ABSTRACT
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.).
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Hospitalization , Medical Errors , Patient Harm , Patient Safety , Humans , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/epidemiology , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Inpatients , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Medical Errors/statistics & numerical data , Patient Safety/standards , Retrospective Studies , Patient Harm/prevention & control , Patient Harm/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite considerable emphasis on delivering safe care, substantial patient harm occurs. Although most care occurs in the outpatient setting, knowledge of outpatient adverse events (AEs) remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To measure AEs in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective review of the electronic health record (EHR). SETTING: 11 outpatient sites in Massachusetts in 2018. PATIENTS: 3103 patients who received outpatient care. MEASUREMENTS: Using a trigger method, nurse reviewers identified possible AEs and physicians adjudicated them, ranked severity, and assessed preventability. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association of having at least 1 AE with age, sex, race, and primary insurance. Variation in AE rates was analyzed across sites. RESULTS: The 3103 patients (mean age, 52 years) were more often female (59.8%), White (75.1%), English speakers (90.8%), and privately insured (70.4%) and had a mean of 4 outpatient encounters in 2018. Overall, 7.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 9.3%) of patients had at least 1 AE (8.6 events per 100 patients annually). Adverse drug events were the most common AE (63.8%), followed by health care-associated infections (14.8%) and surgical or procedural events (14.2%). Severity was serious in 17.4% of AEs, life-threatening in 2.1%, and never fatal. Overall, 23.2% of AEs were preventable. Having at least 1 AE was less often associated with ages 18 to 44 years than with ages 65 to 84 years (standardized risk difference, -0.05 [CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) and more often associated with Black race than with Asian race (standardized risk difference, 0.09 [CI, 0.01 to 0.17]). Across study sites, 1.8% to 23.6% of patients had at least 1 AE and clinical category of AEs varied substantially. LIMITATION: Retrospective EHR review may miss AEs. CONCLUSION: Outpatient harm was relatively common and often serious. Adverse drug events were most frequent. Rates were higher among older adults. Interventions to curtail outpatient harm are urgently needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care , Electronic Health Records , Patient Safety , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Male , Retrospective Studies , Adult , Aged , Massachusetts , Adolescent , Young AdultABSTRACT
De novo thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) following renal transplantation is a severe complication associated with high rates of allograft failure. Several immunosuppressive agents are associated with TMA. Conventional approaches to managing this entity, such as withdrawal of the offending agent and/or plasmapheresis, often offer limited help, with high rates of treatment failure and graft loss. We herein report a case of drug induced de novo TMA successfully treated using the C5a inhibitor eculizumab in a renal transplant patient. This report highlights a potentially important role for eculizumab in settings where drug-induced de novo TMA is refractory to conventional therapies.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Kidney Transplantation/methods , Tacrolimus/adverse effects , Thrombotic Microangiopathies/drug therapy , Adult , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/administration & dosage , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , Male , Tacrolimus/administration & dosage , Thrombotic Microangiopathies/chemically induced , Thrombotic Microangiopathies/diagnosis , Thrombotic Microangiopathies/pathologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Twenty-five years after the seminal work of the Harvard Medical Practice Study, the numbers and specific types of health care measures of harm have evolved and expanded. Using the World Café method to derive expert consensus, we sought to generate a contemporary list of triggers and adverse event measures that could be used for chart review to determine the current incidence of inpatient and outpatient adverse events. METHODS: We held a modified World Café event in March 2018, during which content experts were divided into 10 tables by clinical domain. After a focused discussion of a prepopulated list of literature-based triggers and measures relevant to that domain, they were asked to rate each measure on clinical importance and suitability for chart review and electronic extraction (very low, low, medium, high, very high). RESULTS: Seventy-one experts from 9 diverse institutions attended (primary acceptance rate, 72%). Of 525 total triggers and measures, 67% of 391 measures and 46% of 134 triggers were deemed to have high or very high clinical importance. For those triggers and measures with high or very high clinical importance, 218 overall were deemed to be highly amenable to chart review and 198 overall were deemed to be suitable for electronic surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: The World Café method effectively prioritized measures/triggers of high clinical importance including those that can be used in chart review, which is considered the gold standard. A future goal is to validate these measures using electronic surveillance mechanisms to decrease the need for chart review.
Subject(s)
Inpatients , Consensus , Humans , IncidenceABSTRACT
Safety assessment codes (SACs) are one method to evaluate adverse events and determine the need for a root cause analysis. Few facilities currently use SACs, and there is no literature examining their interrater reliability. Two independent raters assigned frequency, actual harm, and potential harm ratings to a sample of patient safety reports. An actual and potential SAC were determined. Percent agreement and Cohen's κ were calculated. Substantial agreement existed for the actual SAC (κ = 0.626, P < .001), fair agreement for the potential SAC (κ = 0.266, P < .001), and low agreement for potential harm (κ = 0.171, P = .002). Although there is subjectivity in all aspects of assigning SACs, the greatest is in potential severity. This presents a problem when using the potential SAC and is in agreement with previous literature showing significant subjectivity in determining potential harm. An operational framework is needed to strengthen reliability.