BACKGROUND: Although iatrogenic injury poses a significant risk to hospitalized patients, detection of adverse events (AEs) is costly and difficult.
METHODS: The authors developed a confidential reporting method for detecting AEs on a medicine unit of a teaching hospital. Adverse events were defined as patient injuries. Potential adverse events (PAEs) represented errors that could have, but did not result in harm. Investigators interviewed house officers during morning rounds and by e-mail, asking them to identify obstacles to high quality care and iatrogenic injuries. They compared house officer reports with hospital incident reports and patients’ medical records. A multivariate regression model identified correlates of reporting.
RESULTS: One hundred ten events occurred, affecting 84 patients. Queries by e-mail (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.16; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.05 to 0.49) and on days when house officers rotated to a new service (IRR=0.12; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.91) resulted in fewer reports. The most commonly reported process of care problems were inadequate evaluation of the patient (16.4%), failure to monitor or follow up (12.7%), and failure of the laboratory to perform at test (12.7%). Respondents identified 29 (26.4%) AEs, 52 (47.3%) PAEs, and 29 (26.4%) other house officer-identified quality problems. An AE occurred in 2.6% of admissions. The hospital incident reporting system detected only one house officer-reported event. Chart review corroborated 72.9% of events.
CONCLUSIONS: House officers detect many AEs among inpatients. Confidential peer interviews of front-line providers is a promising method for identifying medical errors and substandard quality.
Adverse event medical error house officer
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. New Engl J Med. 1991;324:370–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. New Engl J Med. 1991;324:377–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews LB, Stocking C, Krizek T et al. An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care. Lancet. 1997;349:309–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, et al. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1997;277:307–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. JAMA. 1995;274:29–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullen DJ, Bates DW, Small SD, et al. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: A problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1995;21:541–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Iezzoni LI, Daley J, Heeren T, et al. Using administrative data to screen hospitals for high complication rates. Inquiry. 1994;31:40–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Iezzoni LI, Daley J, Heeren T, et al. Identifying complications of care using administrative data. Med Care. 1994;32:700–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA. 1991;266:2847–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998;280:1311–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart SN. House officer education and organizational obstacles to quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1996;22:640–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar