Risk factors for patient-reported medical errors in eleven countries

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to identify common risk factors for patient-reported medical errors across countries. In country-level analyses, differences in risks associated with error between health care systems were investigated. The joint effects of risks on error-reporting probability were modelled for hypothetical patients with different health care utilization patterns. DESIGN Data from the Commonwealth Fund's 2010 lnternational Survey of the General Public's Views of their Health Care System's Performance in 11 Countries. SETTING Representative population samples of 11 countries were surveyed (total sample = 19,738 adults). Utilization of health care, coordination of care problems and reported errors were assessed. Regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for patients' reports of medical, medication and laboratory errors across countries and in country-specific models. RESULTS Error was reported by 11.2% of patients but with marked differences between countries (range: 5.4-17.0%). Poor coordination of care was reported by 27.3%. The risk of patient-reported error was determined mainly by health care utilization: Emergency care (OR = 1.7, P < 0.001), hospitalization (OR = 1.6, P < 0.001) and the number of providers involved (OR three doctors = 2.0, P < 0.001) are important predictors. Poor care coordination is the single most important risk factor for reporting error (OR = 3.9, P < 0.001). Country-specific models yielded common and country-specific predictors for self-reported error. For high utilizers of care, the probability that errors are reported rises up to P = 0.68. CONCLUSIONS Safety remains a global challenge affecting many patients throughout the world. Large variability exists in the frequency of patient-reported error across countries. To learn from others' errors is not only essential within countries but may also prove a promising strategy internationally.

The impact of medical errors on Swiss anaesthesiologists: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND Clinicians involved in medical errors can experience significant distress. This study aims to examine (1) how medical errors impact anaesthesiologists in key work and life domains; (2) anaesthesiologists' attitudes regarding support after errors; (3) and which anaesthesiologists are most affected by errors. METHODS This study is a mailed cross-sectional survey completed by 281 of the 542 clinically active anaesthesiologists (52% response rate) working at Switzerland's five university hospitals between July 2012 and April 2013. RESULTS Respondents reported that errors had negatively affected anxiety about future errors (51%), confidence in their ability as a doctor (45%), ability to sleep (36%), job satisfaction (32%), and professional reputation (9%). Respondents' lives were more likely to be affected as error severity increased. Ninety per cent of respondents disagreed that hospitals adequately support them in coping with the stress associated with medical errors. Nearly all of the respondents (92%) reported being interested in psychological counselling after a serious error, but many identified barriers to seeking counselling. However, there were significant differences between departments regarding error-related stress levels and attitudes about error-related support. Respondents were more likely to experience certain distress if they were female, older, had previously been involved in a serious error, and were dissatisfied with their last error disclosure. CONCLUSION Medical errors, even minor errors and near misses, can have a serious effect on clinicians. Health-care organisations need to do more to support clinicians in coping with the stress associated with medical errors.

Disclosing and reporting medical errors: Cross-sectional survey of Swiss anaesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND There is limited research on anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication, particularly concerning disclosing errors to patients. OBJECTIVE To characterise anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients and reporting errors within the hospital, and to examine factors influencing their willingness to disclose or report errors. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SETTING Switzerland's five university hospitals' departments of anaesthesia in 2012/2013. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred and eighty-one clinically active anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication. RESULTS The overall response rate of the survey was 52% (281/542). Respondents broadly endorsed disclosing harmful errors to patients (100% serious, 77% minor errors, 19% near misses), but also reported factors that might make them less likely to actually disclose such errors. Only 12% of respondents had previously received training on how to disclose errors to patients, although 93% were interested in receiving training. Overall, 97% of respondents agreed that serious errors should be reported, but willingness to report minor errors (74%) and near misses (59%) was lower. Respondents were more likely to strongly agree that serious errors should be reported if they also thought that their hospital would implement systematic changes after errors were reported [(odds ratio, 2.097 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 3.81)]. Significant differences in attitudes between departments regarding error disclosure and reporting were noted. CONCLUSION Willingness to disclose or report errors varied widely between hospitals. Thus, heads of department and hospital chiefs need to be aware of the importance of local culture when it comes to error communication. Error disclosure training and improving feedback on how error reports are being used to improve patient safety may also be important steps in increasing anaesthesiologists' communication of errors.

