Marleen Smits

Adverse events and potentially preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals: results of a retrospective patient record review study

Objective: This study determined the incidence, type, nature, preventability and impact of adverse events (AEs) among hospitalised patients and potentially preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals. Methods: Using a three-stage retrospective record review process, trained nurses and doctors reviewed 7926 admissions: 3983 admissions of deceased hospital patients and 3943 admissions of discharged patients in 2004, in a random sample of 21 hospitals in the Netherlands (4 university, 6 tertiary teaching and 11 general hospitals). A large sample of deceased patients was included to determine the occurrence of potentially preventable deaths in hospitals more precisely. Results: One or more AEs were found in 5.7% (95% CI 5.1% to 6.4%) of all admissions and a preventable AE in 2.3% (95% CI 1.9% to 2.7%). Of all AEs, 12.8% resulted in permanent disability or contributed to death. The proportion of AEs and their impact increased with age. More than 50% of the AEs were related to surgical procedures. Among deceased hospital patients, 10.7% (95% CI 9.8% to 11.7%) had experienced an AE. Preventable AEs that contributed to death occurred in 4.1% (95% CI 3.5% to 4.8%) of all hospital deaths. Extrapolating to a national level, between 1482 and 2032 potentially preventable deaths occurred in Dutch hospitals in 2004. Conclusions: The incidence of AEs, preventable AEs and potentially preventable deaths in the Netherlands is substantial and needs to be reduced. Patient safety efforts should focus on surgical procedures and older patients.

The psychometric properties of the 'Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture' in Dutch hospitals.

BackgroundIn many different countries the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) is used to assess the safety culture in hospitals. Accordingly, the questionnaire has been translated into Dutch for application in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to examine the underlying dimensions and psychometric properties of the questionnaire in Dutch hospital settings, and to compare these results with the original questionnaire used in USA hospital settings.MethodsThe HSOPS was completed by 583 staff members of four general hospitals, three teaching hospitals, and one university hospital in the Netherlands. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to examine the applicability of the factor structure of the American questionnaire to the Dutch data. Explorative factor analyses were performed to examine whether another composition of items and factors would fit the data better. Supplementary psychometric analyses were performed, including internal consistency and construct validity.ResultsThe confirmatory factor analyses were based on the 12-factor model of the original questionnaire and resulted in a few low reliability scores. 11 Factors were drawn with explorative factor analyses, with acceptable reliability scores and a good construct validity. Two items were removed from the questionnaire. The composition of the factors was very similar to that of the original questionnaire. A few items moved to another factor and two factors turned out to combine into a six-item dimension. All other dimensions consisted of two to five items.ConclusionThe Dutch translation of the HSOPS consists of 11 factors with acceptable reliability and good construct validity. and is similar to the original HSOPS factor structure.

Quality of after-hours primary care in the Netherlands: a narrative review.

Many Western countries are seeking an organizational model for after-hours primary care that is safe, efficient, and satisfactory for patients and health care professionals. Around the year 2000, Dutch primary care physicians (PCPs) reorganized their after-hours primary care and shifted from small rotation groups to large-scale PCP cooperatives. This article provides a narrative review of studies on a range of issues about after-hours primary care in the Netherlands, including experiences of health care professionals and patients, patient-safety incidents, adherence to practice guidelines, waiting times, and quality of telephone triage. Physicians expressed high satisfaction with PCP cooperatives; their workload decreased, and job satisfaction increased compared with the situation before the reorganization. In general, patients were also satisfied, but areas for improvement included telephone consultations, patient education, and distance to a pharmacy. A study identified patient-safety incidents in 2.4% of all contacts, of which most did not result in harm to patients. The average adherence to clinical guidelines by physicians was 77%, with lowest adherence scores for prescribing antibiotics and treatment in emergency cases. The average waiting time for home visits was 30 minutes. Seventy percent of patients with life-threatening problems were visited within the time target of 15 minutes. Telephone triage by nurses had positive effects on care efficiency by increasing the proportion of telephone consultations and decreasing the proportion of clinic consultations and home visits. The after-hours primary care system in the Netherlands might set an example for other countries struggling to find a good solution for the problems they encounter with after-hours primary care. Future developments in the Netherlands include integration and extensive collaboration with the accident and emergency departments of hospitals, in which PCPs take care of self-referring patients.

