An assessment of the quality and impact of NPSA medication safety outputs issued to the NHS in England and Wales

OBJECTIVES

To assess the quality and impact of medication safety outputs issued by the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) to the NHS in England and Wales.

METHODS

A multi-method study comprising (1) focus groups and interviews with NHS Chief Pharmacists and (2) an electronic survey of medical, nursing and clinical governance directors.

RESULTS

Acute sector respondents agreed that the medication outputs had a major impact on patient safety. Pharmacists welcomed national support for medication safety improvement, despite the resulting workload. Medical Directors were much less likely to be aware of alerts and Rapid Response Reports (RRRs) than their nursing and clinical governance colleagues. One key finding was the inability of around half of NHS trusts to communicate effectively and reliably with their junior doctors.

CONCLUSION

Medication alerts issued by the NPSA have stimulated significant work to improve medication safety and are believed to have had an important impact on patient safety.

Medication safety of five oral chemotherapies: a proactive risk assessment

PURPOSE

Oral chemotherapies represent an emerging risk area in ambulatory oncology practice. To examine the hazards associated with five oral chemotherapies, we performed a proactive risk assessment.

METHODS

WE CONVENED INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS AND CONDUCTED FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSES (FMEAS) FOR FIVE ORAL CHEMOTHERAPY AGENTS: capecitabine, imatinib, temozolomide, 6-mercaptopurine, and an investigational agent. This involved the creation of process maps for each medication, identification of failure modes, selection of high-risk failure modes, and development of recommendations to mitigate these risks. We analyzed the number of steps and types of failure modes and compared this information across the study drugs.

RESULTS

Key vulnerabilities include patient education about drug handling and adverse effects, prescription writing, patient self-administration and medication adherence, and failure to monitor and manage toxicities. Many of these failure modes were common across the five oral chemotherapies, suggesting the presence of common targets for improvement. Streamlining the FMEA itself may promote the dissemination of this method.

CONCLUSION

Each stage of the medication process poses risks to the safe use of oral chemotherapies. FMEAs may identify opportunities to improve medication safety and reduce the risk of patient harm.

Models of multidisciplinary cancer care: physician and patient perceptions in a comprehensive cancer center

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary clinics (MDCs) play a prominent role in coordinating complex cancer care delivered by multiple providers from different disciplines. The structure of such clinics and clinicians' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of practicing in MDCs have not been well characterized.

METHODS

We surveyed and interviewed medical providers who participate in cancer MDCs at our comprehensive cancer center about the structure of the MDCs in which they work, their satisfaction working in these clinics, and the perceived benefits and disadvantages. Press-Ganey patient satisfaction scores were also examined.

RESULTS

WE IDENTIFIED TWO CARE MODELS: one in which patients are seen sequentially by physicians from each discipline, and a second model in which patients are seen concurrently by physicians from each discipline. Of the 141 survey respondents from surgical oncology, medical oncology and radiation oncology, more than 90% of providers enjoyed working in an MDC and more than 75% preferred to see new patients in an MDC. Additionally, 90% believed that patients perceived the clinics to be valuable for comprehensive, coordinated, and appropriate care. However, one third of the phsyicians thought the clinics were not an efficient use of their time. Participants who practice in the concurrent model of care and surgical oncologists were more likely to express frustration with the inefficiency of MDCs. Patients seen in each clinic model uniformly expressed high satisfaction with the coordination of care.

CONCLUSION

MDCs are valued by oncology patients and providers. Although they are personally and professionally satisfying for physicians, the use of this care model is perceived as inefficient by some caregivers.

Medication errors involving oral chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Given the expanding use of oral chemotherapies, the authors set out to examine errors in the prescribing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring of these drugs.

METHODS

Reports were collected of oral chemotherapy-associated medication errors from a medical literature and Internet search and review of reports to the Medication Errors Reporting Program and MEDMARX. The authors solicited incident reports from 14 comprehensive cancer centers, and also collected incident reports, pharmacy interventions, and prompted clinician reports from their own center. They classified the type of incident, severity, stage in the medication use process, and type of medication error. They examined the yield of the various reporting methods to identify oral chemotherapy-related medication errors.

RESULTS

The authors identified 99 adverse drug events, 322 near misses, and 87 medical errors with low risk of harm. Of the 99 adverse drug events, 20 were serious or life-threatening, 52 were significant, and 25 were minor. The most common medication errors involved wrong dose (38.8%), wrong drug (13.6%), wrong number of days supplied (11.0%), and missed dose (10.0%). The majority of errors resulted in a near miss; however, 39.3% of reports involving the wrong number of days supplied resulted in adverse drug events. Incidents derived from the literature search and hospital incident reporting system included a larger percentage of adverse drug events (73.1% and 58.8%, respectively) compared with other sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Ensuring oral chemotherapy safety requires improvements in the way these drugs are ordered, dispensed, administered, and monitored.

Clinicians' assessments of electronic medication safety alerts in ambulatory care

BACKGROUND

While electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) systems with drug interaction and allergy alerts promise to improve medication safety in ambulatory care, clinicians often override these safety features. We undertook a study of respondents' satisfaction with e-prescribing systems, their perceptions of alerts, and their perceptions of behavior changes resulting from alerts.

METHODS

Random sample survey of 300 Massachusetts ambulatory care clinicians who used a commercial e-prescribing system.

RESULTS

A total of 184 respondents completed the survey (61%). Respondents indicated that e-prescribing improved the quality of care delivered (78%), prevented medical errors (83%), and enhanced patient satisfaction (71%) and clinician efficiency (75%). In addition, 35% of prescribers said that electronic alerts caused them to modify a potentially dangerous prescription in the last 30 days. They suggested that alerts also led to other changes in clinical care: counseling patients about potential reactions (49% of respondents), looking up information in medical references (44%), and changing the way a patient was monitored (33%). Altogether, 63% of clinicians reported taking action other than discontinuing or modifying an alerted prescription in the previous month in response to alerts. Despite these benefits, fewer than half of respondents were satisfied with drug interaction and allergy alerts (47%). Problems included alerts triggered by discontinued medications (58%), alerts that failed to account for appropriate drug combinations (46%), and excessive volume of alerts (37%).

