Toward a cognitive taxonomy of medical errors.

One critical step in addressing and resolving the problems associated with human errors is the development of a cognitive taxonomy of such errors. In the case of errors, such a taxonomy may be developed (1) to categorize all types of errors along cognitive dimensions, (2) to associate each type of error with a specific underlying cognitive mechanism, (3) to explain why, and even predict when and where, a specific error will occur, and (4) to generate intervention strategies for each type of error. Based on Reason's (1992) definition of human errors and Norman's (1986) cognitive theory of human action, we have developed a preliminary action-based cognitive taxonomy of errors that largely satisfies these four criteria in the domain of medicine. We discuss initial steps for applying this taxonomy to develop an online medical error reporting system that not only categorizes errors but also identifies problems and generates solutions.

Can prospective usability evaluation predict data errors?

Increasing amounts of clinical research data are collected by manual data entry into electronic source systems and directly from research subjects. For this manual entered source data, common methods of data cleaning such as post-entry identification and resolution of discrepancies and double data entry are not feasible. However data accuracy rates achieved without these mechanisms may be higher than desired for a particular research use. We evaluated a heuristic usability method for utility as a tool to independently and prospectively identify data collection form questions associated with data errors. The method evaluated had a promising sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 67%. The method was used as described in the literature for usability with no further adaptations or specialization for predicting data errors. We conclude that usability evaluation methodology should be further investigated for use in data quality assurance.

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^

Nursing-related medication errors: A review of factors that facilitate and hinder error reporting, and recommendations for improvement

Medication errors, one of the most frequent types of medical errors, are a common cause of patient harm in hospital systems today. Nurses at the bedside are in a position to encounter many of these errors since they are there at the start of the process (ordering/prescribing) and the end of the process (administration). One of the recommendations from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) report, "To Err is Human," was for organizations to identify and learn from medical errors through event reporting systems. While many organizations have reporting systems in place, research studies report a significant amount of underreporting by nurses. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify contributing factors related to the reporting and not reporting of medication errors by nurses at the bedside.^ Articles included in the literature review were primary or secondary studies, dated January 1, 2000 – July 2009, related to nursing medication error reporting. All 634 articles were reviewed with an algorithm developed to standardize the review process and help filter out those that did not meet the study criteria. In addition, 142 article bibliographies were reviewed to find additional studies that were not found in the original literature search.^ After reviewing the 634 articles and the additional 108 articles discovered in the bibliography review, 41 articles met the study criteria and were used in the systematic literature review results.^ Fear of punitive reactions to medication errors was a frequent barrier to error reporting. Nurses fear reactions from their leadership, peers, patients and their families, nursing boards, and the media. Anonymous reporting systems and departments/organizations with a strong safety culture in place helped to encourage the reporting of medication errors by nursing staff.^ Many of the studies included in this literature review do not allow results that can be generalized. The majority of them took place in single institutions/organizations with limited sample sizes. Stronger studies with larger sample sizes need to be performed, utilizing data collection methods that have been validated, to determine stronger correlations between safety cultures and nurse error reporting.^

DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS, MEAN SQUARED ERRORS, AND CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR RIDGE REGRESSION ESTIMATORS

A large number of ridge regression estimators have been proposed and used with little knowledge of their true distributions. Because of this lack of knowledge, these estimators cannot be used to test hypotheses or to form confidence intervals.^ This paper presents a basic technique for deriving the exact distribution functions for a class of generalized ridge estimators. The technique is applied to five prominent generalized ridge estimators. Graphs of the resulting distribution functions are presented. The actual behavior of these estimators is found to be considerably different than the behavior which is generally assumed for ridge estimators.^ This paper also uses the derived distributions to examine the mean squared error properties of the estimators. A technique for developing confidence intervals based on the generalized ridge estimators is also presented. ^

Errors in the administration of medication in inpatient hospitals: A systematic review of the research literature on commercial computerized physician order entry systems

Errors in the administration of medication represent a significant loss of medical resources and pose life altering or life threatening risks to patients. This paper considered the question, what impact do Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) systems have on medication errors in the hospital inpatient environment? Previous reviews have examined evidence of the impact of CPOE on medication errors, but have come to ambiguous conclusions as to the impact of CPOE and decision support systems (DSS). Forty-three papers were identified. Thirty-one demonstrated a significant reduction in prescribing error rates for all or some drug types; decreases in minor errors were most often reported. Several studies reported increases in the rate of duplicate orders and failures to remove contraindicated drugs, often attributed to inappropriate design or to an inability to operate the system properly. The evidence on the effectiveness of CPOE to reduce errors in medication administration is compelling though it is limited by modest study sample sizes and designs. ^

