Helen Burstin

Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado

BACKGROUND The ongoing debate on the incidence and types of iatrogenic injuries in American hospitals has been informed primarily by the Harvard Medical Practice Study, which analyzed hospitalizations in New York in 1984. The generalizability of these findings is unknown and has been questioned by other studies. OBJECTIVE We used methods similar to the Harvard Medical Practice Study to estimate the incidence and types of adverse events and negligent adverse events in Utah and Colorado in 1992. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS We selected a representative sample of hospitals from Utah and Colorado and then randomly sampled 15,000 nonpsychiatric 1992 discharges. Each record was screened by a trained nurse-reviewer for 1 of 18 criteria associated with adverse events. If > or =1 criteria were present, the record was reviewed by a trained physician to determine whether an adverse event or negligent adverse event occurred and to classify the type of adverse event. MEASURES The measures were adverse events and negligent adverse events. RESULTS Adverse events occurred in 2.9+/-0.2% (mean+/-SD) of hospitalizations in each state. In Utah, 32.6+/-4% of adverse events were due to negligence; in Colorado, 27.4+/-2.4%. Death occurred in 6.6+/-1.2% of adverse events and 8.8+/-2.5% of negligent adverse events. Operative adverse events comprised 44.9% of all adverse events; 16.9% were negligent, and 16.6% resulted in permanent disability. Adverse drug events were the leading cause of nonoperative adverse events (19.3% of all adverse events; 35.1% were negligent, and 9.7% caused permanent disability). Most adverse events were attributed to surgeons (46.1%, 22.3% negligent) and internists (23.2%, 44.9% negligent). CONCLUSIONS The incidence and types of adverse events in Utah and Colorado in 1992 were similar to those in New York State in 1984. Iatrogenic injury continues to be a significant public health problem. Improving systems of surgical care and drug delivery could substantially reduce the burden of iatrogenic injury.

Is the Professional Satisfaction of General Internists Associated with Patient Satisfaction

AbstractBACKGROUND: The growth of managed care has raised a number of concerns about patient and physician satisfaction. An association between physicians’ professional satisfaction and the satisfaction of their patients could suggest new types of organizational interventions to improve the satisfaction of both. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relation between the satisfaction of general internists and their patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys of patients and physicians. SETTING: Eleven academically affiliated general internal medicine practices in the greater-Boston area. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of English-speaking and Spanish-speaking patients (n=2,620) with at least one visit to their physician (n=166) during the preceding year. MEASUREMENTS: Patients’ overall satisfaction with their health care, and their satisfaction with their most recent physician visit. MAIN RESULTS: After adjustment, the patients of physicians who rated themselves to be very or extremely satisfied with their work had higher scores for overall satisfaction with their health care (regression coefficient 2.10; 95% confidence interval 0.73–3.48), and for satisfaction with their most recent physician visit (regression coefficient 1.23; 95% confidence interval 0.26–2.21). In addition, younger patients, those with better overall health status, and those cared for by a physician who worked part-time were significantly more likely to report better satisfaction with both measures. Minority patients and those with managed care insurance also reported lower overal satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The patients of physicians who have higher professional satisfaction may themselves be more satisfied with their care. Further research will need to consider factors that may mediate the relation between patient and physician satisfaction.

Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals.

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals to implement and prioritize their surgical site infection (SSI) prevention efforts. Refer to the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Infectious Diseases Society of America “Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections” Executive Summary and Introduction and accompanying editorial for additional discussion.1. Burden of SSIs as complications in acute care facilities.a. SSIs occur in 2%-5% of patients undergoing inpatient surgery in the United States.b. Approximately 500,000 SSIs occur each year.2. Outcomes associated with SSIa. Each SSI is associated with approximately 7-10 additional postoperative hospital days.b. Patients with an SSI have a 2-11 times higher risk of death, compared with operative patients without an SSI.i. Seventy-seven percent of deaths among patients with SSI are direcdy attributable to SSI.c. Attributable costs of SSI vary, depending on the type of operative procedure and the type of infecting pathogen; published estimates range from

Impact of Language Barriers on Patient Satisfaction in an Emergency Department

3,000 to

Strategies to Prevent Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Acute Care Hospitals

29,000.i. SSIs are believed to account for up to

Drug Complications in Outpatients

10 billion annually in healthcare expenditures.1. Definitionsa. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System and the National Healthcare Safety Network definitions for SSI are widely used.b. SSIs are classified as follows (Figure):i. Superficial incisional (involving only skin or subcutaneous tissue of the incision)ii. Deep incisional (involving fascia and/or muscular layers)iii. Organ/space

Strategies to Prevent Catheter‐Associated Urinary Tract Infections in Acute Care Hospitals

