings can help to improve preventive delirium care by nurses.

Guideline adherence for identification and hydration of high-risk hospital patients for contrast-induced nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a common cause of acute renal failure in hospital patients. To prevent CIN, identification and hydration of high-risk patients is important. Prevention of CIN by hydration of high-risk patients was one of the themes to be implemented in the Dutch Hospital Patient Safety Program. This study investigates to what extent high-risk patients are identified and hydrated before contrast administration. Hospital-related and admission-related factors associated with the hydration of high-risk patients are identified. METHODS: The adherence to the guideline concerning identification and hydration of high-risk patients for CIN was evaluated retrospectively in 4297 patient records between November 2011 and December 2012. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association between hospital-related and patient-related factors and hydration. RESULTS: The mean percentage patients with a known estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate before contrast administration was 96.4%. The mean percentage high-risk patients for CIN was 14.6%. The mean percentage high-risk patients hydrated before contrast administration was 68.5% and was constant over time. Differences between individual hospitals explained 19% of the variation in hydration. The estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate value and admission department were statistically significantly associated with the execution of hydration. CONCLUSION: The identification of high-risk patients was almost 100%, but the subsequent step in the prevention of CIN is less performed, as only two third of the high-risk patients were hydrated before contrast administration. Large variation between individual hospitals confirmed the difference in hospitals in correctly applying the guideline for preventing CIN.

What are the safety risks for patients undergoing treatment by multiple specialties: a retrospective patient record review study.

BACKGROUND: If multiple medical specialties are involved in treatment there is a danger of increasing risks to patient safety. This is due to the need for greater co-ordination and communication with other specialties, less emergency cover for individual sub-specialties, and a drop in general care and the overview of care. This study aims to determine if the number of medical specialties treating a patient is associated with the risk of experiencing harm during hospital admission. METHODS: We performed a retrospective patient record review study using a stratified sample of 20 hospitals in the Netherlands. In each hospital 200 patient admissions were included. We related the occurrence of preventable adverse events and non-preventable adverse events to the number of specialties treating a patient through a stepwise multilevel logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Compared to patients treated by only one specialty, patients treated by three or more specialties had an odds ratio of experiencing an adverse event of 3.01 (95% CI 2.09 to 4.34), and an odds ratio of experiencing a preventable adverse event of 2.78 (95% CI 1.77 to 4.37). After adding characteristics related to the patient and the type of health care, the odds ratio for non-preventable adverse events decreased to 1.46 (95% CI 0.95 to 2.26), and for preventable adverse events to 2.31 (95% CI 1.40 to 3.81). There were no large differences found between the groups relating to the causes of preventable adverse events. However, in patients treated by three or more specialties, the greater number of preventable adverse events was related to the diagnostic process. CONCLUSIONS: The more specialties treating a patient the greater the risk of an adverse event. This finding became more pronounced for preventable adverse events than for non-preventable adverse events after corrections for the characteristics of the patient and their health care. This study highlights the importance of taking the number of specialties treating a patient into account. More research is needed to gain insight into the underlying causes of inadequate care when multiple specialties are required to treat a patient. This could result in appropriate solutions resulting in improvements to care.

Changes in adverse event rates in hospitals over time: a longitudinal retrospective patient record review study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the change in adverse event (AE) rates and preventable AE rates over time, identify certain patient risk groups and discuss factors influencing the outcome. DESIGN: Longitudinal retrospective patient record review study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 21 hospitals in The Netherlands in 2004, and 20 hospitals in 2008. In each hospital, 400 patient admissions were included in 2004, and 200 in 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AEs and preventable AEs. RESULTS: Multilevel analyses of 11 883 patient records (7.887 in 2004, 3.996 in 2008) showed that the rate of patients experiencing an AE increased from 4.1% (95% CI 3.3% to 5.1%) in 2004 to 6.2% (95% CI 5.0% to 7.6%) in 2008. The preventable AE rate remained relatively stable at 1.8% (95% CI 1.3% to 2.4%) in 2004 and 1.6% (95% CI 1.2% to 2.3%) in 2008. The risk of experiencing a preventable AE was increasingly higher for patients admitted to a surgical unit (OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.16) in 2004 and 3.32 (95% CI 2.17 to 5.07)) in 2008. More than 50% of all AEs were related to surgery. Indications were found that differences in the risk of experiencing a preventable AE between hospital departments were larger in 2008 than in 2004, while differences between hospitals themselves were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: Patient harm related to healthcare is a persistent problem that is hard to influence. Measuring AEs over time stresses the continuing urgency, and also identifies possible areas for improvement.