• David C Classen, Roger Resar, Frances Griffin, Frank Federico, Terri Frankel, Nancy Kimmel, John C Whittington, Allan Frankel, Andrew Seger, and Brent C James.
• University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. dclassen@csc.com
• Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr 1; 30 (4): 581-9.

AbstractIdentification and measurement of adverse medical events is central to patient safety, forming a foundation for accountability, prioritizing problems to work on, generating ideas for safer care, and testing which interventions work. We compared three methods to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients, using the same patient sample set from three leading hospitals. We found that the adverse event detection methods commonly used to track patient safety in the United States today-voluntary reporting and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Indicators-fared very poorly compared to other methods and missed 90 percent of the adverse events. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool found at least ten times more confirmed, serious events than these other methods. Overall, adverse events occurred in one-third of hospital admissions. Reliance on voluntary reporting and the Patient Safety Indicators could produce misleading conclusions about the current safety of care in the US health care system and misdirect efforts to improve patient safety.

15 keywords...

hide…