Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not prompting of medical residents at morning report enhances reporting of adverse events in hospitalized patients.
DESIGN: Prospective trial comparing 3-month blocks of intensive prompting, modest prompting, and no prompting on adverse event reporting by housestaff at morning report.
SETTING: Inpatient internal medicine service at a university-affiliated, Veterans Affairs Medical Center teaching hospital.
INTERVENTIONS: Intensive prompting (daily), modest prompting (once or twice weekly), and no prompting of medical residents to report hospital-associated adverse events.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The number, type, and severity of hospital-acquired adverse events occurring on an internal medicine service were determined during the various periods of intervention on a per houseofficer basis. Residents were reminded to record events once or twice weekly, daily, or not at all. These data were compared with those identified by usual hospital surveillance. The addition of housestaff reporting to usual hospital surveillance increased the numbers of adverse events reported. There was little overlap in episodes reported by the two strategies. Increasing the level of prompting increased the number of reports per houseofficer. Housestaff prompting increased reporting at all levels of adverse event severity from mild to serious and detected a wide variety of types of adverse events, especially adverse drug reactions and procedure complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that physician self-reporting of adverse events adds to the usual hospital surveillance adverse event reporting, and finds that such reporting can be easily accomplished within the context of a daily teaching activity. The information provided about adverse events by housestaff at morning report is additive to that obtained by usual surveillance methods. The use of such a strategy provides information in a timely fashion.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jencks SF, Daley J, Draper D, Thomas N, Lenhart G, Walker J. Interpreting hospital mortality data. The role of clinical risk adjustment. JAMA. 1988;260:3611–6.
Cleary PD. Greenfield S, Mulley AG, et al. Variations in length of stay and outcomes for six medical and surgical conditions in Massachusetts and California. JAMA. 1991;266:73–9.
Brennan TA, Localio RJ, Laird NL. Reliability and validity of judgements concerning adverse events suffered by hospitalized patients. Med Care. 1989;27:1148–58.
Department of Veterans Affairs. Patient incident review. In: Veterans Health Administration Manual M-2. Clinical Affairs; 1992: chap 35.
Madsen JJ. Comparison of concurrent and retrospective methods of detecting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1993;50:2556–7.
Classen DC. Pestotnik SL, Evans S, Burke JP. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1991;266:2847–51.
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.
World Health Organization. Requirements for Adverse Reaction Reporting. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1975.
Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE. Variance Components. New York. NY: John Wiley and Sons: 1992.
SAS Version 6.10. Cary, NC: SAS Institute: 1994.
Motulsky H. Intuitive Biostatistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1995: chap 27 and 30.
California Medical Association. Report on the Medical Insurance Feasibility Study. Oakland, Calif: Sutter Press: 1977.
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:340–76.
Donchin Y. Gopher D, Olin M, et al. A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:294–300.
Rubin HR, Rogers WH, Kahn KL, Rubenstein LV, Brook RH. How well do peer review organization methods detect hospital care quality problems? JAMA. 1992;267:2349–54.
Smith JW. Studies on the epidemiology influencing drug reactions. V: clinical factors influencing susceptibility. Ann Intern Med. 1966;65:629–40.
Brennan TA, Localio AR, Leape LL. et al. Identification of adverse events occurring during hospitalization. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:221–6.
Sivaram CA. Impact of a continuous quality improvement model on ADR reporting. Pharm Ther. 1994;235–47.
Leape LL. Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:377–84.
Parenti CM, Lederle LL. Impola CL, Peterson LR. Reduction of unnecessary intravenous catheter use. Internal medicine house staff participate in a successful quality improvement project. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1829–32.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received from the Department of Medicine and Quality Improvement Office, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Welsh, C.H., Pedot, R. & Anderson, R.J. Use of morning report to enhance adverse event detection. J Gen Intern Med 11, 454–460 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599039
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599039