Daniel M. Harris

Event Reporting to a Primary Care Patient Safety Reporting System: A Report From the ASIPS Collaborative

BACKGROUND We examined reports to a primary care, ambulatory, patient safety reporting system to describe types of errors reported and differences between anonymous and confidential reports. METHODS Applied Strategies for Improving Patient Safety (ASIPS) is a demonstration project designed to collect and analyze medical error reports from clinicians and staff in 2 practice-based research networks: the Colorado Research Network (CaReNet) and the High Plains Research Network (HPRN). A major component of ASIPS is a voluntary patient safety reporting system that accepts reports of errors anonymously or confidentially. Reports are coded using a multiaxial taxonomy. RESULTS Two years into this project, 33 practices with a total of 475 clinicians and staff have participated in ASIPS. Participants submitted 708 reports during this time (66% using the confidential reporting form). We successfully followed up on 84% of the confidential reports of interest within the allotted 10-day time frame. We ended up with 608 relevant, codable reports. Communication problems (70.8%), diagnostic tests (47%), medication problems (35.4%), and both diagnostic tests and medications (13.6%) were the most frequently reported errors. Confidential reports were significantly more likely than anonymous reports to contain codable data. CONCLUSION A safe and secure reporting system that relies on voluntary reporting from clinicians and staff can be successfully implemented in primary care settings. Information from confidential reports appears to be superior to that from anonymous reports and may be more useful in understanding errors and designing interventions to improve patient safety.

Database Design to Ensure Anonymous Study of Medical Errors: A Report from the ASIPS Collaborative

Medical error reporting systems are important information sources for designing strategies to improve the safety of health care. Applied Strategies for Improving Patient Safety (ASIPS) is a multi-institutional, practice-based research project that collects and analyzes data on primary care medical errors and develops interventions to reduce error. The voluntary ASIPS Patient Safety Reporting System captures anonymous and confidential reports of medical errors. Confidential reports, which are quickly de-identified, provide better detail than do anonymous reports; however, concerns exist about the confidentiality of those reports should the database be subject to legal discovery or other security breaches. Standard database elements, for example, serial ID numbers, date/time stamps, and backups, could enable an outsider to link an ASIPS report to a specific medical error. The authors present the design and implementation of a database and administrative system that reduce this risk, facilitate research, and maintain near anonymity of the events, practices, and clinicians.

Stopping the error cascade: a report on ameliorators from the ASIPS collaborative

Objective: To present a novel examination of how error cascades are stopped (ameliorated) before they affect patients. Design: Qualitative analysis of reported errors in primary care. Setting: Over a three-year period, clinicians and staff in two practice-based research networks voluntarily reported medical errors to a primary care patient safety reporting system, Applied Strategies for Improving Patient Safety (ASIPS). The authors found a number of reports where the error was corrected before it had an adverse impact on the patient. Results: Of 754 codeable reported events, 60 were classified as ameliorated events. In these events, a participant stopped the progression of the event before it reached or affected the patient. Ameliorators included doctors, nurses, pharmacists, diagnostic laboratories and office staff. Additionally, patients or family members may be ameliorators by recognising the error and taking action. Ameliorating an event after an initial error requires an opportunity to catch the error by systems, chance or attentiveness. Correcting the error before it affects the patient requires action either directed by protocols and systems or by vigilance, power to change course and perseverance on the part of the ameliorator. Conclusion: Despite numerous individual and systematic methods to prevent errors, a system to prevent all potential errors is not feasible. However, a more pervasive culture of safety that builds on simple acts in addition to more costly and complex electronic systems may improve patient outcomes. Medical staff and patients who are encouraged to be vigilant, ask questions and seek solutions may correct otherwise inevitable wrongs.

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.