Reporting of medical errors: An intensive care unit experience

Selected medical errors in the intensive care unit: results of the IATROREF study: parts I and II

RATIONALE

Although intensive care units (ICUs) were created for patients with life-threatening illnesses, the ICU environment generates a high risk of iatrogenic events. Identifying medical errors (MEs) that serve as indicators for iatrogenic risk is crucial for purposes of reporting and prevention.

OBJECTIVES

We describe the selection of indicator MEs, the incidence of such MEs, and their relationship with mortality.

METHODS

We selected indicator MEs using Delphi techniques. An observational prospective multicenter cohort study of these MEs was conducted from March 27 to April 3, 2006, in 70 ICUs; 16 (23%) centers were audited. Harm from MEs was collected using specific scales.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen types of MEs were selected as indicators; 1,192 MEs were reported for 1,369 patients, and 367 (26.8%) patients experienced at least 1 ME (2.1/1,000 patient-days). The most common MEs were insulin administration errors (185.9/1,000 d of insulin treatment). Of the 1,192 medical errors, 183 (15.4%) in 128 (9.3%) patients were adverse events that were followed by one or more clinical consequences (n = 163) or that required one or more procedures or treatments (n = 58). By multivariable analysis, having two or more adverse events was an independent risk factor for ICU mortality (odds ratio, 3.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-7.36; P = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of medical errors on mortality indicates an urgent need to develop prevention programs. We have planned a study to assess a program based on our results.

[Safety and quality in intensive care medicine]

The safety and quality care are two attributes of the health care that are closely intertwined. Quality is a feature of the system that delivers health care, thereby improving it, we need a proper reorganization teamwork. Measurements of quality are intended to assess whether the process of health care reaches the desired objectives, while avoiding the processes that predispose to harm the patient. The critically ill patients are vulnerable to medical errors, and may experience side effects preventable, often associated with: medications, mechanical ventilation, and intravascular devices. The evidence currently available suggest that the safety and quality of care can be improved. In this article presents some of the strategies and interventions developed to optimize the processes of care in critically ill patients, and improve the safety culture in the ICU.

Pro/con debate: do the benefits of regionalized critical care delivery outweigh the risks of interfacility patient transport?

You are providing input in planning for critical care services to a large regional health authority. You are considering concentrating some critical care services into high-volume regional centres of excellence, as has been done in other fields of medicine. In your region, this would require several centres with differing levels of expertise that are geographically separated. Given there are inherent risks and time delays associated with interfacility patient transport, you debate whether these potential risks outweigh the benefits of regional centres of excellence.

Stressful intensive care unit medical crises: How individual responses impact on team performance

BACKGROUND

Intensive care units (ICUs) are recognized as stressful environments. However, the conditions in which stressors may affect health professionals' performance and well-being and the conditions that potentially lead to impaired performance and staff psychological distress are not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine healthcare professionals' perceptions regarding the factors that lead to stress responses and performance impairments during ICU medical crises.

DESIGN

A qualitative study in a university-affiliated ICU in Canada.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted 32 individual semistructured interviews of ICU nurses, staff physicians, residents, and respiratory therapists in a university-affiliated hospital. The transcripts of the audiotaped interviews were analyzed using an inductive thematic methodology.

RESULTS

Increased workload, high stakes, and heavy weight of responsibility were recognized as common stressors during ICU crises. However, a high level of individual and team resources available to face such demands was also reported. When the patient's condition was changing or deteriorating unpredictably or when the expected resources were unavailable, crises were assessed by some team members as threatening, leading to individual distress. Once manifested, this emotional distress was strongly contagious to other team members. The ensuing collective anxiety was perceived as disruptive for teamwork and deleterious for individual and collective performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual distress reactions to ICU crises occurred in the presence of unexpectedly high demands unmatched by appropriate resources and were contagious among other team members. Given the high uncertainty surrounding many ICU medical crises, strategies aimed at preventing distress contagion among ICU health professionals may improve team performance and individual well-being.

[Methodical reflections on epidemiological methods to measure adverse medical device events]

Drugs and medical devices are common remedies in patient care. Concerning patient safety, much research has been undertaken to study medication-related events, such as adverse drug events or medication errors; however, only little is known about device-related events and patient safety. Until now, only one survey on the epidemiology of adverse medical device events has been published. Estimates amount to 8.4 adverse medical device events/100 hospitalizations. As this indicates, further research is needed on epidemiological methodology to investigate the frequency, distribution, causes and results of medical device-related events. Only profound knowledge will constitute a resilient base for the development of safety strategies which can be then implemented and evaluated. Also in the German health care system, the special challenges described for data collection have to be mastered.