ObjectiveTo examine patient satisfaction and willingness to return to an emergency department (ED) among non-English speakers.DesignCross-sectional survey and follow-up interviews 10 days after ED visit.SettingFive urban teaching hospital EDs in the Northeastern United States.PatientsWe surveyed 2,333 patients who presented to the ED with one of six chief complaints.Measurements and main resultsPatient satisfaction, willingness to return to the same ED if emergency care was needed, and patient-reported problems with care were measured. Three hundred fifty-four (15%) of the patients reported English was not their primary language. Using an overall measure of patient satisfaction, only 52% of non-English-speaking patients were satisfied as compared with 71% of English speakers (p<.01). Among non-English speakers, 14% said they would not return to the same ED if they had another problem requiring emergency care as compared with 9.5% of English speakers (p<.05). In multivariate analysis adjusting for hospital site, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, chief complaint, urgency, insurance status. Medicaid status, ED as the patient’s principal source of care, and presence of a regular provider of care, non-English speakers were significantly less likely to be satisfied (odds ratio [OR] 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39, 0.90) and significantly less willing to return to the same ED (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.34, 0.95). Non-English speakers also were significantly more likely to report overall problems with care (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.05, 2.74), communication (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.18, 2.47), and testing (OR 1.77; 95% CI 1.19, 2.64).ConclusionsNon-English speakers were less satisfied with their care in the ED, less willing to return to the same ED if they had a problem they felt required emergency care, and reported more problems with emergency care. Strategies to improve satisfaction among this group of patients may include appropriate use of professional interpreters and increasing the language concordance between patients and providers.

Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical-malpractice litigation.

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their central line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention efforts. Refer to the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Infectious Diseases Society of America “Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections” Executive Summary and Introduction and accompanying editorial for additional discussion.1. Patients at risk for CLABSIs in acute care facilitiesa. Intensive care unit (ICU) population: The risk of CLABSI in ICU patients is high. Reasons for this include the frequent insertion of multiple catheters, the use of specific types of catheters that are almost exclusively inserted in ICU patients and associated with substantial risk (eg, arterial catheters), and the fact that catheters are frequently placed in emergency circumstances, repeatedly accessed each day, and often needed for extended periods.b. Non-ICU population: Although the primary focus of attention over the past 2 decades has been the ICU setting, recent data suggest that the greatest numbers of patients with central lines are in hospital units outside the ICU, where there is a substantial risk of CLABSI.2. Outcomes associated with hospital-acquired CLABSIa. Increased length of hospital stayb. Increased cost; the non-inflation-adjusted attributable cost of CLABSIs has been found to vary from 29,000 per episode

Strategies to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Acute Care Hospitals

OBJECTIVE: Outpatient drug complications have not been well studied. We sought to assess the incidence and characteristics of outpatient drug complications, identify their clinical and nonclinical correlates, and evaluate their impact on patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Retrospective chart reviews and patient surveys. SETTING: Eleven Boston-area ambulatory clinics. PATIENTS: We randomly selected 2,248 outpatients, 20 to 75 years old. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 2,248 patients reporting prescription drug use, 394 (18%) reported a drug complication. In contrast, chart review revealed an adverse drug event in only 64 patients (3%). In univariate analyses, significant correlates of patient-reported drug complications were number of medical problems, number of medications, renal disease, failure to explain side effects before treatment, lower medication compliance, and primary language other than English or Spanish. In multivariate analysis, independent correlates were number of medical problems (odds ratio [OR] 1.17; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.05 to 1.30), failure to explain side effects (OR 1.65; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.35), and primary language other than English or Spanish (OR 1.40; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.95). Patient satisfaction was lower among patients who reported drug complications (P < .0001). In addition, 48% of those reporting drug complications sought medical attention and 49% experienced worry or discomfort. On chart review, 3 (5%) of the patients with an adverse drug event required hospitalization and 8 (13%) had a documented previous reaction to the causative drug. CONCLUSIONS: Drug complications in the ambulatory setting were common, although most were not documented in the medical record. These complications increased use of the medical system and correlated with dissatisfaction with care. Our results indicate a need for better communication about potential side effects of medications, especially for patients with multiple medical problems.

Negligent Care and Malpractice Claiming Behavior in Utah and Colorado

Previously published guidelines are available that provide comprehensive recommendations for detecting and preventing healthcare-associated infections. The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention efforts. Refer to the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Infectious Diseases Society of America “Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections” Executive Summary and Introduction and accompanying editorial for additional discussion. 1. Burden of CAUTIs a. Urinary tract infection is the most common hospital-acquired infection; 80% of these infections are attributable to an indwelling urethral catheter. b. Twelve to sixteen percent of hospital inpatients will have a urinary catheter at some time during their hospital stay. c. The daily risk of acquisition of urinary infection varies from 3% to 7% when an indwelling urethral catheter remains in situ. 2. Outcomes associated with CAUTI a. Urinary tract infection is the most important adverse outcome of urinary catheter use. Bacteremia and sepsis may occur in a small proportion of infected patients. b. Morbidity attributable to any single episode of catheterization is limited, but the high frequency of catheter use in hospitalized patients means that the cumulative burden of CAUTI is substantial. c. Catheter use is also associated with negative outcomes other than infection, including nonbacterial urethral inflammation, urethral strictures, and mechanical trauma.