Voluntary electronic reporting of medical errors and adverse events. An analysis of 92,547 reports from 26 acute care hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate and types of events reported in acute care hospitals using an electronic error reporting system (e-ERS). DESIGN: Descriptive study of reported events using the same e-ERS between January 1, 2001 and September 30, 2003. SETTING: Twenty-six acute care nonfederal hospitals throughout the U.S. that voluntarily implemented a web-based e-ERS for at least 3 months. PARTICIPANTS: Hospital employees and staff. INTERVENTION: A secure, standardized, commercially available web-based reporting system. RESULTS: Median duration of e-ERS use was 21 months (range 3 to 33 months). A total of 92,547 reports were obtained during 2,547,154 patient-days. Reporting rates varied widely across hospitals (9 to 95 reports per 1,000 inpatient-days; median=35). Registered nurses provided nearly half of the reports; physicians contributed less than 2%. Thirty-four percent of reports were classified as nonmedication-related clinical events, 33% as medication/infusion related, 13% were falls, 13% as administrative, and 6% other. Among 80% of reports that identified level of impact, 53% were events that reached a patient ("patient events"), 13% were near misses that did not reach the patient, and 14% were hospital environment problems. Among 49,341 patient events, 67% caused no harm, 32% temporary harm, 0.8% life threatening or permanent harm, and 0.4% contributed to patient deaths. CONCLUSIONS: An e-ERS provides an accessible venue for reporting medical errors, adverse events, and near misses. The wide variation in reporting rates among hospitals, and very low reporting rates by physicians, requires investigation.

Differences in triage thresholds for patients presenting with possible acute coronary syndromes: more than meets the eye.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown differences in cardiac care by racial/ethnic groups without accounting for institutional factors at the location of care. OBJECTIVE: Exploratory analysis of the effect of hospital funding status (public vs private) on emergency department (ED) triage decision making for patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) and on the likelihood of ED discharge for patients with confirmed ACS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of 10,659 ED patients with possible ACS in five urban academic public and five private hospitals. The main outcome measures were the sensitivity and specificity of hospital admission for the presence of ACS at public and private hospitals and the adjusted odds of a patient with ACS not being hospitalized at public versus private hospitals. RESULTS: Of 10,659 ED patients, 1,856 had confirmed ACS. For patients with suspected ACS, triage decisions at private hospitals were considerably more sensitive (99 vs 96%; p<.001) but less specific (30 vs 48%; p<.001) than at public hospitals. The difference between hospital types persisted after adjustment for multiple patient-level and hospital-level characteristics. CONCLUSION: Significant differences in triage for patients with suspected ACS exist between public and private hospital EDs, even after adjustment for multiple patient demographic, clinical, and institutional factors. Further studies are needed to clarify the causes of the differences.

Smoking cessation in primary care: a clinical effectiveness trial of two simple interventions.

BACKGROUND: Many primary care practices do not have systematic protocols to identify patients who smoke or to encourage clinicians to provide smoking cessation advice. We designed a study to assess the relative effectiveness of two brief interventions on screening for smoking, physician cessation advice and patient smoking cessation rates. METHODS: We performed a nonrandomized comparison of alternative strategies for smoking cessation at a hospital-based adult primary care practice. Each intervention was implemented on a separate practice team. The "minimal" intervention consisted of a smoking status "vital sign" stamp which documented patient smoking status. The "enhanced" intervention consisted of a five-question form that assessed patient level of cessation readiness and provided cessation-counseling prompts for clinicians. Medical record documentation of screening for smoking and cessation advice and self-reported patient smoking cessation rates were collected 8-10 months after implementation. RESULTS: Smoking status was documented at 86%, 91%, and 49%, and cessation advice at 38%, 47%, and 30% of visits on the minimal, enhanced, and control teams, respectively (P < 0.001 for smoking status and P = 0.014 for advice). Self-reported patient smoking cessation was higher on the enhanced team (12%) compared with the minimal (2%) and control (4%) teams (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A short questionnaire that assesses readiness-to-quit and provides documentation of cessation advice improves rates of clinician cessation advice and patient smoking cessation compared with no intervention.