Graham Neale

Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review

Abstract Objectives: To examine the feasibility of detecting adverse events through record review in British hospitals and to make preliminary estimates of the incidence and costs of adverse events. Design: Retrospective review of 1014 medical and nursing records. Setting: Two acute hospitals in Greater London area. Main outcome measure: Number of adverse events. Results: 110 (10.8%) patients experienced an adverse event, with an overall rate of adverse events of 11.7% when multiple adverse events were included. About half of these events were judged preventable with ordinary standards of care. A third of adverse events led to moderate or greater disability or death. Conclusions: These results suggest that adverse events are a serious source of harm to patients and a large drain on NHS resources. Some are major events; others are frequent, minor events that go unnoticed in routine clinical care but together have massive economic consequences

Exploring the causes of adverse events in NHS hospital practice.

In a previous paper we reported that 10.8% of patients admitted to two large hospitals in Greater London experienced one or more adverse events, of which half were deemed preventable. Here we examine the underlying causes of errors in clinical practice. Rather than identifying specific errors made by individuals, we have looked at possible faults in the organization of care. Adverse events were grouped according to stages in the care process: diagnosis, preoperative assessment and care, operative or invasive procedure (including anaesthesia), ward management, use of drugs and intravenous fluids and discharge from hospital. Less than 20% of preventable adverse events were directly related to surgical operations or invasive procedures and less than 10% to misdiagnoses. 53% of preventable adverse events occurred in general ward care (including initial assessment and the use of drugs and intravenous fluids) and 18% in care at the time of discharge. Probable contributory factors in these errors included dependence on diagnoses made by inexperienced clinicians, poor records, poor communication between professional carers, inadequate input by consultants into day-to-day care, and lack of detailed assessment of patients before discharge.

The problem of engaging hospital doctors in promoting safety and quality in clinical care

There is widespread agreement that the medical profession has much to learn about addressing adverse events in clinical practice and participating in clinical governance. In England and Wales centrally driven initiatives such as medical audit, clinical governance and the National Reporting and Learning System have failed to transform the management of iatrogenic adverse events. In this article we explore the historical and cultural background of these issues with respect to hospital medicine and suggest means of tackling the challenges ahead.

Reducing error, improving safety : Defensive culture of British medicine needs to change

Editor—It was brave to devote a whole issue to medical error—how to recognise, how to investigate, how to analyse, and how to change systems to improve patient safety. However, we regret that the edition was dominated by American studies, ignoring the British contribution of confidential inquiries and analyses of closed claims, which have significantly improved safety in some well defined areas of medical practice. In the United States the insurance industry provided the impetus for the study of adverse events, and in Australia the government funded a similar study because it was considering “no fault” compensation. In the United Kingdom, for 25 years the Department of Health has financed all successful claims against NHS hospitals and their staff. As a result the need to take a British study beyond the pilot phase may not be supported. Be that as it may, an important issue was not addressed in the BMJ. Behind each adverse event there is a patient, a doctor, and a doctor-patient relationship. A patient must be told when things have gone wrong. Every effort must be made to minimise the after effects, including financial compensation where necessary. Most patients wish to know in detail what happened and what is being done to reduce the possibility of a recurrence. And members of healthcare teams need mechanisms to come to terms with their fallibility. It is to be hoped that clinical governance will make a difference. Meanwhile a change in the ethos of medical practice is required, and it is to this end that Action for Victims of Medical Accidents has set up a group for doctors. Action for Victims of Medical Accidents is often regarded as dealing solely with compensation and litigation, but its raison d’être has always been to improve patient care. In February this year the doctors’ group met informally to discuss how best to translate into practice the General Medical Council’s requirements of “good medical practice when things go wrong.” We are determined to take our discussion forward and would welcome input from others who see the need to change the defensive and exclusive culture of British medicine. Doctors who would like to be involved should contact Dr Anne Savage, who is acting as secretary to the group.

Patient safety factors in children dying in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU): a case notes review study

Objective To identify patient safety factors in pre-hospital and hospital management of critically ill children dying in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Design Retrospective case notes review. Setting Single tertiary regional PICU in London. Participants 47 patients (7%) who died from a total of 679 children admitted during 2007 and 2008. Median age was 1.1 years and median predicted mortality from the Paediatric Index of Mortality 2 score was 39%. Main outcome measures Adverse events contributing to death (AEds) and critical incidents (CIs). AEd was defined as an unintended injury or complication caused by health care management, contributing to death. CI was defined as an undesirable event in healthcare management, which could have led to harm or did lead to harm of the patient but did not contribute to the patients death. Results 22 AEds occurred in 17 of 47 (36%) cases. Two AEds occurred in primary care, 20 in pre-PICU hospital care, and none in PICU. AEds were mainly problems in diagnosis and management of critical illness. 37 CIs occurred in 28 of 47 (60%) cases. Two CIs occurred prior to hospital admission, 17 occurred in pre-PICU hospital care, 1 during inter-hospital transport and 17 in PICU. CIs were predominantly medical management and procedure related. Individual, team and organisational factors caused the majority of AEds and CIs. Conclusion Adverse events in pre-PICU hospital care were common in children who subsequently died in PICU. CIs occurred throughout the patient journey. Interventional studies of healthcare organisation and delivery are necessary to identify appropriate strategies to improve patient safety.