Continuous monitoring of adverse events: influence on the quality of care and the incidence of errors in general surgery

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to determine the incidence of adverse events and errors in the care of surgical patients and to demonstrate that continuous prospective collection of data on adverse events can improve quality of care and reduce the number of errors. Retrospective studies find adverse events in approximately 5% of patients admitted. Prospective studies publish figures of approximately 30%. No studies to date have tried to use continuous collection of data on adverse events to reduce the incidence of errors.

METHODS

Longitudinal prospective surveillance of adverse events in patients admitted to the Surgery Service during a 22-month period. Sequelae after discharge and errors during hospital stay were evaluated by peer review.

RESULTS

A total of 3,807 patients were controlled: 1,177 patients presented 2,193 adverse events (30.9% of admissions); 330 adverse events due to errors were detected in 258 patients (6.9% of admissions). Thirty-four deaths were considered due to adverse events (0.89% of admissions), and in 11 cases mortality was deemed avoidable (0.29% of admissions). The incidence of adverse events remained constant during the study period, but errors decreased from 11.1% to 4.5% (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first attempt to determine the prevalence of errors in surgery. Introducing systematic programs for recording adverse events can reduce error rates and promote a culture of patient safety in a General Surgery Department.

Impact of adverse events on outcomes in intensive care unit patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between predefined adverse events (AE) (including nosocomial infections) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, controlling for multiple adverse events in the same patient and confounding variables.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study of the French OUTCOMEREA multicenter database.

SETTING

Twelve medical or surgical ICUs.

PATIENTS

Unselected patients hospitalized for > or = 48 hrs enrolled between 1997 and 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 3,611 patients included, 1415 (39.2%) experienced one or more AEs and 821 (22.7%) had two or more AEs. Mean number of AEs per patient was 2.8 (range, 1-26). Six AEs were associated with death: primary or catheter-related bloodstream infection (BSI) (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-5.32), BSI from other sources (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.66-12.05), nonbacteremic pneumonia (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.17-2.44), deep and organ/space surgical site infection without BSI (OR, 3; 95% CI, 1.3-6.8), pneumothorax (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.5-6.3), and gastrointestinal bleeding (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.9). The results were not changed when the analysis was confined to patients with mechanical ventilation on day 1, intermediate severity of illness (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II between 35 and 55), no treatment-limitation decisions, or no cardiac arrest in the ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

AEs were common and often occurred in combination in individual patients. Several AEs independently contributed to death. Creating a safe ICU environment is a challenging task that deserves careful attention from ICU physicians.

Errors in preparation and administration of intravenous medications in the intensive care unit of a teaching hospital: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of medication errors that occurred during the preparation and administration of IV drugs in an intensive care unit.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a 12-bed intensive care unit of one of the largest teaching hospitals in Tehran.

DESIGN

Data were collected over 16 randomly selected days at different medication round times, between July and September 2006. A trained observer accompanied nurses during intravenous (IV) drug rounds. Medication errors were recorded during the observation times of IV drug administration and preparation. Drugs with the highest rate of use in the intensive care unit (ICU) were selected. Details of the process of preparation and administration of the selected drugs were compared to an informed checklist which was prepared using reference books and manufacturers' instructions.

RESULTS

We observed a total of 524 preparations and administrations. The calculated number of opportunities for error was 4040. The number of errors identified were 380/4040 (9.4%). Of those, 33.6% were related to the preparation process and 66.4% to the administration process. The most common type of error (43.4%) was the injection of bolus doses faster than the recommended rate. Amikacin was involved in the highest rate of error (11%) among all the selected medications. It was found that the IV rounds conducted at 9:a.m. had the highest rate of error (19.8%). No significant correlation was found between the rate of error and the nurses' age, sex, qualification, work experience, marital status, and type of working contract (permanent or temporary).

CONCLUSIONS

Since our system is devoid of a well-organized reporting system, errors are not detected and consequently not prevented. Administrators need to take the initiative of developing systems that guarantee safe medication administration.

Physiotherapy in intensive care is safe: an observational study

QUESTION

How often do adverse events (including adverse physiological changes) occur during physiotherapy intervention in intensive care?

DESIGN

A multi-centre prospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Five tertiary level university-affiliated intensive care units.

OUTCOME MEASURES

All physiotherapy intervention in five intensive care units over a three month period. When certain specified changes occurred during physiotherapy intervention, details were noted including diagnosis of patient, intervention, vital signs, radiological changes, co-morbidities, chemical pathology, and fluid balance.