Frequency of and predictors for patient-reported medical and medication errors in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the frequency of and identify risk factors for patient-reported medical errors in Switzerland. The joint effect of risk factors on error-reporting probability was modelled for hypothetical patients. METHODS: A representative population sample of Swiss citizens (n = 1306) was surveyed as part of the Commonwealth Fund’s 2010 lnternational Survey of the General Public’s Views of their Health Care System’s Performance in Eleven Countries. Data on personal background, utilisation of health care, coordination of care problems and reported errors were assessed. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for patients’ reports of medical mistakes and medication errors. RESULTS: 11.4% of participants reported at least one error in their care in the previous two years (8% medical errors, 5.3% medication errors). Poor coordination of care experiences was frequent. 7.8% experienced that test results or medical records were not available, 17.2% received conflicting information from care providers and 11.5% reported that tests were ordered although they had been done before. Age (OR = 0.98, p = 0.014), poor health (OR = 2.95, p = 0.007), utilisation of emergency care (OR = 2.45, p = 0.003), inpatient-stay (OR = 2.31, p = 0.010) and poor care coordination (OR = 5.43, p <0.001) are important predictors for reporting error. For high utilisers of care that unify multiple risk factors the probability that errors are reported rises up to p = 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety remains a major challenge for the Swiss health care system. Despite the health related and economic burden associated with it, the widespread experience of medical error in some subpopulations also has the potential to erode trust in the health care system as a whole.

Barriers and facilitators to chemotherapy patients' engagement in medical error prevention

Medical errors are a serious threat to chemotherapy patients. Patients can make contributions to safety but little is known about the acceptability of error-preventing behaviors and its predictors.

In the aftermath of medical error : Caring for patients, family, and the healthcare workers involved

Medical errors, in particular those resulting in harm, pose a serious situation for patients ("first victims") and the healthcare workers involved ("second victims") and can have long-lasting and distressing consequences. To prevent a second traumatization, appropriate and empathic interaction with all persons involved is essential besides error analysis. Patients share a nearly universal, broad preference for a complete disclosure of incidents, regardless of age, gender, or education. This includes the personal, timely and unambiguous disclosure of the adverse event, information relating to the event, its causes and consequences, and an apology and sincere expression of regret. While the majority of healthcare professionals generally support and honest and open disclosure of adverse events, they also face various barriers which impede the disclosure (e.g., fear of legal consequences). Despite its essential importance, disclosure of adverse events in practice occurs in ways that are rarely acceptable to patients and their families. The staff involved often experiences acute distress and an intense emotional response to the event, which may become chronic and increase the risk of depression, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorders. Communication with peers is vital for people to be able to cope constructively and protectively with harmful errors. Survey studies among healthcare workers show, however, that they often do not receive sufficient individual and institutional support. Healthcare organizations should prepare for medical errors and harmful events and implement a communication plan and a support system that covers the requirements and different needs of patients and the staff involved.

'New perspectives on well-known issues': patients' experiences and perceptions of safety in Swiss hospitals

Patients' reports of safety-related events and perceptions of safety can be a valuable source for hospitals. Patients of eight acute care hospitals in Switzerland were surveyed for safety-related events and concerns for safety. In workshops with hospitals areas for improvement were analyzed and priorities for change identified. To evaluate the benefit of the approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital risk managers. 3,983 patients returned the survey (55% response rate). 21.4% reported at least one definite safety event, and the mean number of 'definite' incidents per patient was 0.31 (95% CI=0.29 to 0.34). 3.2% were very concerned and 14.7% were somewhat concerned about medical errors and safety. Having experienced a safety-related event, younger age, length of stay, poor health and a poor education increased the probability of reporting concerns. With some exceptions, results confirmed the hospitals' a priori expectations regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their institutions. Risk managers emphasized the usability of results for their work and the special value of referring to the patient's perspective at their home institutions. A considerable fraction of patients subjectively experiences safety-related events and is concerned about safety. Patient-generated data introduced a new quality into the discussion of safety issues within hospitals, and some expected that patients' experiences and concerns could affect patient volumes. Though the study is limited by the short time horizon and the lack of follow-up, the results suggest that the described approach is feasible and can serve as a supplemental tool for risk identification and management.

Patient safety--who cares?

Medical errors and adverse events are a serious threat to patients worldwide. In recent years methodologically sound studies have demonstrated that interventions exist, can be implemented and can have sustainable, measurable positive effects on patient safety. Nonetheless, system-wide progress and adoption of safety practices is slow and evidence of improvements on the organisational and systems level is scarce and ambiguous. This paper reports on the Swiss Patient Safety Conference in 2011 and addresses emerging issues for patient safety and future challenges.