CONCLUSION

Although clinicians were critical of the quality of e-prescribing alerts, alerts may lead to clinically significant modifications in patient management not readily apparent based on "acceptance" rates.

An empirical model to estimate the potential impact of medication safety alerts on patient safety, health care utilization, and cost in ambulatory care

BACKGROUND

Because ambulatory care clinicians override as many as 91% of drug interaction alerts, the potential benefit of electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) with decision support is uncertain.

METHODS

We studied 279 476 alerted prescriptions written by 2321 Massachusetts ambulatory care clinicians using a single commercial e-prescribing system from January 1 through June 30, 2006. An expert panel reviewed a sample of common drug interaction alerts, estimating the likelihood and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs) associated with each alert, the likely injury to the patient, and the health care utilization required to address each ADE. We estimated the cost savings due to e-prescribing by using third-party-payer and publicly available information.

RESULTS

Based on the expert panel's estimates, electronic drug alerts likely prevented 402 (interquartile range [IQR], 133-846) ADEs in 2006, including 49 (14-130) potentially serious, 125 (34-307) significant, and 228 (85-409) minor ADEs. Accepted alerts may have prevented a death in 3 (IQR, 2-13) cases, permanent disability in 14 (3-18), and temporary disability in 31 (10-97). Alerts potentially resulted in 39 (IQR, 14-100) fewer hospitalizations, 34 (6-74) fewer emergency department visits, and 267 (105-541) fewer office visits, for a cost savings of 402,619 USD (IQR, 141,012-1,012,386 USD). Based on the panel's estimates, 331 alerts were required to prevent 1 ADE, and a few alerts (10%) likely accounted for 60% of ADEs and 78% of cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronic prescribing alerts in ambulatory care may prevent a substantial number of injuries and reduce health care costs in Massachusetts. Because a few alerts account for most of the benefit, e-prescribing systems should suppress low-value alerts.

Asking for help: internal medicine residents' use of a medical procedure service

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the professional help-seeking behavior of residents as they perform procedures in the hospital.

OBJECTIVE

To determine when residents seek formal supervision to perform inpatient medical procedures.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective cohort study of resident physicians' use of formal supervision through a medical procedure service (MPS) for placing central venous catheters (CVCs) and performing thoracenteses. We compared resident, procedure, and patient characteristics among MPS and non-MPS procedures. We performed bivariable and multivariable analyses to examine factors associated with use of the MPS. We also performed a subgroup analysis of non-MPS procedures to assess the influence of resident, procedure, and patient characteristics on the choice of informal supervision.

SETTING

Boston teaching hospital.

SUBJECTS

Sixty-nine internal medicine residents.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Use of an elective MPS for formal faculty supervision.

RESULTS

Among 191 procedures performed, 79 (41%) used the MPS. Residents were more likely to seek faculty supervision via the MPS among patients with 3 or more comorbidities (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-3.5). They were less likely to seek MPS supervision when procedures were performed urgently or emergently (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8). There were few differences in the characteristics of unsupervised and informally supervised procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Resident physicians appear to seek formal assistance appropriately for procedures they perform on sicker patients. Additional research is needed to understand whether overconfidence or poor access to attending physicians is responsible for their failure to seek consultation with urgent and emergent cases.

Diagnostic errors in ambulatory care: dimensions and preventive strategies

Despite an increasing focus on patient safety in ambulatory care, progress in understanding and reducing diagnostic errors in this setting lag behind many other safety concerns such as medication errors. To explore the extent and nature of diagnostic errors in ambulatory care, we identified five dimensions of ambulatory care from which errors may arise: (1) the provider-patient encounter, (2) performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests, (3) follow-up of patients and diagnostic test results, (4) subspecialty consultation, and (5) patients seeking care and adhering to their instruction/appointments, i.e. patient behaviors. We presented these risk domains to conference participants to elicit their views about sources of and solutions to diagnostic errors in ambulatory care. In this paper, we present a summary of discussion in each of these risk domains. Many novel themes and hypotheses for future research and interventions emerged.

Process of care failures in breast cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Process of care failures may contribute to diagnostic errors in breast cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient- and provider-related process of care failures in breast cancer screening and follow-up in a non-claims-based cohort.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review of a cohort of patients referred to two Boston cancer centers with new breast cancer diagnoses between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2004.

PARTICIPANTS

We identified 2,275 women who reported > or =90 days between symptom onset and breast cancer diagnosis or presentation with at least stage II disease. We then selected the 340 (14.9%) whose physicians shared an electronic medical record. We excluded 238 subjects whose records were insufficient for review, yielding a final cohort of 102 patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None

MEASUREMENTS

We tabulated the number and types of process of care failures and examined risk factors using bivariate analyses and multivariable Poisson regression.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six of 102 patients experienced > or =1 process of care failure. The most common failures occurred when physicians failed to perform an adequate physical examination, when patients failed to seek care, and when diagnostic or laboratory tests were ordered but patients failed to complete them. Failures were attributed in similar numbers to provider- and patient-related factors (n = 30 vs. n = 25, respectively). Process of care failures were more likely when the patient's primary care physician was male (IRR 2.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 6.5) and when the patient was non-white (IRR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 5.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Process failures were common in this patient cohort, with both clinicians and patients contributing to breakdowns in the diagnostic process.

Overrides of medication alerts in ambulatory care

BACKGROUND

Electronic prescribing systems with decision support may improve patient safety in ambulatory care by offering drug allergy and drug interaction alerts. However, preliminary studies show that clinicians override most of these alerts.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 233 537 medication safety alerts generated by 2872 clinicians in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania who used a common electronic prescribing system from January 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. We used multivariate techniques to examine factors associated with alert acceptance.