Measuring patient safety culture: an assessment of the clustering of responses at unit level and hospital level

Objectives: To test the claim that the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) measures patient safety culture instead of mere individual attitudes and to determine the most appropriate level (individual, unit or hospital level) for interventions aimed at improving the culture of patient safety. Methods: National patient safety culture data were used from 1889 hospital staff working at 87 units in 19 hospitals across The Netherlands. The multilevel structure of the variation of responses to the 11 dimensions of the questionnaire was explored by fitting three-level random intercept models: individual, unit and hospital level. Results: The unit level was the dominating level for the clustering of responses to the 11 dimensions. Intraclass correlations (ICC) at unit level ranged from 4.3 to 31.7, representing considerable higher-level variation. For three dimensions of patient safety culture, there was significant clustering of responses at hospital level as well: (1) Feedback about and learning from error, (2) Teamwork across hospital units and (3) Non-punitive response to error. Conclusions: At a conceptual level, the detection of clustering of responses within units and hospitals confirms the claim that the HSOPS measures group culture and not just individual attitudes. In addition, the results have implications for interventions on patient safety culture. Improvement efforts should be directed at their most relevant organisational level. In general, improvement efforts on patient safety culture should be addressed at the unit level, rather than the individual or hospital level.

Patient record review of the incidence, consequences, and causes of diagnostic adverse events

BACKGROUND Diagnostic errors often result in patient harm. Previous studies have shown that there is large variability in results in different medical specialties. The present study explored diagnostic adverse events (DAEs) across all medical specialties to determine their incidence and to gain insight into their causes and consequences by comparing them with other AE types. METHODS A structured review study of 7926 patient records was conducted. Randomly selected records were reviewed by trained physicians in 21 hospitals across the Netherlands. The method used in this study was based on the well-known protocol developed by the Harvard Medical Practice Study. All AEs with diagnostic error as the main category were selected for analysis and were compared with other AE types. RESULTS Diagnostic AEs occurred in 0.4% of hospital admissions and represented 6.4% of all AEs. Of the DAEs, 83.3% were judged to be preventable. Human failure was identified as the main cause (96.3%), although organizational- and patient-related factors also contributed (25.0% and 30.0%, respectively). The consequences of DAEs were more severe (higher mortality rate) than for other AEs (29.1% vs 7.4%). CONCLUSIONS Diagnostic AEs represent an important error type, and the consequences of DAEs are severe. The causes of DAEs were mostly human, with the main causes being knowledge-based mistakes and information transfer problems. Prevention strategies should focus on training physicians and on the organization of knowledge and information transfer.

To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?

BackgroundPatient record review is believed to be the most useful method for estimating the rate of adverse events among hospitalised patients. However, the method has some practical and financial disadvantages. Some of these disadvantages might be overcome by using existing reporting systems in which patient safety issues are already reported, such as incidents reported by healthcare professionals and complaints and medico-legal claims filled by patients or their relatives. The aim of the study is to examine to what extent the hospital reporting systems cover the adverse events identified by patient record review.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study using a database from a record review study of 5375 patient records in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands. Trained nurses and physicians using a method based on the protocol of The Harvard Medical Practice Study previously reviewed the records. Four reporting systems were linked with the database of reviewed records: 1) informal and 2) formal complaints by patients/relatives, 3) medico-legal claims by patients/relatives and 4) incident reports by healthcare professionals. For each adverse event identified in patient records the equivalent was sought in these reporting systems by comparing dates and descriptions of the events. The study focussed on the number of adverse event matches, overlap of adverse events detected by different sources, preventability and severity of consequences of reported and non-reported events and sensitivity and specificity of reports.ResultsIn the sample of 5375 patient records, 498 adverse events were identified. Only 18 of the 498 (3.6%) adverse events identified by record review were found in one or more of the four reporting systems. There was some overlap: one adverse event had an equivalent in both a complaint and incident report and in three cases a patient/relative used two or three systems to complain about an adverse event. Healthcare professionals reported relatively more preventable adverse events than patients.Reports are not sensitive for adverse events nor do reports have a positive predictive value.ConclusionsIn order to detect the same adverse events as identified by patient record review, one cannot rely on the existing reporting systems within hospitals.

Safety of telephone triage in out-of-hours care: A systematic review

Objective.Telephone triage in patients requesting help may compromise patient safety, particularly if urgency is underestimated and the patient is not seen by a physician. The aim was to assess the research evidence on safety of telephone triage in out-of-hours primary care. Methods. A systematic review was performed of published research on telephone triage in out-of-hours care, searching in PubMed and EMBASE up to March 2010. Studies were included if they concerned out-of-hours medical care and focused on telephone triage in patients with a first request for help. Study inclusion and data extraction were performed by two researchers independently. Post-hoc two types of studies were distinguished: observational studies in contacts with real patients (unselected and highly urgent contacts), and prospective observational studies using high-risk simulated patients (with a highly urgent health problem). Results. Thirteen observational studies showed that on average triage was safe in 97% (95% CI 96.5–97.4%) of all patients contacting out-of-hours care and in 89% (95% CI 86.7–90.2%) of patients with high urgency. Ten studies that used high-risk simulated patients showed that on average 46% (95% CI 42.7–49.8%) were safe. Adverse events described in the studies included mortality (n = 6 studies), hospitalisations (n = 5), attendance at emergency department (n=1), and medical errors (n = 6). Conclusions. There is room for improvement in safety of telephone triage in patients who present symptoms that are high risk. As these have a low incidence, recognition of these calls poses a challenge to health care providers in daily practice.

