Reducing the Risk of Delayed Colorectal Cancer Diagnoses Through an Ambulatory Safety Net Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 12 million adults in the United States experience delayed diagnoses and other diagnostic errors annually. Ambulatory safety nets (ASNs) are an intervention to reduce delayed diagnoses by identifying patients with abnormal results overdue for follow-up using registries, workflow redesign, and patient navigation. The authors sought to co-design a collaborative and implement colorectal cancer (CRC) ASNs across various health care settings. METHODS: A working group was convened to co-design implementation guidance, measures, and the collaborative model. Collaborative sites were recruited through a medical professional liability insurance program and chose to begin with developing an ASN for positive at-home CRC screening or overdue surveillance colonoscopy. The 18-month Breakthrough Series Collaborative ran from January 2022 to July 2023, with sites continuing to collect data while sustaining their ASNs. Data were collected from sites monthly on patients in the ASN, including the proportion that was successfully contacted, scheduled, and completed a follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS: Six sites participated; four had an operational ASN at the end of the Breakthrough Series, with the remaining sites launching three months later. From October 2022 through February 2024, the Collaborative ASNs collectively identified 5,165 patients from the registry as needing outreach. Among patients needing outreach, 3,555 (68.8%) were successfully contacted, 2,060 (39.9%) were scheduled for a colonoscopy, and 1,504 (29.1%) completed their colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: The Collaborative successfully identified patients with previously abnormal CRC screening and facilitated completion of follow-up testing. The CRC ASN Implementation Guide offers a comprehensive road map for health care leaders interested in implementing CRC ASNs.

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.).

The Impact of Incident Disclosure Behaviors on Medical Malpractice Claims.

OBJECTIVES: To provide preliminary estimates of incident disclosure behaviors on medical malpractice claims. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of data on medical malpractice claims obtained from the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and Risk Management Foundation of Harvard Medical Institutions (Cambridge, Massachusetts) between 2012 and 2013 (n = 434). The characteristics of disclosure and apology after medical errors were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 434 medical malpractice claims, 4.6% (n = 20) medical errors had been disclosed to the patient at the time of the error, and 5.9% (n = 26) had been followed by disclosure and apology. The highest number of disclosed injuries occurred in 2011 (23.9%; n = 11) and 2012 (34.8%; n = 16). There was no incremental increase during the financial years studied (2012-2013). The mean age of informed patients was 52.96 years, 58.7 % of the patients were female, and 52.2% were inpatients. Of the disclosed errors, 26.1% led to an adverse reaction, and 17.4% were fatal. The cause of disclosed medical error was improper surgical performance in 17.4% (95% confidence interval, 6.4-28.4). Disclosed medical errors were classified as medium severity in 67.4%. No apology statement was issued in 54.5% of medical errors classified as high severity. CONCLUSIONS: At the health-care centers studied, when a claim followed a medical error, providers infrequently disclosed medical errors or apologized to the patient or relatives. Most of the medical errors followed by disclosure and apology were classified as being of high and medium severity. No changes were detected in the volume of lawsuits over time.

Multisource Evaluation of Surgeon Behavior Is Associated With Malpractice Claims.

OBJECTIVE: We merged direct, multisource, and systematic assessments of surgeon behavior with malpractice claims, to analyze the relationship between surgeon 360-degree reviews and malpractice history. BACKGROUND: Previous work suggests that malpractice claims are associated with a poor physician-patient relationship, which is likely related to behaviors captured by 360-degree review. We hypothesize that 360-degree review results are associated with malpractice claims. METHODS: Surgeons from 4 academic medical centers covered by a common malpractice carrier underwent 360-degree review in 2012 to 2013 (n = 385). Matched, de-identified reviews and malpractice claims data were available for 264 surgeons from 2000 to 2015. We analyzed 23 questions, highlighting positive and negative behaviors within the domains of education, excellence, humility, openness, respect, service, and teamwork. Regression analysis with robust standard error was used to assess the potential association between 360-degree review results and malpractice claims. RESULTS: The range of claims among the 264 surgeons was 0 to 8, with 48.1% of surgeons having at least 1 claim. Multiple positive and negative behaviors were significantly associated with the risk of having malpractice claims (P < 0.05). Surgeons in the bottom decile for several items had an increased likelihood of having at least 1 claim. CONCLUSION: Surgeon behavior, as assessed by 360-degree review, is associated with malpractice claims. These findings highlight the importance of teamwork and communication in exposure to malpractice. Although the nature of malpractice claims is complex and multifactorial, the identification and modification of negative physician behaviors may mitigate malpractice risk and ultimately result in the improved quality of patient care.

Eleven-year descriptive analysis of closed court verdicts on medical errors in Spain and Massachusetts.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the characteristics of court verdicts on medical errors allegedly harming patients in Spain and Massachusetts from 2002 to 2012. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 1041 closed court verdicts obtained from data on litigation in the Thomson Reuters Aranzadi Westlaw databases in Spain (Europe), and 370 closed court verdicts obtained from the Controlled Risk and Risk Management Foundation of Harvard Medical Institutions (CRICO/RMF) in Massachusetts (USA). We included closed court verdicts on medical errors. The definition of medical errors was based on that of the Institute of Medicine (USA). We excluded any agreements between parties before a judgement. RESULTS: Medical errors were involved in 25.9% of court verdicts in Spain and in 74% of those in Massachusetts. The most frequent cause of medical errors was a diagnosis-related problem (25.1%; 95% CI 20.7% to 31.1% in Spain; 35%; 95% CI 29.4% to 40.7% in Massachusetts). The proportion of medical errors classified as high severity was 34% higher in Spain than in Massachusetts (p=0.001). The most frequent factors contributing to medical errors in Spain were surgical and medical treatment (p=0.001). In Spain, 98.5% of medical errors resulted in compensation awards compared with only 6.9% in Massachusetts. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals wide differences in litigation rates and the award of indemnity payments in Spain and Massachusetts; however, common features of both locations are the high rates of diagnosis-related problems and the long time interval until resolution.