RESULTS

A total of 6.6% of electronic prescription attempts generated alerts. Clinicians accepted 9.2% of drug interaction alerts and 23.0% of allergy alerts. High-severity interactions accounted for most alerts (61.6%); clinicians accepted high-severity alerts slightly more often than moderate- or low-severity interaction alerts (10.4%, 7.3%, and 7.1%, respectively; P < .001). Clinicians accepted 2.2% to 43.1% of high-severity interaction alerts, depending on the classes of interacting medications. In multivariable analyses, we found no difference in alert acceptance among clinicians of different specialties (P = .16). Clinicians were less likely to accept a drug interaction alert if the patient had previously received the alerted medication (odds ratio, 0.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.03).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians override most medication alerts, suggesting that current medication safety alerts may be inadequate to protect patient safety.

Comparing patient-reported hospital adverse events with medical record review: do patients know something that hospitals do not?

BACKGROUND

Hospitals routinely survey patients about the quality of care they receive, but little is known about whether patient interviews can detect adverse events that medical record reviews do not.

OBJECTIVE

To compare adverse events reported in postdischarge patient interviews with adverse events detected by medical record review.

DESIGN

Random sample survey.

SETTING

Massachusetts, 2003.

PATIENTS

Recently hospitalized adults.

MEASUREMENTS

By using parallel methods, physicians reviewed postdischarge interviews and medical records to classify hospital adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 998 study patients, 23% had at least 1 adverse event detected by an interview and 11% had at least 1 adverse event identified by record review. The kappa statistic showed relatively poor agreement between interviews and medical records for occurrence of any type of adverse event (kappa = 0.20 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.27]) and somewhat better agreement between interviews and medical records for life-threatening or serious events (kappa = 0.33 [CI, 0.20 to 0.45]). Record review identified 11 serious, preventable events (1.1% of patients). Interviews identified an additional 21 serious and preventable events that were not documented in the medical record, including 12 predischarge events and 9 postdischarge events, in which symptoms occurred after the patient left the hospital.

LIMITATIONS

Patients had to be healthy enough to be interviewed. Delay in reaching patients (6 to 12 months after discharge) may have resulted in poor recall of events during the hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Patients report many events that are not documented in the medical record; some are serious and preventable. Hospitals should consider monitoring patient safety by adding questions about adverse events to postdischarge interviews.

NCCN Task Force Report: Oral Chemotherapy

Oral chemotherapy is emerging as a new option for well-selected patients who can manage potentially complex oral regimens and self-monitor for potential complications. If a choice between oral and parenteral therapy is available, patients may opt for oral chemotherapy because it is more convenient to administer, allows them to avoid multiple office visits, and gives them a sense of control over their own cancer care. Whether these potential advantages are maintained in regimens that combine oral and parenteral drugs is less clear. The use of oral chemotherapeutic agents profoundly affects all aspects of oncology, including creating significant safety and adherence issues, shifting some traditional roles and responsibilities of oncologists, nurses, and pharmacists to patients and caregivers. The financing of chemotherapy is also affected. To address these issues, the NCCN convened a multidisciplinary task force consisting of oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, and payor representatives to discuss the impact of the increasing use of oral chemotherapy. (JNCCN 2008;6[Suppl 3]:S1–S14)

NCCN Task Force Report: Oral chemotherapy

Oral chemotherapy is emerging as a new option for well-selected patients who can manage potentially complex oral regimens and self-monitor for potential complications. If a choice between oral and parenteral therapy is available, patients may opt for oral chemotherapy because it is more convenient to administer, allows them to avoid multiple office visits, and gives them a sense of control over their own cancer care. Whether these potential advantages are maintained in regimens that combine oral and parenteral drugs is less clear. The use of oral chemotherapeutic agents profoundly affects all aspects of oncology, including creating significant safety and adherence issues, shifting some traditional roles and responsibilities of oncologists, nurses, and pharmacists to patients and caregivers. The financing of chemotherapy is also affected. To address these issues, the NCCN convened a multidisciplinary task force consisting of oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, and payor representatives to discuss the impact of the increasing use of oral chemotherapy.

Patient-reported safety and quality of care in outpatient oncology

BACKGROUND

Although patients suffer the effects of medical errors and iatrogenic injuries, little is known about their ability to recognize these events in ambulatory specialty care.

METHODS

At a Boston cancer center in 2004, 193 adult oncology patients treated on a chemotherapy infusion unit were interviewed by four patient safety liaisons--volunteers recruited from the organization's Adult Patient and Family Advisory Council.

RESULTS

Among 193 patients, 83 reported 121 incidents. Investigators classified 2 (1%) adverse events, 4 (2%) close calls, 14 (7%) errors without risk of harm, and 101 (52%) service quality incidents. Respondents reported high staff compliance with safe practices such as identity checking (95%). Examining the most serious described by each of 42 (22%) respondents who reported a recent unsafe experience, investigators classified only one adverse event, 3 close calls, 9 harmless errors, and 27 service quality incidents.

DISCUSSION

Patients' perception of unsafe care was surprising, given the same patients' recognition of consistent application of safe practices, such as the use of two forms of identification before performing tests and administering treatments. Many ambulatory oncology patients also reported poor service quality. The relationship between patient perception of safe care, medical injury, and service quality merits further study.

Oral chemotherapy safety practices at US cancer centres: questionnaire survey

OBJECTIVE

To characterise current safety practices for the use of oral chemotherapy.

DESIGN

Written questionnaire survey of pharmacy directors of cancer centres.

SETTING

Comprehensive cancer centres in the United States.

RESULTS

Respondents from 42 (78%) of 54 eligible centres completed the survey, after consulting with 89 colleagues. Clinicians at 29 centres used handwritten prescriptions, two used preprinted paper prescriptions, and six used electronic systems for most oral chemotherapy prescribing. For six commonly used oral chemotherapies, on average 10 centres required a diagnosis on the prescription, 11 required the protocol number, four required the cycle number, nine required double checking by a second clinician, 14 required a calculation of body surface area, and 14 required a calculation of dose per square metre of body surface area. Only a third of centres requested patients' written informed consent when oral chemotherapy was given off protocol. Nearly a quarter (10) of centres had no formal process for monitoring patients' adherence. In the past year respondents at 10 centres reported at least one serious adverse drug event related to oral chemotherapy, and respondents at 13 centres reported a serious near miss.