Exploring the causes of adverse events in hospitals and potential prevention strategies

Objectives To examine the causes of adverse events (AEs) and potential prevention strategies to minimise the occurrence of AEs in hospitalised patients. Methods For the 744 AEs identified in the patient record review study in 21 Dutch hospitals, trained reviewers were asked to select all causal factors that contributed to the AE. The results were analysed together with data on preventability and consequences of AEs. In addition, the reviewers selected one or more prevention strategies for each preventable AE. The recommended prevention strategies were analysed together with four general causal categories: technical, human, organisational and patient-related factors. Results Human causes were predominantly involved in the causation of AEs (in 61% of the AEs), 61% of those being preventable and 13% leading to permanent disability. In 39% of the AEs, patient-related factors were involved, in 14% organisational factors and in 4% technical factors. Organisational causes contributed relatively often to preventable AEs (93%) and AEs resulting in permanent disability (20%). Recommended strategies to prevent AEs were quality assurance/peer review, evaluation of safety behaviour, training and procedures. For the AEs with human and patient-related causes, reviewers predominantly recommended quality assurance/peer review. AEs caused by organisational factors were considered preventable by improving procedures. Discussion Healthcare interventions directed at human causes are recommended because these play a large role in AE causation. In addition, it seems worthwhile to direct interventions on organisational causes because the AEs they cause are nearly always believed to be preventable. Organisational factors are thus relatively easy to tackle. Future research designs should allow researchers to interview healthcare providers that were involved in the event, as an additional source of information on contributing factors.

The nature and causes of unintended events reported at ten emergency departments.

BackgroundSeveral studies on patient safety have shown that a substantial number of patients suffer from unintended harm caused by healthcare management in hospitals. Emergency departments (EDs) are challenging hospital settings with regard to patient safety. There is an increased sense of urgency to take effective countermeasures in order to improve patient safety. This can only be achieved if interventions tackle the dominant underlying causes. The objectives of our study are to examine the nature and causes of unintended events in EDs and the relationship between type of event and causal factor structure.MethodsStudy at EDs of 10 hospitals in the Netherlands. The study period per ED was 8 to 14 weeks, in which staff were asked to report unintended events. Unintended events were broadly defined as all events, no matter how seemingly trivial or commonplace, that were unintended and could have harmed or did harm a patient. Reports were analysed with a Root Cause Analysis tool (PRISMA) by an experienced researcher.Results522 unintended events were reported. Of the events 25% was related to cooperation with other departments and 20% to problems with materials/equipment. More than half of the events had consequences for the patient, most often resulting in inconvenience or suboptimal care. Most root causes were human (60%), followed by organisational (25%) and technical causes (11%). Nearly half of the root causes was external, i.e. attributable to other departments in or outside the hospital.ConclusionEvent reporting gives insight into diverse unintended events. The information on unintended events may help target research and interventions to increase patient safety. It seems worthwhile to direct interventions on the collaboration between the ED and other hospital departments.

Patient safety in out-of-hours primary care: a review of patient records

BackgroundMost patients receive healthcare in primary care settings, but relatively little is known about patient safety. Out-of-hours contacts are of particular importance to patient safety. Our aim was to examine the incidence, types, causes, and consequences of patient safety incidents at general practice cooperatives for out-of-hours primary care and to examine which factors were associated with the occurrence of patient safety incidents.MethodsA retrospective study of 1,145 medical records concerning patient contacts with four general practice cooperatives. Reviewers identified records with evidence of a potential patient safety incident; a physician panel determined whether a patient safety incident had indeed occurred. In addition, the panel determined the type, causes, and consequences of the incidents. Factors associated with incidents were examined in a random coefficient logistic regression analysis.ResultsIn 1,145 patient records, 27 patient safety incidents were identified, an incident rate of 2.4% (95% CI: 1.5% to 3.2%). The most frequent incident type was treatment (56%). All incidents had at least partly been caused by failures in clinical reasoning. The majority of incidents did not result in patient harm (70%). Eight incidents had consequences for the patient, such as additional interventions or hospitalisation. The panel assessed that most incidents were unlikely to result in patient harm in the long term (89%). Logistic regression analysis showed that age was significantly related to incident occurrence: the likelihood of an incident increased with 1.03 for each year increase in age (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04).ConclusionPatient safety incidents occur in out-of-hours primary care, but most do not result in harm to patients. As clinical reasoning played an important part in these incidents, a better understanding of clinical reasoning and guideline adherence at GP cooperatives could contribute to patient safety.