Mitigation of patient harm from testing errors in family medicine offices: a report from the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: Little research has focused on preventing harm from errors that occur in primary care. We studied mitigation of patient harm by analysing error reports from family physicians' offices. METHODS: The data for this analysis come from reports of testing process errors identified by family physicians and their office staff in eight practices in the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. We determined how often reported error events were mitigated, described factors related to mitigation and assessed the effect of mitigation on the outcome of error events. RESULTS: We identified mitigation in 123 (21%) of 597 testing process event reports. Of the identified mitigators, 79% were persons from inside the practice, and 7% were patients or patient's family. Older age was the only patient demographic attribute associated with increased likelihood of mitigation occurring (unadjusted OR 18-44 years compared with 65 years of age or older = 0.27; p = 0.007). Events that included testing implementation errors (11% of the events) had lower odds of mitigation (unadjusted OR = 0.40; p = 0.001), and events containing reporting errors (26% of the events) had higher odds of mitigation (unadjusted OR = 1.63; p = 0.021). As the number of errors reported in an event increased, the odds of that event being mitigated decreased (unadjusted OR = 0.58; p = 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression showed that an event had higher odds of being mitigated if it included an ordering error or if the patient was 65 years of age or older, and lower odds of being mitigated if the patient was between age 18 and 44, or if the event included an implementation error or involved more than one error. Mitigated events had lower odds of patient harm (unadjusted OR = 0.16; p<0.0001) and negative consequences (unadjusted OR = 0.28; p<0.0001). Mitigated events resulted in less severe and fewer detrimental outcomes compared with non-mitigated events. CONCLUSION: Nearly a quarter of testing process errors reported by family physicians and their staff had evidence of mitigation, and mitigated errors resulted in less frequent and less serious harm to patients. Vigilance throughout the testing process is likely to detect and correct errors, thereby preventing or reducing harm.

Testing process errors and their harms and consequences reported from family medicine practices: a study of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network.

CONTEXT: Little is known about the types and outcomes of testing process errors that occur in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To describe types, predictors and outcomes of testing errors reported by family physicians and office staff. DESIGN: Events were reported anonymously. Each office completed a survey describing their testing processes prior to event reporting. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 243 clinicians and office staff of eight family medicine offices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distribution of error types, associations with potential predictors; predictors of harm and consequences of the errors. RESULTS: Participants submitted 590 event reports with 966 testing process errors. Errors occurred in ordering tests (12.9%), implementing tests (17.9%), reporting results to clinicians (24.6%), clinicians responding to results (6.6%), notifying patient of results (6.8%), general administration (17.6%), communication (5.7%) and other categories (7.8%). Charting or filing errors accounted for 14.5% of errors. Significant associations (p<0.05) existed between error types and type of reporter (clinician or staff), number of labs used by the practice, absence of a results follow-up system and patients' race/ethnicity. Adverse consequences included time lost and financial consequences (22%), delays in care (24%), pain/suffering (11%) and adverse clinical consequence (2%). Patients were unharmed in 54% of events; 18% resulted in some harm, and harm status was unknown for 28%. Using multilevel logistic regression analyses, adverse consequences or harm were more common in events that were clinician-reported, involved patients aged 45-64 years and involved test implementation errors. Minority patients were more likely than white, non-Hispanic patients to suffer adverse consequences or harm. CONCLUSIONS: Errors occur throughout the testing process, most commonly involving test implementation and reporting results to clinicians. While significant physical harm was rare, adverse consequences for patients were common. The higher prevalence of harm and adverse consequences for minority patients is a troubling disparity needing further investigation.