CONCLUSION

Few of the safeguards routinely used for infusion chemotherapy have been adopted for oral chemotherapy at US cancer centres. There is currently no consensus at these centres about safe medication practices for oral chemotherapy.

Medication errors: not just a few "bad apples"

Objective: The purpose of this study is to describe the distribution of medication errors among physicians.Design: Data on a cohort of internal medicine physicians were gathered prospectively over a seven-month period.Setting: The study was conducted in four adult primary care practices.Participants: Twenty-four physicians from Boston, MA participated in this study. A total of 661 patients agreed to participate in the study. The researchers surveyed patients to identify possible adverse drug events (ADEs). This information was supplemented by a chart review for each participating patient.Measurements: The principal measurement collected in this study was total medication errors per physician. The number of prescriptions written during the study period was also collected.Results: Twenty-two of the 24 physicians made at least one error. Although there was one outlier, the error rate among this cohort of physician was evenly distributed.Conclusion: The wide distribution of errors among this group of physicians undermines the argument that the majority of medication errors are due to a "few bad apples,"

Beyond the comfort zone: residents assess their comfort performing inpatient medical procedures

PURPOSE

Resident physicians learn to perform inpatient bedside procedures in a manner that is neither standardized nor rigorous. As a result, residents may be unskilled and uncomfortable performing procedures. This study characterizes residents' comfort performing medical procedures and identifies factors associated with lack of comfort.

SUBJECTS

Study subjects were internal medicine resident physicians who performed one of four medical procedures (central line, lumbar puncture, paracentesis, or thoracentesis) on adult medical inpatients between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was conducted at a 556-bed Boston teaching hospital. Resident physicians evaluated their comfort with 9 aspects of 4 medical procedures, recording this information in an electronic log. We also abstracted operator characteristics and patient demographic data. We analyzed residents' comfort with each aspect of the procedure and defined "overall comfort" as comfort with each of the 9 aspects.

RESULTS

A majority of resident physicians reported lack of comfort with at least one aspect of the procedure. Residents reported lack of comfort with 37% of unsupervised procedures. They also reported lack of comfort with the prospect of managing complications in 35% of procedures. In the multivariable analysis, overall comfort was associated with the use of a dedicated medical procedure service (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.4) and inversely associated with postgraduate year 1 status (OR 0.3, CI 0.1-0.5), first time performing the procedure (OR 0.4, CI 0.2-0.8), thoracenteses (OR 0.4, CI 0.2-0.8), and emergent procedures (OR 0.6, CI 0.3-1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Many resident physicians are uncomfortable performing common bedside procedures. Experience and supervision mitigate some, but not all, discomfort.

Patient-reported service quality on a medicine unit

PURPOSE

Service quality, defined as patients' self-reported experience of care, is used as a metric for evaluating quality. Most studies rely on retrospective consumer surveys rather then more intensive data collection methods, possibly underestimating the incidence of service quality incidents.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The objective of the study was to characterize patient-reported service quality deficiencies on a general medicine unit. We studied a cohort of 228 adult inpatients at a Boston teaching hospital. Investigators reviewed medical records and interviewed patients during the hospitalization and by telephone after discharge. Physician investigators classified patients' incident reports. We calculated the rate of service incidents, characterized incident types, and used multivariable Poisson and logistic regression models to examine factors associated with patient reporting and overall rating of the hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight (38.6%) of 228 patients experienced 157 service quality incidents during the admission, for a rate of 68.9 incidents per 100 admissions. The most common service quality problems involved waits and delays (n = 45), problems with communication between staff and patients (n = 36), and environmental issues and amenities (n = 35). In the multivariable analysis, men (IRR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2), patients covered by hospitalists (1.5, 1.1-2.2), and patients with more medication allergies (1.1 per allergy, 1.1-1.2) reported more service incidents; patients with Medicaid or free care reported fewer (0.5, 0.3-0.9). Patients with service quality incidents were more likely to describe the hospitalization as other than excellent (adjusted OR 1.8 per incident, 95% CI 1.3-2.5).

CONCLUSION

Service quality deficiencies are common among medical inpatients, and are strongly associated with patients' dissatisfaction with the hospitalization.

Who uses the patient internet portal? The PatientSite experience

OBJECTIVE

Although the patient Internet portal is a potentially transformative technology, there is little scientific information about the demographic and clinical characteristics of portal enrollees and the features that they access.

DESIGN

We describe two pilot studies of a comprehensive Internet portal called PatientSite. These pilots include a prospective one-year cohort study of all patients who enrolled in April 2003 and a case-control study in 2004 of enrollees and nonenrollees at two hospital-based primary care practices.

MEASUREMENTS

The cohort study tracked patient enrollment and features in PatientSite that enrollees accessed, such as laboratory and radiology results, prescription renewals, appointment requests, managed care referrals, and clinical messaging. The case-control study used medical record review to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of 100 randomly selected PatientSite enrollees and 100 nonenrollees.

RESULTS

PatientSite use grew steadily after its introduction. New enrollees logged in most frequently in the first month, but 26% to 77% of the cohort continued to access the portal at least monthly. They most often examined laboratory and radiology results and sent clinical messages to their providers. PatientSite enrollees were younger and more affluent and had fewer medical problems than nonenrollees.

CONCLUSION

Expanding the use of patient portals will require an understanding of obstacles that prevent access for those who might benefit most from this technology.

Outpatient prescribing errors and the impact of computerized prescribing

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are common among inpatients and many are preventable with computerized prescribing. Relatively little is known about outpatient prescribing errors or the impact of computerized prescribing in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rates, types, and severity of outpatient prescribing errors and understand the potential impact of computerized prescribing.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study in 4 adult primary care practices in Boston using prescription review, patient survey, and chart review to identify medication errors, potential adverse drug events (ADEs) and preventable ADEs.

PARTICIPANTS

Outpatients over age 18 who received a prescription from 24 participating physicians.

RESULTS

We screened 1879 prescriptions from 1202 patients, and completed 661 surveys (response rate 55%). Of the prescriptions, 143 (7.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.4% to 8.8%) contained a prescribing error. Three errors led to preventable ADEs and 62 (43%; 3% of all prescriptions) had potential for patient injury (potential ADEs); 1 was potentially life-threatening (2%) and 15 were serious (24%). Errors in frequency (n=77, 54%) and dose (n=26, 18%) were common. The rates of medication errors and potential ADEs were not significantly different at basic computerized prescribing sites (4.3% vs 11.0%, P=.31; 2.6% vs 4.0%, P=.16) compared to handwritten sites. Advanced checks (including dose and frequency checking) could have prevented 95% of potential ADEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing errors occurred in 7.6% of outpatient prescriptions and many could have harmed patients. Basic computerized prescribing systems may not be adequate to reduce errors. More advanced systems with dose and frequency checking are likely needed to prevent potentially harmful errors.

What can hospitalized patients tell us about adverse events? Learning from patient-reported incidents

PURPOSE

Little is known about how well hospitalized patients can identify errors or injuries in their care. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to elicit incident reports from hospital inpatients in order to identify and characterize adverse events and near-miss errors.

SUBJECTS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of 228 adult inpatients on a medicine unit of a Boston teaching hospital.

METHODS

Investigators reviewed medical records and interviewed patients during the hospitalization and by telephone 10 days after discharge about "problems,""mistakes," and "injuries" that occurred. Physician investigators classified patients' reports. We calculated event rates and used multivariable Poisson regression models to examine the factors associated with patient-reported events.

RESULTS

Of 264 eligible patients, 228 (86%) agreed to participate and completed 528 interviews. Seventeen patients (8%) experienced 20 adverse events; 1 was serious. Eight patients (4%) experienced 13 near misses; 5 were serious or life threatening. Eleven (55%) of 20 adverse events and 4 (31%) of 13 near misses were documented in the medical record, but none were found in the hospital incident reporting system. Patients with 3 or more drug allergies were more likely to report errors compared with patients without drug allergies (incidence rate ratio 4.7, 95% CI 1.7, 13.4).

CONCLUSION

Inpatients can identify adverse events affecting their care. Many patient-identified events are not captured by the hospital incident reporting system or recorded in the medical record. Engaging hospitalized patients as partners in identifying medical errors and injuries is a potentially promising approach for enhancing patient safety.

Understanding of drug indications by ambulatory care patients

PURPOSE

Patients' knowledge of the indications of their prescription medications was studied and those medications that were most likely to be taken without patients understanding the correct indication were identified.

METHODS

Adult patients who received care at four primary care practices were surveyed. Patients were eligible to participate if they were over 18 years old and had received a prescription from a participating physician at a clinic visit. Patients were telephoned and asked to retrieve the bottles of all medications they were currently taking, identify their medications, and state the reason they took each medicine. The primary outcome was absent or incorrect knowledge of a drug's indication.

RESULTS

A total of 2340 prescription medications were used by the 616 patients whose data were analyzed. Eighty-three patients (13.5%) lacked knowledge of the indication for at least one of their prescription medications. They did not know the indication for 148 medications (6.3%). After multivariable adjustment, lack of knowledge was more common for cardiovascular drugs (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.19) and less common for diabetes medications (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.84) and analgesics (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-1.01) compared with all other medications, and more common if the patient taking these medications was older, black, or had a high school education or less.

CONCLUSION

More than 13% of patients in primary care practices did not know the indication of at least one of their prescription medications. Lack of knowledge was most prevalent for cardiovascular medications.

Patient-reported medication symptoms in primary care

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the prevalence and character of medication-related symptoms in primary care and their relationship to adverse drug events (ADEs) or about factors that affect patient-physician communication regarding medication symptoms.

METHODS

The study included 661 patients who received prescriptions from physicians at 4 adult primary care practices. We interviewed patients 2 weeks and 3 months after the index visit, reviewed patients' medical records, and surveyed physicians whose patients identified medication-related symptoms. Physician reviewers determined whether medication symptoms constituted true ADEs. We used multivariable regression to examine factors associated with patients' decision to discuss symptoms with a physician and with physicians' decision to alter therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients identified 286 medication-related symptoms but discussed only 196 (69%) with their physicians. Physicians changed therapy in response to 76% of reported symptoms. Patients' failure to discuss 90 medication symptoms resulted in 19 (21%) ameliorable and 2 (2%) preventable ADEs. Physicians' failure to change therapy in 48 cases resulted in 31 (65%) ameliorable ADEs. In multivariable analyses, patients who took more medications (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04-1.08; P<.001) and had multiple medication allergies (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.03-1.11; P = .001) were more likely to discuss symptoms. Male physicians (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.09-1.26; P = .002) and physicians at 2 practices were more likely to change therapy (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.17-1.28; P<.001; and OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.08-1.24; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Primary care physicians may be able to reduce the duration and/or the severity of many ADEs by eliciting and addressing patients' medication symptoms.

Implications for practice: challenges for healthcare leaders in fostering patient safety

Although various government and regulatory organisations have identified practices that may enhance patient safety, there is little empirical or theoretical research to inform the decisions of healthcare leaders seeking to create patient safety programmes within their hospitals and clinics. In order to understand the challenges facing hospital and health system executives, we describe the experience of the Executive Session on Patient Safety. The executives identified five major problems in leading patient safety: 1) how should executives structure their organisations to deliver safe care? 2) how should executives monitor and measure their organisation's safety performance? 3) how should executives spread and sustain patient safety innovation? 4) how should executives manage the relationship with the external environment? and 5) how should executives manage their own behaviour in order to lead for safety? The organisational infrastructure needed for safer care is being developed by practitioners out in the field as a matter of necessity. Strengthening the scientific basis for organisational leadership in patient safety is a vital but neglected area of study.