[Second victim : Critical incident stress management in clinical medicine]

BACKGROUND Critical incidents in clinical medicine can have far-reaching consequences on patient health. In cases of severe medical errors they can seriously harm the patient or even lead to death. The involvement in such an event can result in a stress reaction, a so-called acute posttraumatic stress disorder in the healthcare provider, the so-called second victim of an adverse event. Psychological distress may not only have a long lasting impact on quality of life of the physician or caregiver involved but it may also affect the ability to provide safe patient care in the aftermath of adverse events. METHODS A literature review was performed to obtain information on care giver responses to medical errors and to determine possible supportive strategies to mitigate negative consequences of an adverse event on the second victim. An internet search and a search in Medline/Pubmed for scientific studies were conducted using the key words "second victim, "medical error", "critical incident stress management" (CISM) and "critical incident stress reporting system" (CIRS). Sources from academic medical societies and public institutions which offer crisis management programs where analyzed. The data were sorted by main categories and relevance for hospitals. Analysis was carried out using descriptive measures. RESULTS In disaster medicine and aviation navigation services the implementation of a CISM program is an efficient intervention to help staff to recover after a traumatic event and to return to normal functioning and behavior. Several other concepts for a clinical crisis management plan were identified. CONCLUSIONS The integration of CISM and CISM-related programs in a clinical setting may provide efficient support in an acute crisis and may help the caregiver to deal effectively with future error events and employee safety.

Effects of an educational patient safety campaign on patients' safety behaviours and adverse events

Rationale, aims and objectives  The study aims to investigate the effects of a patient safety advisory on patients' risk perceptions, perceived behavioural control, performance of safety behaviours and experience of adverse incidents. Method  Quasi-experimental intervention study with non-equivalent group comparison was used. Patients admitted to the surgical department of a Swiss large non-university hospital were included. Patients in the intervention group received a safety advisory at their first clinical encounter. Outcomes were assessed using a questionnaire at discharge. Odds ratios for control versus intervention group were calculated. Regression analysis was used to model the effects of the intervention and safety behaviours on the experience of safety incidents. Results  Two hundred eighteen patients in the control and 202 in the intervention group completed the survey (75 and 77% response rates, respectively). Patients in the intervention group were less likely to feel poorly informed about medical errors (OR = 0.55, P = 0.043). There were 73.1% in the intervention and 84.3% in the control group who underestimated the risk for infection (OR = 0.51, CI 0.31-0.84, P = 0.009). Perceived behavioural control was lower in the control group (meanCon  = 3.2, meanInt  = 3.5, P = 0.010). Performance of safety-related behaviours was unaffected by the intervention. Patients in the intervention group were less likely to experience any safety-related incident or unsafe situation (OR for intervention group = 0.57, CI 0.38-0.87, P = 0.009). There were no differences in concerns for errors during hospitalization. There were 96% of patients (intervention) who would recommend other patients to read the advisory. Conclusions  The results suggest that the safety advisory decreases experiences of adverse events and unsafe situations. It renders awareness and perceived behavioural control without increasing concerns for safety and can thus serve as a useful instrument for communication about safety between health care workers and patients.

Implementation status of error disclosure standards reported by Swiss hospitals

QUESTION UNDER STUDY To establish at what stage Swiss hospitals are in implementing an internal standard concerning communication with patients and families after an error that resulted in harm. METHODS Hospitals were identified via the Swiss Hospital Association's website. An anonymous questionnaire was sent during September and October 2011 to 379 hospitals in German, French or Italian. Hospitals were asked to specify their hospital type and the implementation status of an internal hospital standard that decrees that patients or their relatives are to be promptly informed about medical errors that result in harm. RESULTS Responses from a total of 205 hospitals were received, a response rate of 54%. Most responding hospitals (62%) had an error disclosure standard or planned to implement one within 12 months. The majority of responding university and acute care (75%) hospitals had introduced a disclosure standard or were planning to do so. In contrast, the majority of responding psychiatric, rehabilitation and specialty (53%) clinics had not introduced a standard. CONCLUSION It appears that Swiss hospitals are in a promising state in providing institutional support for practitioners disclosing medical errors to patients. This has been shown internationally to be one important factor in encouraging the disclosure of medical errors. However, many hospitals, in particular psychiatric, rehabilitation and specialty clinics, have not implemented an error disclosure policy. Further research is needed to explore the underlying reasons.

Patient Safety: What Is It All about?

Patient safety is a major concern in health care systems worldwide. Patients with serious conditions, multimorbidity, and with intense and fragmented health care utilization, like end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, are at increased risk for suffering adverse events. In this chapter, the fundamental terms and concepts of patient safety are introduced. Essential epidemiological data relating to the frequency of adverse events and medical errors are provided. The chapter reports important safety threats for ESRD patients and describes examples of key innovations which contribute to patient safety. Recommendations and risk reduction strategies to improve care of ESRD patients are presented. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Biomarker-guided personalised emergency medicine for all - hope for another hype?