RESULTS

12 281 physiotherapy interventions were completed with 27 interventions resulting in adverse physiological changes (0.2%). This incidence was significantly lower than a previous study of adverse physiological changes (663 events in 247 patients over a 24-hour period); the incidence during physiotherapy intervention was lower than during general intensive care. Common factors in the patients who had an adverse physiological change were a deterioration in cardiovascular status (ie, decrease in blood pressure or arrhythmia) in patients on medium to high doses of inotropes/vasopressors, unstable baseline hemodynamic values, previous cardiac co-morbidities and intervention consisting of positive pressure or right side lying.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of adverse events during physiotherapy intervention in these five tertiary hospitals was low, demonstrating that physiotherapy intervention in intensive care is safe.

Effect of an anonymous reporting system on near-miss and harmful medical error reporting in a pediatric intensive care unit

Adverse event reporting is a key element for improving patient safety. This study describes a new voluntary, anonymous reporting system that facilitates reporting of near-miss and patient harm events and an assessment of patient harm by the bedside care provider in a pediatric intensive care unit. The results demonstrated the effectiveness of the Patient Safety Report as a method to capture near-miss and patient harm events.

Evaluation of an anonymous system to report medical errors in pediatric inpatients

OBJECTIVE

To compare reports of medical errors in hospitalized children submitted using an electronic, anonymous reporting system with those submitted via traditional incident reports.

STUDY DESIGN

During the 3-month study period in 2003, reports of medical errors from 2 units at a large children's hospital were made using an electronic, anonymous system. Three reviewers independently evaluated each report and determined whether the events described constituted a medical error. An identical procedure was used to categorize medical error data collected via incident reports from the 2 study units from 1999 to 2002.

RESULTS

A total of 146 reports were made using the anonymous system, 131 of which documented medical errors. The rate of reporting medical errors with the anonymous system was 2.41/100 patient-days. The rate of reporting medical errors via incident reports in 1999-2002 was 2.40/100 patient-days. However, 33.8% of all incident reports dealt with mislabeled laboratory specimens; after excluding these reports, the rate of medical errors documented via incident reports was 1.56/100 patient-days. The rate of reporting was significantly higher with the anonymous system (rate ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.26, 1.90). With the anonymous system, 25.2% of reported medical errors were near-misses compared with 12.6% of the errors reported with the incident report system (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the anonymous reporting system with training was associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of reported medical errors. The reporting of near-miss events was significantly increased, suggesting this may be a useful format for gathering data on this type of medical error.

Patient safety event reporting in critical care: a study of three intensive care units

OBJECTIVE

To increase patient safety event reporting in three intensive care units (ICUs) using a new voluntary card-based event reporting system and to compare and evaluate observed differences in reporting among healthcare workers across ICUs.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-center, interventional study.

SETTING

A medical ICU (19 beds), surgical ICU (24 beds), and cardiothoracic ICU (17 beds) at a 1,371-bed urban teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to these three study ICUs.

INTERVENTIONS

Use of a new, internally designed, card-based reporting program to solicit voluntary anonymous reporting of medical errors and patient safety concerns.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

During a 14-month period, 714 patient safety events were reported using a new card-based reporting system, reflecting a significant increase in reporting compared with pre-intervention Web-based reporting (20.4 reported events/1,000 patient days pre-intervention to 41.7 reported events/1,000 patient days postintervention; rate ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.79-2.34). Nurses submitted the majority of reports (nurses, 67.1%; physicians, 23.1%; other reporters, 9.5%); however, physicians experienced the greatest increase in reporting among their group (physicians, 43-fold; nurses, 1.7-fold; other reporters, 4.3-fold) relative to pre-intervention rates. There were significant differences in the reporting of harm by job description: 31.1% of reports from nurses, 36.2% from other staff, and 17.0% from physicians described events that did not reach/affect the patient (p = .001); and 33.9% of reports from physicians, 27.2% from nurses, and 13.0% from other staff described events that caused harm (p = .005). Overall reported patient safety events per 1,000 patient days differed by ICU (medical ICU = 55.5, cardiothoracic ICU = 25.3, surgical ICU = 40.2; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This card-based reporting system increased reporting significantly compared with pre-intervention Web-based reporting and revealed significant differences in reporting by healthcare worker and ICU. These differences may reveal important preferences and priorities for reporting medical errors and patient safety events.

Design and implementation of an ICU incident registry

Due to its complexity intensive care is vulnerable to errors. On the ICU adults of the AMC (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) the available registries used for error reporting did not give insight in the occurrence of unwanted events, and did not lead to preventive measures. Therefore, a new registry has been developed on the basis of a literature study on the various terms and definitions that refer to unintended events, and on the methods to register and monitor them. As this registry intends to provide an overall insight into errors, a neutral term ('incident') -- which does not imply guilt or blame -- has been sought together with a broad definition. The attributes of an incident further describe the unwanted event, but they should not form an impediment for the ICU nurses and physicians to report. The properties of a registry that contribute to making it accessible and user friendly have been determined. This has resulted in an electronic registry where incidents can be reported rapidly, voluntarily, anonymously and free of legal consequences. Evaluation is required to see if the new registry indeed provides the ICU management with the intended information on the current situation on incidents. For further refinement of the design, additional development and adjustments are required. However, we expect that the awareness of errors of the ICU personnel has already improved, forming the first step to increased patient safety.