Implications for practice: challenges for healthcare leaders in fostering patient safety

Although various government and regulatory organisations have identified practices that may enhance patient safety, there is little empirical or theoretical research to inform the decisions of healthcare leaders seeking to create patient safety programmes within their hospitals and clinics. In order to understand the challenges facing hospital and health system executives, we describe the experience of the Executive Session on Patient Safety. The executives identified five major problems in leading patient safety: 1) how should executives structure their organisations to deliver safe care? 2) how should executives monitor and measure their organisation's safety performance? 3) how should executives spread and sustain patient safety innovation? 4) how should executives manage the relationship with the external environment? and 5) how should executives manage their own behaviour in order to lead for safety? The organisational infrastructure needed for safer care is being developed by practitioners out in the field as a matter of necessity. Strengthening the scientific basis for organisational leadership in patient safety is a vital but neglected area of study.

Lessons from a patient partnership intervention to prevent adverse drug events

BACKGROUND

Patient safety 'best practices' that call for patient participation to prevent adverse drug events have not been rigorously evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To consider lessons learned from a patient partnership intervention to prevent adverse drug events among medical in-patients.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized, controlled pilot trial.

SETTING

Boston teaching hospital. Patients. Two hundred and nine adult in-patients on a general medicine unit.

INTERVENTION

Intervention patients (n = 107) received drug safety information and their medication list; controls (n = 102) received drug safety information only. Measurements. Adverse drug events and close-call drug errors were identified using chart review and incident reports from nurses, pharmacists, and physicians. Patients and clinicians were surveyed about the intervention.

RESULTS

In 1053 patient-days at risk, 11 patients experienced 12 adverse drug events and 16 patients experienced 18 close calls. There was a non-significant difference between intervention patients and controls in survey responses and in the adverse drug event rate (8.4% versus 2.9%, P = 0.12) and close-call rate (7.5% versus 9.8%, P = 0.57). Eleven percent of patients were aware of drug-related mistakes during the hospitalization. Among nurse respondents, 29% indicated that at least one medication error was prevented when a patient or family member identified a problem.

CONCLUSION

Partnering with in-patients to prevent adverse drug events is a promising strategy but requires further study to document its efficacy.

Creating a quality improvement elective for medical house officers

The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires that house officers demonstrate competencies in "practice-based learning and improvement" and in "the ability to effectively call on system resources to provide care that is of optimum value." Anticipating this requirement, faculty at a Boston teaching hospital developed a 3-week elective for medical house officers in quality improvement (QI). The objectives of the elective were to enhance residents' understanding of QI concepts, their familiarity with the hospital's QI infrastructure, and to gain practical experience with root-cause analysis and QI initiatives. Learners participated in three didactic seminars, joined hospital-based QI activities, conducted a root-cause analysis, and completed a QI project under the guidance of a faculty mentor. The elective enrolled 26 residents in 3 years. Sixty-three percent of resident respondents said that the elective increased their understanding of QI in health care; 88% better understood QI in their own institution.

Using a multihospital survey to examine the safety culture

BACKGROUND

A culture of safety survey was used to study features of the safety culture and their relationship with patient safety indicators.

STUDY DESIGN

Anonymous written surveys were collected from 455 of 1,027 (44%) workers at four Massachusetts hospitals. Respondents characterized their organizations' patient safety, workplace safety, and features of a safety culture, such as leadership commitment, professional salience, presence of a nonpunitive environment, error reporting, and communication.

RESULTS

Employees universally regarded patient safety as an essential part of their job. Two-thirds of workers worried at least once a day about making a mistake that could injure a patient; 43% said that the work load hindered their ability to keep patients safe. Workers' overall assessment of patient safety was associated with their perceptions of workplace safety (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-3.43, p = .044) and leadership commitment to patient safety (OR 3.20, 95% CI 1.97-5.19, p < .001). Incident reporting rates correlated with survey results, while adoption of best practices and expert opinion did not.

DISCUSSION

Patient safety is salient to workers, who universally embraced patient safety as an essential part of their job. Independent indicators of patient safety did not line up neatly with safety culture survey results. Incident reporting rates correlated directly, while adoption of best practices and expert opinion varied inversely with survey results. The safety culture is a complex phenomenon that requires further study.

Creation of an innovative inpatient medical procedure service and a method to evaluate house staff competency

INTRODUCTION

Training residents in medical procedures is an area of growing interest. Studies demonstrate that internal medicine residents are inadequately trained to perform common medical procedures, and program directors report residents do not master these essential skills. The American Board of Internal Medicine requires substantiation of competence in procedure skills for all internal medicine residents; however, for most procedures, standards of competence do not exist.

OBJECTIVE

1) Create a new and standardized approach to teaching, performing, and evaluating inpatient medical procedures; 2) Determine the number of procedures required until trainees develop competence, by assessing both clinical knowledge and psychomotor skills; 3) Improve patient safety.

DESIGN

A Medical Procedure Service (MPS), consisting of select faculty who are experts at common inpatient procedures, was established to supervise residents performing medical procedures. Faculty monitor residents' psychomotor performance, while clinical knowledge is taught through a complementary, comprehensive curriculum. After the completion of each procedure, the trainee and supervising faculty member independently complete online questionnaires.

RESULTS

During this pilot program, 246 procedures were supervised, with a pooled major complication rate of 3.7%. 123 thoracenteses were supervised, with a pneumothorax rate of 3.3%; this compares favorably with a pooled analysis of the literature. 87% of surveyed house staff felt the procedure service helped in their education of medical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The "see one, do one, teach one" model of procedure education is dangerously inadequate. Through the development of a Medical Procedure Service, and an associated procedure curriculum and a mechanism of evaluation, we hope to reduce the rate of complications and errors related to medical procedures and to determine at what point competency is achieved for these procedures.

Physicians' decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care

BACKGROUND

Although computerized physician order entry reduces medication errors among inpatients, little is known about the use of this system in primary care.

METHODS

We calculated the override rate among 3481 consecutive alerts generated at 5 adult primary care practices that use a common computerized physician order entry system for prescription writing. For detailed review, we selected a random sample of 67 alerts in which physicians did not prescribe an alerted medication and 122 alerts that resulted in a written prescription. We identified factors associated with the physicians' decisions to override a medication alert, and determined whether an adverse drug event (ADE) occurred.

RESULTS

Physicians overrode 91.2% of drug allergy and 89.4% of high-severity drug interaction alerts. In the multivariable analysis using the medical chart review sample (n = 189), physicians were less likely to prescribe an alerted medication if the prescriber was a house officer (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.84) and if the patient had many drug allergies (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93). They were more likely to override alerts for renewals compared with new prescriptions (OR, 17.74; 95% CI, 5.60-56.18). We found no ADEs in cases where physicians observed the alert and 3 ADEs among patients with alert overrides, a nonsignificant difference (P =.55). Physician reviewers judged that 36.5% of the alerts were inappropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Few physicians changed their prescription in response to a drug allergy or interaction alert, and there were few ADEs, suggesting that the threshold for alerting was set too low. Computerized physician order entry systems should suppress alerts for renewals of medication combinations that patients currently tolerate.

Adverse drug events in ambulatory care

BACKGROUND

Adverse events related to drugs occur frequently among inpatients, and many of these events are preventable. However, few data are available on adverse drug events among outpatients. We conducted a study to determine the rates, types, severity, and preventability of such events among outpatients and to identify preventive strategies.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study, including a survey of patients and a chart review, at four adult primary care practices in Boston (two hospital-based and two community-based), involving a total of 1202 outpatients who received at least one prescription during a four-week period. Prescriptions were computerized at two of the practices and handwritten at the other two.

RESULTS

Of the 661 patients who responded to the survey (response rate, 55 percent), 162 had adverse drug events (25 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 20 to 29 percent), with a total of 181 events (27 per 100 patients). Twenty-four of the events (13 percent) were serious, 51 (28 percent) were ameliorable, and 20 (11 percent) were preventable. Of the 51 ameliorable events, 32 (63 percent) were attributed to the physician's failure to respond to medication-related symptoms and 19 (37 percent) to the patient's failure to inform the physician of the symptoms. The medication classes most frequently involved in adverse drug events were selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (10 percent), beta-blockers (9 percent), angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (8 percent), and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents (8 percent). On multivariate analysis, only the number of medications taken was significantly associated with adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events related to drugs are common in primary care, and many are preventable or ameliorable. Monitoring for and acting on symptoms are important. Improving communication between outpatients and providers may help prevent adverse events related to drugs.

Discrepancies between explicit and implicit review: physician and nurse assessments of complications and quality

OBJECTIVE

To identify and characterize discrepancies between explicit and implicit medical record review of complications and quality of care.

SETTING

Forty-two acute-care hospitals in California and Connecticut in 1994.

STUDY DESIGN

In a retrospective chart review of 1,025 Medicare beneficiaries age >65, we compared explicit (nurse) and implicit (physician) reviews of complications and quality in individual cases. To understand discrepancies, we calculated the kappa statistic and examined physicians' comments.

DATA COLLECTION

With Medicare discharge abstracts, we used the Complications Screening Program to identify and then select a stratified random sample of cases flagged for 1 of 15 surgical complications, 5 medical complications, and unflagged controls. Peer Review Organization nurses and physicians performed chart reviews.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Agreement about complications was fair (kappa = 0.36) among surgical and was moderate (kappa = 0.59) among medical cases. In discordant cases, physicians said that complications were insignificant, attributable to a related diagnosis, or present on admission. Agreement about quality was poor among surgical and medical cases (kappa = 0.00 and 0.13, respectively). In discordant cases, physicians said that quality problems were unavoidable, small lapses in otherwise satisfactory care, present on admission, or resulted in no adverse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified many discrepancies between explicit and implicit review of complications and quality. Physician reviewers may not consider process problems that are ubiquitous in hospitals to represent substandard quality.

A physician-based voluntary reporting system for adverse events and medical errors

OBJECTIVE

To create a voluntary reporting method for identifying adverse events (AEs) and potential adverse events (PAEs) among medical inpatients.

DESIGN

Medical house officers asked their peers about obstacles to care, injuries or extended hospitalizations, and problems with medications that affected their patients. Two independent reviewers coded event narratives for adverse outcomes, responsible parties, preventability, and process problems. We corroborated house officers' reports with hospital incident reports and conducted a retrospective chart review.

SETTING

The cardiac step-down, oncology, and medical intensive care units of an urban teaching hospital.

INTERVENTION

Structured confidential interviews by postgraduate year-2 and -3 medical residents of interns during work rounds.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Respondents reported 88 events over 3 months. AEs occurred among 5 patients (0.5% of admissions) and PAEs among 48 patients (4.9% of admissions). Delayed diagnoses and treatments figured prominently among PAEs (54%). Clinicians were responsible for the greatest number of incidents (55%), followed by workers in the laboratory (11%), radiology (15%), and pharmacy (3%). Respondents identified a variety of problematic processes of care, including problems with diagnosis (16%), therapy (26%), and failure to provide clinical and support services (29%). We corroborated 84% of reported events in the medical record. Participants found voluntary peer reporting of medical errors unobtrusive and agreed that it could be implemented on a regular basis.

CONCLUSIONS

A physician-based voluntary reporting system for medical errors is feasible and acceptable to front-line clinicians.

Physician-reviewers' perceptions and judgments about quality of care

OBJECTIVE

Although Peer Review Organizations (PROs) and researchers rely on physicians to assess quality of care, little is known about what physicians think about when they judge quality. We sought to identify features of individual cases that are associated with physicians' judgments.

DESIGN

Using 1994 Medicare data, we selected hospitalizations for 1134 beneficiaries in 42 acute care hospitals in California and Connecticut. The sample was enriched with 17 surgical and six medical complications identified using diagnosis and procedure codes. PRO physicians confirmed quality problems using a structured implicit chart review instrument and provided written open-ended comments about each case. We coded physicians' comments for factors presumed to influence judgments about quality.

RESULTS

In crude and adjusted comparisons, reviewers questioned quality more frequently in cases with serious or fatal outcomes, technical mishaps and inadequate documentation. Among surgical (but not medical) patients, they were less likely to record poor quality among patients presenting with an acute illness.

CONCLUSION

Factors other than the adequacy of key processes of care are associated with physician-reviewers' judgments about quality.

Use of administrative data to find substandard care: validation of the complications screening program

OBJECTIVE

The use of administrative data to identify inpatient complications is technically feasible and inexpensive but unproven as a quality measure. Our objective was to validate whether a screening method that uses data from standard hospital discharge abstracts identifies complications of care and potential quality problems.

DESIGN

This was a case-control study with structured implicit physician reviews.

SETTING

Acute-care hospitals in California and Connecticut in 1994.

PATIENTS

The study included 1,025 Medicare beneficiaries greater than 265 years of age.

METHODS

Using administrative data, we stratified acute-care hospitals by observed-to-expected complication rates and randomly selected hospitals within each state. We randomly selected cases flagged with 1 of 17 surgical complications and 6 medical complications. We randomly selected controls from unflagged cases.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Peer-review organization physicians' judgments about the presence of the flagged complication and potential quality-of-care problems.

RESULTS

Physicians confirmed flagged complications in 68.4% of surgical and 27.2% of medical cases. They identified potential quality problems in 29.5% of flagged surgical and 15.7% of medical cases but in only 2.1% of surgical and medical controls. The rate of physician-identified potential quality problems among flagged cases exceeded 25% in 9 surgical screens and 1 medical screen. Reviewers noted several potentially mitigating circumstances that affected their judgments about quality, including factors related to the patients' illness, the complexity of the case, and technical difficulties that clinicians encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

For some types of complications, screening administrative data may offer an efficient approach for identifying potentially problematic cases for physician review. Understanding the basis for physicians' judgments about quality requires more investigation.

Confidential clinician-reported surveillance of adverse events among medical inpatients

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 a 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.

Making medication safety a strategic organizational priority

Since January 1998 the Executive Session on Medical Error and Patient Safety at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government has periodically convened a group of 25 to 30 practitioners (and a few academics) to discuss issues and identify strategies and solutions concerning patient safety. This profile is adapted from a case study presented at the Executive Session.

Patients discharged against medical advice from a general medicine service

This study compares the demographic features and hospital course of all 472 patients discharged against medical advice from the general medicine service of an urban teaching hospital between 1984 and 1995 and 1,113 control patients discharged with physician approval. In the multivariate analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.97 per year; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96, 0.98), male gender (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.4, 2.4), lack of health insurance (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.3, 3.1), Medicaid applicant or recipient status (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.6, 3.1), admission through the emergency department (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.4, 3.5), and lack of a personal attending physician at the time of admission (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.6, 2.8) increased the odds of discharge against medical advice. Fifty-four percent of patients who left against medical advice were readmitted to the hospital during the study period; 98% were then discharged with physician approval. Patients who left the hospital against medical advice included many disadvantaged individuals without ongoing primary care.

A house officer-sponsored quality improvement initiative: leadership lessons and liabilities

BACKGROUND

House officers play an important role in the care of hospitalized patients, yet they are infrequent participants in quality improvement (QI) activities. A grassroots QI initiative among medical house officers was implemented at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center's East Campus in Boston from 1995 through 1997.

FINDINGS

A group of house officer volunteers completed five of nine projects, including a survey that demonstrated frequent failures of cardiac monitor-defibrillators in the emergency room. Reaching out to key administrators produced several quick fixes. Developing effective, ongoing partnerships with clinical departments and QI professionals proved more problematic.

DISCUSSION

Residency training programs that provide experience in QI give house officers a potentially valuable skill and an additional means to improve the quality of patient care. Yet many obstacles work against house officers' participation in QI initiatives, including long hours and the daily demands of patient care, rotating monthly assignments, and clinical leaders' assumption that they have little interest in QI. The organizers of the officer problem-solving group over-estimated the hospital resources at their disposal and failed to build mechanisms to ensure the initiative's continuation into its second year, when their own interest waned and no new group of leaders emerged to take their place.

CONCLUSION

House officers represent an underused resource for QI. They are skilled at identifying problems but have difficulty executing sustained and complex QI initiatives. Peer leadership is a potent means to mobilize resident-physician participation but may require faculty or staff involvement and support to guarantee its continuity.

House officer education and organizational obstacles to quality improvement

BACKGROUND

House officers are physicians-in-training who provide the bulk of direct medical care for patients in teaching hospitals. Because of their intimate, ongoing role in patient care, they occupy a particularly advantageous position in the health care system for identifying and solving common organizational problems that undermine the quality and increase the cost of care. Yet most house officers are inadequately prepared to address problems in organizational and technical support systems which undermine the delivery of health care. In fact, house officers' strategies for coping with the demands of residency training often perpetuate problems.

CASES

Cases describing prescription errors, lost laboratory data, and inappropriate beeper-related interruptions in care illustrate how house officers contribute unwittingly to poor quality and costly care.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Department chairs, residency program directors, and senior clinicians should create opportunities for house officers to participate in interdisciplinary problem-solving teams. Medical faculty should instruct house officers in the principles and practice of quality improvement, integrating this material into existing teaching conferences and other educational activities. Instruction should be case based, data intensive, and jargon free, modeled by clinicians with training and experience in quality management and related disciplines. Senior clinicians and department officials should endorse organizational problem solving as a legitimate, appropriate, and valuable activity for every well-trained physician.