Sins of omission
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relative incidence of serious errors of omission versus errors of commission.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the most common substantive medical errors identified by medical record review.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Twelve Veterans Affairs health care systems in 2 regions.
PARTICIPANTS: Stratified random sample of 621 patients receiving care over a 2-year period.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Classification of reported quality problems.
METHODS: Trained physicians reviewed the full inpatient and outpatient record and described quality problems, which were then classified as errors of omission versus commission.
RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of patients had at least 1 error reported over a 13-month period. The average number of errors reported per case was 4.7 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 4.4, 5.0). Overall, 95.7% (95% CI: 94.9%, 96.4%) of errors were identified as being problems with under-use. Inadequate care for people with chronic illnesses was particularly common. Among errors of omission, obtaining insufficient information from histories and physicals (25.3%), inadequacies in diagnostic testing (33.9%), and patients not receiving needed medications (20.7%) were all common. Out of the 2,917 errors identified, only 27 were rated as being highly serious, and 26 (96%) of these were errors of omission.
CONCLUSIONS: While preventing iatrogenic injury resulting from medical errors is a critically important part of quality improvement, we found that the overwhelming majority of substantive medical errors identifiable from the medical record were related to people getting too little medical care, especially for those with chronic medical conditions.
The work was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) Grant IIR 98–103, with additional support from the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (HSR&D DIB #98-001) and the Michigan Diabetes Research & Training Center (NIDDK P60-972573). Drs. Kerr and Asch were supported by Career Development Awards from the HSR&D Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q J Econ. 1991;106:1039–61.CrossRef
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;ALVII:263–91.CrossRef
Kahneman D, Tversky A. The simulation heuristic. In: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
Spranca M, Minsk E, Baron J. Omission and commission in judgement and choice. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1991;27:76–105.CrossRef
Ritov I, Baron J. Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J Behav Decis Making. 1990;3:263–77.
Institute of Medicine. To Error is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
Millenson ML. Pushing the profession: how the news media turned patient safety into a priority. Qual Safety Health Care. 2002;11:56–63.
Dentzer S. Media mistakes in coverage of the Institute of Medicine’s error report. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:305–8.PubMed
American Iatrogenic Association Library. Information that improves understanding of medical error, philosphy, and practice. Accessed February 21, 2004: http://www.iatrogenic.org/library/mederrorlib.html
The Leapfrog Group. Patient safety. Accessed February 21, 2004: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/safety.htm
Wachter RM, Shojania KG. Internal Bleeding: The Truth Behind America’s Terrifying Epidemic of Medical Mistakes. New York: Rugged Land. LLC; 2004.
Brook RH. Quality of care: do we care? Ann Intern Med. 1991;115:486–90.PubMed
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America: Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:370–6.PubMed
Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:377–84.PubMed
Fisher ES, Welch HG. Is this issue a mistake? Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:290–3.PubMed
Hofer TP, Hayward RA. Are bad outcomes from questionable clinical decisions preventable medical errors?: a case of cascade iatrogenesis. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:327–33.PubMed
Hofer TP, Kerr EA, Hayward RA. What is an error? Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:261–9.PubMed
Dovey SM, Meyers DS, Phillips RL Jr, et al. A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Safety Health Care. 2002;11:233–8.CrossRef
Elder NC, Dovey SM. Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: a synthesis of the literature. J Fam Pract. 2002;51:927–32.PubMed
Hayward RA. Diabetes care priorities: preventing cardiovascular complications. Pract Matters. 2000;5:1–6.
Brook RH. Appropriateness: the next frontier. BMJ. 1994;308:218–9.PubMed
Wenger NS, Solomon DH, Roth CP, et al. The quality of medical care provided to vulnerable community-dwelling older patients. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Nov 4;139:740–7.PubMed
Asch SM, McGlynn EA, Hogan MM, et al. Comparison of quality of care for patients in the Veterans Health Administration and patients in a national sample. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:938–45.PubMed
Kerr EA, Gerzoff RB, Krein SL, et al. A comparison of diabetes care quality in VA and commercial managed care: the TRIAD study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:272–81.PubMed
O’Neil AC, Petersen LA, Cook EF, Bates DW, Lee TH, Brennan TA. Physician reporting compared with medical-record review to identify adverse medical events. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:370–6.PubMed
Brennan TA, Localio AR, Leape LL, et al. Identification of adverse events occurring during hospitalization. A cross-sectional study of litigation, quality assurance, and medical records at two teaching hospitals. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:221–6.PubMed
Donabedian A. Quality, cost: choices and responsibilities. Inquiry. 1988;25:90–9.PubMed
Donabedian A. The Definition of Quality and Approaches to its Assessment. Ann Arbor, Mich: Health Administration Press; 1980.
Woolf SH. Patient safety is not enough: targeting quality improvements to optimize the health of the population. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:33–6.PubMed
Reason JT. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Burlington, Vt: Ashgate Publishing.
Perrow C. Normal Accidents Living with High-risk Technologies. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1999.
Something must (not) be done. The Economist. September 11, 2003
Vijan S, Hayward RA. Treatment of hypertension in type 2 diabetes mellitus: blood pressure goals, choice of agents, and setting priorities in diabetes care. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:593–602.PubMed
Rosen AB, Karter AJ, Liu JY, Selby JV, Schneider EC. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in high-risk clinical and ethnic groups with diabetes. J Gen Int Med. 2004;19:669–75.CrossRef
- Sins of omission
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 20, Issue 8 , pp 686-691
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- quality of care
- adverse events
- patient safety
- medical errors
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Center of Excellence, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA
- 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA
- 4. Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System and the Division of General Internal Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles CA, and the Rand Health Program, Santa Monica, Calif, USA