Intensive care unit safety incidents for medical versus surgical patients: a prospective multicenter study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to determine if patient safety incidents and the system-related factors contributing to them systematically differ for medical versus surgical patients in intensive care units.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter prospective study of 646 incidents involving adult medical patients and 707 incidents involving adult surgical patients that were reported to an anonymous patient safety registry over a 2-year period. We compared incident characteristics, patient harm, and associated system factors for medical versus surgical patients.

RESULTS

The proportion of safety incidents reported for medical versus surgical patients differed for only 3 of 11 categories: equipment/devices (14% vs 19%; P = .02), "line, tube, or drain" events (8% vs 13%; P = .001), and computerized physician order entry (13% vs 6%; P < or = .001). The type of patient harm associated with incidents also did not differ. System factors were similar for medical versus surgical patients, with training and teamwork being the most important factors in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical and surgical patients in the intensive care unit experience very similar types of safety incidents with similar associated patient harm and system factors. Common initiatives to improve patient safety for medical and surgical patients should be undertaken with a specific focus on improving training and teamwork among the intensive care team.

[Adverse events in Intensive Medicine. Managing risk]

Health care interventions entail a risk of adverse events (AE), that may cause lesions, incapacities and even death in the patients. Given the complexity of the care of the critical patient, the Critical Care Services are a high risk setting for the appearance of AE in these patients, many of them avoidable. Several studies show the influence of organizational factors focused on the system in the reduction of care risk and on the result of the critical patients. The voluntary and anonymous registry and reporting systems make it possible to identify a significant percentage of these incidents, analyze the factors related (that contribute or limit), establish preventive strategies, permitting management of risk, and potentially reduce the appearance and consequences of avoidable AE with all this. Initiatives such as the ICU Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS), that use a web database as registry system and includes contributions from different sites, favor the safety and risk culture, essential in the improvement of health quality of critical patients.

Getting doctors to report medical errors: project DISCLOSE

BACKGROUND

Despite the number of patient safety incidents that occur in hospitals, physicians currently may not have the ideal incident reporting tools for easy disclosure. A study was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of a simplified paper incident reporting process for internal medicine physicians on uncovering patient safety incidents.

DESIGN

Thirty-nine internal medicine attending physicians were instructed to incorporate the use of a simplified paper incident reporting tool (DISCLOSE) into daily patient rounds during a three-month period. All physicians were surveyed at the conclusion of the three months.

RESULTS

Compared with physician reporting via the hospital's traditional incident reports from the same time period, a higher number (98 incidents versus 37; a 2.6-fold increase) of incidents were uncovered using the DISCLOSE reporting tool in a larger number of error categories (58 versus 14, a 4.1-fold increase). When reviewed and classified with a five-point harm scale, 41% of events were judged to have reached patients but not caused harm, 33% to have resulted in temporary harm, and 9% of reports, though not considered events, were to indicate a "risky situation." Surveyed physicians were more satisfied with the process of submitting incident reports using the new DISCLOSE tool.

DISCUSSION

A simplified incident reporting process at the point of care generated a larger number and breadth of physician disclosed error categories, and increased physician satisfaction with the process.

Hemolysis due to inadvertent hemodialysis against distilled water: Perils of bedside dialysate preparation

OBJECTIVE

To describe the physiologic consequences of dialysis against distilled water and to provide recommendations by which other institutions may avoid similar errors in dialysate preparation.

DATA SOURCE

Four cases of dialysis against distilled water are described, occurring at three teaching hospitals within a 2-yr period. In addition, an in vitro experiment of banked whole blood exposure to distilled water dialysate was performed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Because all four cases occurred within a critical care setting, intensive monitoring of clinical, biochemical, and hematologic abnormalities was possible.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Serum sodium decreased by an average of 22 mmol/L, followed by a decrease in hemoglobin averaging 32 g/L. Additional investigations and the in vitro experiment provided evidence that hemolysis occurred primarily via clearance of damaged erythrocytes within the patient's reticuloendothelial system. Physiologic derangements secondary to dialysis against distilled water likely contributed to a stroke suffered by one patient and the death of at least one other patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Accidental dialysis against distilled water is a potentially serious but preventable complication of bedside dialysate preparation.

Patient safety in intensive care: results from the multinational Sentinel Events Evaluation (SEE) study

OBJECTIVE

To assess on a multinational level the prevalence and corresponding factors of selected unintended events that compromise patient safety (sentinel events) in intensive care units (ICUs).