Relationship between preventable hospital deaths and other measures of safety: an exploratory study

OBJECTIVE To explore associations between the proportion of hospital deaths that are preventable and other measures of safety. DESIGN Retrospective case record review to provide estimates of preventable death proportions. Simple monotonic correlations using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient to establish the relationship with eight other measures of patient safety. SETTING Ten English acute hospital trusts. PARTICIPANTS One thousand patients who died during 2009. RESULTS The proportion of preventable deaths varied between hospitals (3-8%) but was not statistically significant (P = 0.94). Only one of the eight measures of safety (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia rate) was clinically and statistically significantly associated with preventable death proportion (r = 0.73; P < 0.02). There were no significant associations with the other measures including hospital standardized mortality ratios (r = -0.01). There was a suggestion that preventable deaths may be more strongly associated with some other measures of outcome than with process or with structure measures. CONCLUSIONS The exploratory nature of this study inevitably limited its power to provide definitive results. The observed relationships between safety measures suggest that a larger more powerful study is needed to establish the inter-relationship of different measures of safety (structure, process and outcome), in particular the widely used standardized mortality ratios.

Junior doctors' reflections on patient safety

Aim To determine whether foundation year 1 (FY1) doctors reflect upon patient safety incidents (PSIs) within their portfolios and the potential value of such reflections for quality of care. Methods A cross-sectional retrospective review of every ‘reflective practice’ portfolio entry made by all FY1 doctors within an Acute Teaching Hospital Trust was conducted in February 2010. Entries were reviewed by two independent blinded researchers to determine whether they related to a PSI that is, any unintended or unexpected incident that could have or did lead to patient harm. For all entries rated positive by both reviewers, a content analysis approach was used to code PSI into incident type, contributing factors and patient outcome according to validated frameworks developed by the National Patient Safety Agency. Results 139 reflective practice entries were completed by 30 trainees (15 men, 15 women, mean age 24 years). Of the 139 entries, 49% reflected on a PSI. Of these, 22% were due to errors in clinical assessment; 22% were due to delayed access to care; 18% were due to infrastructure/staffing deficiencies; and 16% were due to medication errors. The most common contributing factors were team/social factors (23%), patient factors (22%), communication and task factors (both 17%). The majority of PSIs led to no harm. Six entries described PSIs resulting in patient death, the majority of which were attributable to diagnostic errors. Conclusions FY1 doctors commonly reflect on PSIs within their professional portfolios. Such critical reflection can encourage learning but may also promote patient safety and the quality of healthcare across all medical specialties.

Learning from preventable deaths: exploring case record reviewers' narratives using change analysis.

Objective To determine if applying change analysis to the narrative reports made by reviewers of hospital deaths increases the utility of this information in the systematic analysis of patient harm. Design Qualitative analysis of causes and contributory factors underlying patient harm in 52 case narratives linked to preventable deaths derived from a retrospective case record review of 1000 deaths in acute National Health Service Trusts in 2009. Participants 52 preventable hospital deaths. Setting England. Main outcome measures The nature of problems in care and contributory factors underlying avoidable deaths in hospital. Results The change analysis approach enabled explicit characterisation of multiple problems in care, both across the admission and also at the boundary between primary and secondary care, and illuminated how these problems accumulate to cause harm. It demonstrated links between problems and underlying contributory factors and highlighted other threats to quality of care such as standards of end of life management. The method was straightforward to apply to multiple records and achieved good inter-rater reliability. Conclusion Analysis of case narratives using change analysis provided a richer picture of healthcare-related harm than the traditional approach, unpacking the nature of the problems, particularly by delineating omissions from acts of commission, thus facilitating more tailored responses to patient harm.

Diagnostic error in children presenting with acute medical illness to a community hospital

OBJECTIVE To determine incidence and aetiology of diagnostic errors in children presenting with acute medical illness to a community hospital. DESIGN A three-stage study was conducted. Stage 1: retrospective case note review, comparing admission to discharge diagnoses of children admitted to hospital, to determine incidence of diagnostic error. Stage 2: cases of suspected misdiagnosis were examined in detail by two reviewers. Stage 3: structured interviews were conducted with clinicians involved in these cases to identify contributory factors. SETTING UK community (District General) hospital. PARTICIPANTS All medical patients admitted to the paediatric ward and patients transferred from the Emergency Department to a different facility over a 90-day period were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Incidence of diagnostic error, type of diagnostic error and content analysis of the structured interviews to determine frequency of emerging themes. RESULTS Incidence of misdiagnosis in children presenting with acute illness was 5.0% (19/378, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-7.2%). Diagnostic errors were multi-factorial in origin, commonly involving cognitive factors. Reviewers 1 and 2 identified a median of three and four errors per case, respectively. In 14 cases, structured interviews were possible; clinicians believed system-related errors (organizational flaws, e.g. inadequate policies, staffing or equipment) contributed more commonly to misdiagnoses, whereas reviewers found cognitive factors contributed more commonly to diagnostic error. CONCLUSIONS Misdiagnoses occurred in 5% of children presenting with acute illness and were multi-factorial in aetiology. Multi-site longitudinal studies further exploring aetiology of errors and effect of educational interventions are required to generalize these findings and determine strategies for mitigation.

Practising safely in the foundation years.

Junior doctors are vital to promoting quality of care and safety for patients. This article outlines strategies to reduce errors and subsequent harm