Costs and quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics

Medication reconciliation, with the aim to resolve medication discrepancy, is one of the Joint Commission patient safety goals. Medication errors and adverse drug events that could result from medication discrepancy affect a large population. At least 1.5 million adverse drug events and $3.5 billion of financial burden yearly associated with medication errors could be prevented by interventions such as medication reconciliation. This research was conducted to answer the following research questions: (1a) What are the frequency range and type of measures used to report outpatient medication discrepancy? (1b) Which effective and efficient strategies for medication reconciliation in the outpatient setting have been reported? (2) What are the costs associated with medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (3) What is the quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (4) Is medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics cost-effective from the clinic perspective? Study designs used to answer these questions included a systematic review, cost analysis, quality assessments, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Data sources were published articles in the medical literature and data from a prospective workflow study, which included 150 patients and 1,238 medications. The systematic review confirmed that the prevalence of medication discrepancy was high in ambulatory care and higher in primary care settings. Effective strategies for medication reconciliation included the use of pharmacists, letters, a standardized practice approach, and partnership between providers and patients. Our cost analysis showed that costs associated with medication reconciliation practice were not substantially different between primary care clinics using or not using electronic medical records (EMR) ($0.95 per patient per medication in EMR clinics vs. $0.96 per patient per medication in non-EMR clinics, p=0.78). Even though medication reconciliation was frequently practiced (97-98%), the quality of such practice was poor (0-33% of process completeness measured by concordance of medication numbers and 29-33% of accuracy measured by concordance of medication names) and negatively (though not significantly) associated with medication regimen complexity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for concordance of medication number per patient per medication and concordance of medication names per patient per medication were both 0.08, favoring EMR. Future studies including potential cost-savings from medication features of the EMR and potential benefits to minimize severity of harm to patients from medication discrepancy are warranted. ^

DEVELOPMENT OF NOVEL METHODS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF SEQUENCING ERRORS IN THE NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING DATA ANALYSIS

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has become a prominent tool in biological and biomedical research. However, NGS data analysis, such as de novo assembly, mapping and variants detection is far from maturity, and the high sequencing error-rate is one of the major problems. . To minimize the impact of sequencing errors, we developed a highly robust and efficient method, MTM, to correct the errors in NGS reads. We demonstrated the effectiveness of MTM on both single-cell data with highly non-uniform coverage and normal data with uniformly high coverage, reflecting that MTM’s performance does not rely on the coverage of the sequencing reads. MTM was also compared with Hammer and Quake, the best methods for correcting non-uniform and uniform data respectively. For non-uniform data, MTM outperformed both Hammer and Quake. For uniform data, MTM showed better performance than Quake and comparable results to Hammer. By making better error correction with MTM, the quality of downstream analysis, such as mapping and SNP detection, was improved. SNP calling is a major application of NGS technologies. However, the existence of sequencing errors complicates this process, especially for the low coverage (

Improving disclosure of medical errors: Including patients and family members in the disclosure process

Over the last decade, adverse events and medical errors have become a main focus of interest for the standards of quality and safety in the U.S. healthcare system (Weinstein & Henderson, 2009). Particularly when a medical error occurs, the disclosure of medical errors and its practices have become a focal point of the healthcare process. Patients and family members who have experienced a medical error might be able to provide knowledge and insight on how to improve the disclose process. However, patient and family member are not typically involved in the disclosure process, thus their experiences go unnoticed. ^ The purpose of this research was to explore how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process regarding a medical error. The research consisted of 28 qualitative interviews from three stakeholder groups: Hospital Administrators, Clinical Service Providers, and Patients and Family Members. They were asked for their ideas and suggestions on how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process. Framework Analysis was used to analyze this data and find prevalent themes based on the primary research question. A secondary aim was to index categories created based on the interviews that were collected. Data was used from the Texas Disclosure and Compensation Study with Dr. Eric Thomas as the Principal Investigator. Full acknowledgement of access to this data is given to Dr. Thomas. ^ The themes from the research revealed that each stakeholder group was interested and open to including patients and family members in the disclosure process and that the disclosure process should not be a "one-way" avenue. The themes gave many suggestions regarding how to best include patients and family members in the disclosure process of a medical error. Secondary aims revealed several ways to assess the ideas and suggestion given by the stakeholders. Overall, acceptability of getting the perspective of patients and family members was the most common theme. Comparison of each stakeholder group revealed that including patients and family members would be beneficial to improving hospital disclosure practices. ^ Conclusions included a list of recommendations and measureable appropriate strategies that could provide hospital with key stakeholders insights on how to improve their disclosure process. Sharing patients and family members experience with healthcare providers can encourage a shift in culture where patients are valued and active in participating in hospital practices. To my knowledge, this research is the very first of its kind and moves the disclosure process conversation forward in a patient-family member inclusion direction that will assist in improving disclosure practices. Future research should implement and evaluate the success of the various inclusion strategies.^