DESIGN

An observational, 24-h cross-sectional study of incidents in five representative categories.

SETTING

205 ICUs worldwide

MEASUREMENTS

Events were reported by intensive care unit staff members with the use of a structured questionnaire. Both ICU- and patient-related factors were assessed.

RESULTS

In 1,913 adult patients a total of 584 events affecting 391 patients were reported. During 24 h multiple errors related to medication occurred in 136 patients; unplanned dislodgement or inappropriate disconnection of lines, catheters, and drains in 158; equipment failure in 112; loss, obstruction or leakage of artificial airway in 47; and inappropriate turn-off of alarms in 17. Per 100 patient days, 38.8 (95% confidence interval 34.7-42.9) events were observed. In a multiple logistic regression with ICU as a random component, the following were associated with elevated odds for experiencing a sentinel event: any organ failure (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.28), a higher intensity in level of care (odds ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.18-2.22), and time of exposure (odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Sentinel events related to medication, indwelling lines, airway, and equipment failure in ICUs occur with considerable frequency. Although patient safety is recognised as a serious issue in many ICUs, there is an urgent need for development and implementation of strategies for prevention and early detection of errors.

Principles and practices of medication safety in the ICU

Medication errors are a significant public health problem in United States hospitals. Patients in the ICU are at particular risk for medication errors because of the characteristics of an ICU and the nature of its patients. This article reviews the principles of medication safety and applies these principles to the ICU, and suggests safe practices to improve medication safety in the ICU.

A new safety event reporting system improves physician reporting in the surgical intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Medical errors are common, and physicians have notably been poor medical error reporters. In the SICU, reporting was generally poor and reporting by physicians was virtually nonexistent. This study was designed to observe changes in error reporting in an SICU when a new card-based system (SAFE) was introduced.

STUDY DESIGN

Before implementation of the SAFE reporting system, education was given to all SICU healthcare providers. The SAFE system was introduced into the SICU for a 9-month period from March 2003 through November 2003, to replace an underused online system. Data were collected from the SAFE card reports and the online reporting systems during introduction, removal, and reimplementation of these cards. Reporting rates were calculated as number of reported events per 1,000 patient days.

RESULTS

Reporting rates increased from 19 to 51 reports per 1,000 patient days after the SAFE cards were introduced into the ICU (p</= 0.001). Physician reporting increased most, rising from 0.3 to 5.8 reports per 1,000 patient days; nursing reporting also increased from 18 to 39 reports per 1,000 patient days (both p</=0.001). When the SAFE cards were removed, physician reporting declined to 0 reports per 1,000 patient days (p=0.01) and rose to 8.1 (p=0.001) when the cards were returned, similar to nursing results. A higher proportion of physician reports were events that caused harm compared with no effect (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A card reporting system, combined with appropriate education, improved overall reporting in the SICU, especially among physician providers. Nurses were more likely to use reporting systems than were physicians. Physician reports were more likely to be of events that caused harm.

Disclosing errors and adverse events in the intensive care unit*

OBJECTIVE

To review the issue of disclosing errors in care and adverse events that have caused harm to patients in critical care.

DESIGN

Review the scope of the problem, the definitions of errors and adverse events, and the benefits and problems of disclosing errors and adverse events and provide an approach by which to have these difficult discussions.

SETTING

Medical center.

PATIENTS

Critically ill patients and their families.

INTERVENTIONS

Applying a systematic framework for disclosing errors and adverse events to affected patients and their families.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Several national organizations mandate that physicians discuss errors in care and adverse events that have caused harm with affected patients, but failure to do so is a common problem in critical care as surveys of intensivists indicate that, although most believe that errors should be disclosed, few routinely do so. The likelihood of an adverse event is increased in intensive care units because of the nature of critical care. Not all errors or adverse events require disclosure. There are ethical, financial, legal, systems, and personal benefits to disclosing errors, and disclosure discussions should address common patient concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to disclose errors and adverse events in critical care is an important and common problem. There are numerous reasons why errors and adverse events should be disclosed, and use of a standard framework for doing so will facilitate the process.

The critical care clinical pharmacist: evolution of an essential team member

OBJECTIVE

To review the history, training requirements, contributions to patient care outcomes, and workforce issues of critical care pharmacists.

DATA SOURCE AND SELECTION

Literature obtained through Medline search with manual cross-referencing.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Original and selected review articles and guideline documents were reviewed for references to critical care pharmacists and their role on the multiprofessional critical care team.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care pharmacists are recognized as essential members of the critical care team as a result of contributions to medication safety, improved patient outcomes, and reduced drug costs and as a source of drug information and provider of education. A growing number of pharmacists practice in critical care. Additional opportunities exist and can be met if an adequate supply of trained specialists can be developed.

Medication errors and adverse drug events in an intensive care unit: Direct observation approach for detection

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence and preventability of medication errors and potential/actual adverse drug events. To evaluate system failures leading to error occurrence.

DESIGN

Prospective, direct observation study.

SETTING

Tertiary care academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Patients in a medical/surgical intensive care unit.

INTERVENTIONS

Observers would intervene only in the event that the medication error would cause substantial patient harm or discomfort.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The observers identified 185 incidents during a pilot period and four phases totaling 16.5 days (33 12-hr shifts). Two independent evaluators concluded that 13 of 35 (37%) actual adverse drug events were nonpreventable (i.e., not medication errors). An additional 40 of the remaining 172 medication errors were judged not to be clinically important. Of the 132 medication errors classified as clinically important, 110 (83%) led to potential adverse drug events and 22 (17%) led to actual, preventable adverse drug events. There was one error (i.e., resulting in a potential or actual, preventable adverse drug event) for every five doses of medication administered. The potential adverse drug events mostly occurred in the administration and dispensing stages of the medication use process (34% in each); all of the actual, preventable adverse drug events occurred in the prescribing (77%) and administration (23%) stages. Errors of omission accounted for the majority of potential and actual, preventable adverse drug events (23%), followed by errors due to wrong dose (20%), wrong drug (16%), wrong administration technique (15%), and drug-drug interaction (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a direct observation approach, we found a higher incidence of potential and actual, preventable adverse drug events and an increased ratio of potential to actual, preventable adverse drug events compared with studies that used chart reviews and solicited incident reporting. All of the potential adverse drug events and approximately two thirds of the actual adverse drug events were judged to be preventable. There was one preventable error for every five doses of medication administered; most errors were due to dose omission, wrong dose, wrong drug, wrong technique, or interactions.

Effects of Critical Care Nurses’ Work Hours on Vigilance and Patients’ Safety

• Background To minimize the occurrence of adverse events among patients, critical care nurses must be alert to subtle changes in patients’ conditions, perform accurate clinical assessments, and respond expediently. However, little is known about the effects of the nurses’ work hours on vigilance and patients’ safety.

• Objectives To describe the work patterns of critical care nurses, determine if an association exists between the occurrence of errors and the hours worked by the nurses, and explore whether these work hours have adverse effects on the nurses’ vigilance.

• Methods Data were obtained from a random sample of critical care nurses in the United States. Nurses eligible for the study were mailed two 14-day logbooks to fill out. Information collected included the hours worked, the time of day worked, overtime hours, days off, and sleep-wake patterns. On days worked, the respondents completed all work-related questions and questions about difficulties in remaining awake while on duty. Space was provided for descriptions of any errors or near errors that might have occurred. On days off, the nurses completed only those questions about sleep-wake patterns, mood, and caffeine intake.

• Results The 502 respondents consistently worked longer than scheduled and for extended periods. Longer work duration increased the risk of errors and near errors and decreased nurses’ vigilance.

• Conclusions The findings support the Institute of Medicine recommendations to minimize the use of 12-hour shifts and to limit nurses’ work hours to no more than 12 consecutive hours during a 24-hour period.

Reporting and classification of patient safety events in a cardiothoracic intensive care unit and cardiothoracic postoperative care unit

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate a new mechanism for reporting and classifying patient safety events to increase reporting and identify patient safety priorities.

METHODS

A voluntary patient safety event reporting system accessible by all health care workers was implemented in the Cardiothoracic Intensive Care and Post Anesthesia Care Units. Information collected included patient identifiers; date, time, and location of report and event; type and description of event; and severity score. Narrative descriptions of events were analyzed and coded to describe when in the care process the event occurred, what occurred, and a causal classification of why the event occurred.

RESULTS

A total of 163 reports describing 157 events were received. These included 121 events reported from the intensive care unit (25.3 reported events per 1000 patient-days), a 3-fold increase compared with the preexisting on-line reporting system. A total of 113 reports (69%) came from nurses, 31 from physicians (19%), and 10 from other staff (6%). A majority of events (85, 54%) reached the patient but caused no harm. Multiple causes were identified for the majority of events. The most frequent causes were related to human factors (48%) and organizational factors (34%).

CONCLUSIONS

Health care workers were willing to use the patient safety event reporting system, which yielded a broad range of patient safety data. Patient safety events are multifaceted and often have multiple causal factors. Application of a causal classification model for patient safety event coding in the intensive care and preoperative and postoperative care units is feasible and facilitates local communication of important event-related information.

Radiopharmaceutical maladministrations in New South Wales

BACKGROUND

Errors in medicine are being increasingly highlighted. There is potential for harm in nuclear medicine.

AIM

To evaluate the frequency, type, causes and adverse effects of nuclear medicine radiopharmaceutical maladministrations reported to the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority.

METHODS

We reviewed reports received by the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority over a 5-year period. The number and type of maladministrations, contributing factors and any adverse effects were recorded. Comparison was made with the total number of medicare-paid diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine services undertaken in New South Wales for the same period.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven maladministrations were reported to the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority. There were 666 179 nuclear medicine procedures recorded in New South Wales for the same period. Of the 57 reported maladministrations, the majority (n=34; 61%) were a result of incorrect radiopharmaceutical dispensing. Incorrect reading of labels attached to the syringe (n=8; 14%) and incorrect patient identification (n=7; 12%) accounted for most of the rest of the accidents. Most (n=48; 84%) involved 99mTc-based radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic use, with three cases involving I for therapeutic use. In 96% of cases - those which involved diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals - there were no immediate adverse clinical outcomes. However, one subject developed unintended hypothyroidism as a result of the maladministration of 131I for therapy.

CONCLUSION

Nuclear medicine maladministrations in New South Wales are uncommon, with approximately 8-9 incidents per 100 000 procedures. Most maladministrations are the consequence of incorrect radiopharmaceutical dispensing. All those which involved diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals resulted in no immediate adverse effects from the radiation exposure.

The Critical Care Safety Study: The incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care

OBJECTIVE

Critically ill patients require high-intensity care and may be at especially high risk of iatrogenic injury because they are severely ill. We sought to study the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious errors in the critical care setting.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective 1-year observational study. Incidents were collected with use of a multifaceted approach including direct continuous observation. Two physicians independently assessed incident type, severity, and preventability as well as systems-related and individual performance failures.

SETTING

Academic, tertiary-care urban hospital.

PATIENTS

Medical intensive care unit and coronary care unit patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence and rates of adverse events and serious errors per 1000 patient-days. A total of 391 patients with 420 unit admissions were studied during 1490 patient-days. We found 120 adverse events in 79 patients (20.2%), including 66 (55%) nonpreventable and 54 (45%) preventable adverse events as well as 223 serious errors. The rates per 1000 patient-days for all adverse events, preventable adverse events, and serious errors were 80.5, 36.2, and 149.7, respectively. Among adverse events, 13% (16/120) were life-threatening or fatal; and among serious errors, 11% (24/223) were potentially life-threatening. Most serious medical errors occurred during the ordering or execution of treatments, especially medications (61%; 170/277). Performance level failures were most commonly slips and lapses (53%; 148/277), rather than rule-based or knowledge-based mistakes.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events and serious errors involving critically ill patients were common and often potentially life-threatening. Although many types of errors were identified, failure to carry out intended treatment correctly was the leading category.

A system factors analysis of "line, tube, and drain" incidents in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the system factors related to "line, tube, and drain" (LTD) incidents in the intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN

Voluntary, anonymous Web-based patient safety reporting system.

SETTING

Eighteen ICUs in the United States.

PATIENTS

Incidents reported by ICU staff members during a 12-month period ending June 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

Characteristics of the incidents (defined as events that could/did cause harm), patients, and patient harm were described. Separate multivariable logistic regression analyses of contributing, limiting, and preventive system factors for LTD vs. non-LTD incidents were reported.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 114 reported LTD incidents, >60% were considered preventable. One patient death was attributed to an LTD incident. Of patients experiencing LTD incidents, 56% sustained physical injury, and 23% had an anticipated increased hospital stay. Factors contributing to LTD incidents included occurrence in the operating room (odds ratio [OR], 3.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-9.83), occurrence on a holiday (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.12-11.9), patient medical complexity (OR, 3.68; 95% CI, 2.28-5.92), and age of 1-9 yrs (OR, 7.95; 95% CI, 3.29-19.2). Factors related to team communication were less likely to limit LTD incidents (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68), while clinician knowledge and skills helped prevent LTD incidents (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.09-2.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are harmed by preventable LTD incidents. Relative to non-LTD events, these incidents occur more frequently during holidays and in medically complex patients and children. Focusing on these contributing factors and clinician knowledge and skills is important for reducing and preventing these hazardous events.

Ethical forces that shape a career in surgery

Our profession is based on ethical behavior, which extends far beyond the rule of law. In this Festschrift for Hiram C. Polk, the ethical forces that shape a career in surgery-including their impact on the timely issue of medical errors, truth-telling, and disclosure-are discussed. The philosophical underpinnings (as addressed by Kant and Aristotle, among others) that may guide the surgeon are considered and discussed with particular emphasis on their relevance to the practice of surgery. The roles that courage, self-evaluation, and teaching play in our practices are reviewed as are new initiatives for improved outcomes for our patients-our ultimate professional goal.