Polymorbid patients, diverse diagnostic and therapeutic options, more complex hospital structures, financial incentives, benchmarking, as well as perceptional and societal changes put pressure on medical doctors, specifically if medical errors surface. This is particularly true for the emergency department setting, where patients face delayed or erroneous initial diagnostic or therapeutic measures and costly hospital stays due to sub-optimal triage. A "biomarker" is any laboratory tool with the potential better to detect and characterise diseases, to simplify complex clinical algorithms and to improve clinical problem solving in routine care. They must be embedded in clinical algorithms to complement and not replace basic medical skills. Unselected ordering of laboratory tests and shortcomings in test performance and interpretation contribute to diagnostic errors. Test results may be ambiguous with false positive or false negative results and generate unnecessary harm and costs. Laboratory tests should only be ordered, if results have clinical consequences. In studies, we must move beyond the observational reporting and meta-analysing of diagnostic accuracies for biomarkers. Instead, specific cut-off ranges should be proposed and intervention studies conducted to prove outcome relevant impacts on patient care. The focus of this review is to exemplify the appropriate use of selected laboratory tests in the emergency setting for which randomised-controlled intervention studies have proven clinical benefit. Herein, we focus on initial patient triage and allocation of treatment opportunities in patients with cardiorespiratory diseases in the emergency department. The following five biomarkers will be discussed: proadrenomedullin for prognostic triage assessment and site-of-care decisions, cardiac troponin for acute myocardial infarction, natriuretic peptides for acute heart failure, D-dimers for venous thromboembolism, C-reactive protein as a marker of inflammation, and procalcitonin for antibiotic stewardship in infections of the respiratory tract and sepsis. For these markers we provide an overview on physiopathology, historical evolution of evidence, strengths and limitations for a rational implementation into clinical algorithms. We critically discuss results from key intervention trials that led to their use in clinical routine and potential future indications. The rational for the use of all these biomarkers, first, tackle diagnostic ambiguity and consecutive defensive medicine, second, delayed and sub-optimal therapeutic decisions, and third, prognostic uncertainty with misguided triage and site-of-care decisions all contributing to the waste of our limited health care resources. A multifaceted approach for a more targeted management of medical patients from emergency admission to discharge including biomarkers, will translate into better resource use, shorter length of hospital stay, reduced overall costs, improved patients satisfaction and outcomes in terms of mortality and re-hospitalisation. Hopefully, the concepts outlined in this review will help the reader to improve their diagnostic skills and become more parsimonious laboratory test requesters.

Dosimetric impact of geometric errors due to respiratory motion prediction on dynamic multileaf collimator-based four-dimensional radiation delivery

The synchronization of dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) response with respiratory motion is critical to ensure the accuracy of DMLC-based four dimensional (4D) radiation delivery. In practice, however, a finite time delay (response time) between the acquisition of tumor position and multileaf collimator response necessitates predictive models of respiratory tumor motion to synchronize radiation delivery. Predicting a complex process such as respiratory motion introduces geometric errors, which have been reported in several publications. However, the dosimetric effect of such errors on 4D radiation delivery has not yet been investigated. Thus, our aim in this work was to quantify the dosimetric effects of geometric error due to prediction under several different conditions. Conformal and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for a lung patient were generated for anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior (AP/PA) beam arrangements at 6 and 18 MV energies to provide planned dose distributions. Respiratory motion data was obtained from 60 diaphragm-motion fluoroscopy recordings from five patients. A linear adaptive filter was employed to predict the tumor position. The geometric error of prediction was defined as the absolute difference between predicted and actual positions at each diaphragm position. Distributions of geometric error of prediction were obtained for all of the respiratory motion data. Planned dose distributions were then convolved with distributions for the geometric error of prediction to obtain convolved dose distributions. The dosimetric effect of such geometric errors was determined as a function of several variables: response time (0-0.6 s), beam energy (6/18 MV), treatment delivery (3D/4D), treatment type (conformal/IMRT), beam direction (AP/PA), and breathing training type (free breathing/audio instruction/visual feedback). Dose difference and distance-to-agreement analysis was employed to quantify results. Based on our data, the dosimetric impact of prediction (a) increased with response time, (b) was larger for 3D radiation therapy as compared with 4D radiation therapy, (c) was relatively insensitive to change in beam energy and beam direction, (d) was greater for IMRT distributions as compared with conformal distributions, (e) was smaller than the dosimetric impact of latency, and (f) was greatest for respiration motion with audio instructions, followed by visual feedback and free breathing. Geometric errors of prediction that occur during 4D radiation delivery introduce dosimetric errors that are dependent on several factors, such as response time, treatment-delivery type, and beam energy. Even for relatively small response times of 0.6 s into the future, dosimetric errors due to prediction could approach delivery errors when respiratory motion is not accounted for at all. To reduce the dosimetric impact, better predictive models and/or shorter response times are required.

Myth creation in textbook writing : the case of randomised controlled trials in medical research

Textbooks, across all disciplines, are prone to contain errors; grammatical, editorial, factual, or judgemental. The following is an account of one of the possible effects of such errors; how an error becomes entrenched and even exaggerated as later textbooks fail to correct the original error. The example considered here concerns the origins of one of the most basic and important tools of to­ day's medical research, the randomised controlled trial. It is the result of a systematic study of 26 British, French and German history of medicine textbooks since 1996.