A retrospective review of medical errors adjudicated in court between 2002 and 2012 in Spain.

OBJECTIVES: This paper describes verdicts in court involving injury-producing medical errors in Spain. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A descriptive analysis of 1041 closed court verdicts from Spain between January 2002 and December 2012. It was determined whether a medical error had occurred, and among those with medical error (n = 270), characteristics and results of litigation were analyzed. Data on litigation were obtained from the Thomson Reuters Aranzadi Westlaw databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All verdicts involving health system were reviewed and classified according to the presence of medical error. Among those, contributory factors, medical specialty involved, health impact (death, disability and severity) and results of litigation (resolution, time to verdict and economic compensations) were described. RESULTS: Medical errors were involved in 25.9% of court verdicts. The cause of medical error was a diagnosis-related problem in 25.1% and surgical treatment in 22.2%, and Obstetrics-Gynecology was the most frequent involved specialty (21%). Most of them were of high severity (59.4%), one-third (32%) caused death. The average time interval between the occurrence of the error and the verdict was 7.8 years. The average indemnity payment was €239 505.24; the highest was psychiatry (€7 585 075.86) and the lowest was Emergency Medicine (€69 871.19). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that in Spain medical errors are common among verdicts involving the health system, most of them causing high-severity adverse outcomes. The interval between the medical error and the verdict is excessive, and there is a wide range of economic compensation.

Integrating incident data from five reporting systems to assess patient safety: making sense of the elephant.

BACKGROUND: A study was conducted to examine and compare information gleaned from five different reporting systems within one institution: incident reporting, patient complaints, risk management, medical malpractice claims, and executive walk rounds. These data sources vary in the timing of the reporting (retrospective or prospective), severity of the events, and profession of the reporters. METHODS: A common methodology was developed for classifying incidents. Data specific to each incident were abstracted from each system and then categorized using the same framework into one of 23 categories. RESULTS: Overall, there was little overlap, although each reporting system identified important safety issues. Communication problems were common among patient complaints and malpractice claims; malpractice claims' leading category was clinical judgement. Walk rounds identified issues with equipment and supplies. Adverse event reporting systems highlighted identification issues, especially mislabelled specimens. The frequency of contributions of reports by provider group varied substantially by system. Physicians accounted for 50% of risk management reports, but in adverse event reporting, where nurses were the main reporters, physicians accounted for only 2.5% of reports. Complaints and malpractice claims come primarily from patients. CONCLUSIONS: The five reporting systems each identified different yet complementary patient safety issues. To obtain a comprehensive picture of their patient safety problems and to develop priorities for improving safety, hospitals should use a broad portfolio of approaches and then synthesize the messages from all individual approaches into a collated and cohesive whole.

Neurologic patient safety: an in-depth study of malpractice claims.

This in-depth study of neurologic malpractice claims indicated authentic, preventable patient harm in 24 of 42 cases, enabling comparison with larger but administratively abstracted summary reports. Principal findings included the common occurrence of outpatient events, lapses in communication with patients and other providers, the need for follow-through by the consultant neurologist even when not primarily responsible, the frequency of diagnostic errors, and pitfalls associated with imaging.

Organization and representation of patient safety data: current status and issues around generalizability and scalability.

Recent reports have identified medical errors as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among patients. A variety of approaches have been implemented to identify errors and their causes. These approaches include retrospective reporting and investigation of errors and adverse events and prospective analyses for identifying hazardous situations. The above approaches, along with other sources, contribute to data that are used to analyze patient safety risks. A variety of data structures and terminologies have been created to represent the information contained in these sources of patient safety data. Whereas many representations may be well suited to the particular safety application for which they were developed, such application-specific and often organization-specific representations limit the sharability of patient safety data. The result is that aggregation and comparison of safety data across organizations, practice domains, and applications is difficult at best. A common reference data model and a broadly applicable terminology for patient safety data are needed to aggregate safety data at the regional and national level and conduct large-scale studies of patient safety risks and interventions.

Coverage of patient safety terms in the UMLS metathesaurus.

The integration and large-scale analyses of medical error databases would be greatly facilitated by the use of a standard terminology. We investigated the availability in the UMLS metathesaurus of concepts that are required for coding patient safety data. Terms from three proprietary patient safety terminologies were mapped to the concepts in UMLS by an automated mapping program developed by us. From these candidate mappings, the concept that matched its corresponding term was selected manually. The reliability of the mapping procedure was verified by manually searching for terms in the UMLS Knowledge Source Server. Matching concepts in UMLS were identified for less than 27% of the terms in the study dataset. The matching rates of terms that describe the type of error and the causes of errors were even lower. The lack of such terms in the existing standard terminologies underscores the need for development of a standard patient safety terminology.