Identification and characterization of errors and incidents in a medical intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

To assess the frequency, type, consequences, and associations of errors and incidents in a medical intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Two-hundred and sixteen consecutive patients with predominantly cardiovascular and pulmonary disorders admitted between December 2002 and February 2003 were enrolled. Demographic data, SAPS II, and TISS-28 were obtained for all patients. Prior to patient enrolment all staff members (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists) were repeatedly encouraged to make use of the Incident Report Form (IRF) and detailed descriptions on how, why and when to use the IRF were provided.

RESULTS

During the observation period of 64 days, 50 errors involving 32 patients (15%) were reported. Patients subjected to errors were more severely ill (SAPS II 42 +/- 25 vs. 32 +/- 18, P < 0.05), had a higher hospital mortality (38% vs. 9%), and a longer ICU stay (11 +/- 18 vs. 3 +/- 5 days, P < 0.05). Gender, age and TISS-28 were equally distributed. Each day of ICU stay increased the risk by 8% (odds ratio 1.078, 95% confidence interval 1.034-1.125, P < 0.001), and by 2.3% per SAPS II point (odds ratio 1.023, 95% confidence interval 1.006-1.040, P < 0.001). The majority of errors and incidents were judged as 'human failures' (73%), and 46 errors and incidents (92%) as 'avoidable'.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification and characterization of errors and incidents combined with contextual information is feasible and may provide sufficient background information for areas of quality improvement. Areas with a high frequency of errors and incidents need to undergo process evaluation to avoid future occurrence.

Reporting of unintended events in an intensive care unit: comparison between staff and observer

Background

In order to identify relevant targets for change, it is essential to know the reliability of incident staff reporting. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence and type of unintended events (UE) reported by facilitated Intensive Care Unit (ICU) staff with those recorded concurrently by an observer.

Methods

The study is a prospective data collection performed in two 4-bed multidisciplinary ICUs of a teaching hospital. The format of the UE reporting system was voluntary, facilitated and not necessarily anonymous, and used a structured form with a predetermined list of items. UEs were reported by ICU staff over a period of 4 weeks. The reporting incidence during the first fourteen days was compared with that during the second fourteen. During morning shifts in the second fourteen days, one observer in each ICU recorded any UE seen. The staff was not aware of the observers' study. The incidence of UEs reported by staff was compared with that recorded by the observers.

Results

The staff reported 36 UEs in the first fourteen days and 31 in the second.. The incidence of UE detection during morning shifts was significantly higher than during afternoon or night shifts (p < 0.001). Considering only working day morning shifts, the rate of UE reporting by the staff per 100 patient days was 26.9 (CI 95% 16.9–37.0) in the first fourteen day period and 20.3 (CI 95% 10.3–30.4) in the second. The rate of UE detection by the observers was 53.1 per 100 patient days (CI 95% 40.6–65.6), significantly higher (p < 0.001) than that reported concurrently by the staff. There was excellent agreement between staff and observers about the severity of the UEs recorded (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.869). The observers recorded mainly UEs involving Airway/mechanical ventilation and Patient management, and the staff Catheter/Drain/Probe and Medication errors (p = 0.025).

Conclusion

UE incidence is strongly underreported by staff in comparison with observers. Also the types of UEs reported are different. Invaluable information about incidents in ICU can be obtained in a few days by observer monitoring.

A system factors analysis of airway events from the Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS)*

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the contributing and limiting factors for airway events reported in the Intensive Care Unit Safety Reporting System (ICUSRS) developed in partnership with the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

DESIGN

Analysis of system factors in airway vs. nonairway events reported to a voluntary, anonymous, Web-based patient safety reporting system (the ICUSRS).

SETTING

Sixteen adult and two pediatric intensive care units (ICU) across the United States.

PATIENTS

Incidents reported during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

None

MEASUREMENTS

Descriptive characteristics of incidents (defined as events that could have, or did, cause harm), patients, and patient harm; separate multivariable logistic regression analyses of contributing and limiting factors for airway vs. nonairway events.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 78 airway and 763 nonairway events reported. More than half of airway events were considered preventable. One patient death was attributed to an airway event. Physical injury, increased hospital length of stay, and family dissatisfaction occurred in at least 20% of airway events. Important factors contributing to reported airway events (odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI)) included patients' medical condition (5.24, 3.07-8.95) and age <1 yr old (4.15, 1.79-9.59). Factors limiting the impact of airway events (OR, 95% CI) included adequate ICU staffing (3.60, 1.71-7.56) and use of skilled assistants (3.20, 1.62-6.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are harmed by unintended and preventable incidents involving airway management. Prevention efforts should focus on critically ill infants and patients with complex medical conditions. Managers should ensure appropriate ICU staffing to limit the impact of airway events when they occur.