Adverse events and complications among patients admitted to hospital in the home directly from the emergency department

Prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Diagnostic error is commonly defined as a missed, delayed or wrong diagnosis and has been described as among the most important patient safety hazards. Diagnostic errors also account for the largest category of medical malpractice high severity claims and total payouts. Despite a large literature on the incidence of inpatient adverse events, no systematic review has attempted to estimate the prevalence and nature of harmful diagnostic errors in hospitalised patients.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from database inception through 9 July 2019. We included all studies of hospitalised adult patients that used physician review of case series of admissions and reported the frequency of diagnostic adverse events. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Harmful diagnostic error rates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-two studies including 80 026 patients and 760 harmful diagnostic errors from consecutive or randomly selected cohorts were pooled. The pooled rate was 0.7% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.1%). Of the 136 diagnostic errors that were described in detail, a wide range of diseases were missed, the most common being malignancy (n=15, 11%) and pulmonary embolism (n=13, 9.6%). In the USA, these estimates correspond to approximately 249 900 harmful diagnostic errors yearly.

Conclusion

Based on physician review, at least 0.7% of adult admissions involve a harmful diagnostic error. A wide range of diseases are missed, including many common diseases. Fourteen diagnoses account for more than half of all diagnostic errors. The finding that a wide range of common diagnoses are missed implies that efforts to improve diagnosis must target the basic processes of diagnosis, including both cognitive and system-related factors.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42018115186.

Safety and effectiveness of 'hospital in the home' and 'outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy' in different age groups: A systematic review of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was .to systematically review the published literature of observational studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of hospital in the home (HITH) and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in the general population, older people and children.

STUDY DESIGN

The review included retrospective studies and prospective studies performed on HITH and OPAT within different age groups. Only the studies that analysed the safety and effectiveness of HITH and OPAT were included for review.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of electronic databases CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed and SCOPUS from 1997 to 2016 was performed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies were undertaken on HITH within the general population, 26 studies were undertaken on OPAT within the general population, 8 studies were on HITH and OPAT for older people and 5 studies were on OPAT with children. More than 88% of the studies reported a cure or treatment success rate of greater than 80%. Adverse events with drugs ranged from 0% to 30.2%; adverse events with vascular access devices ranged from 0% to 29%; readmission rate varied from 1% to 26%; mortality varied from 0% to 27.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

This review quantifies the rates of success and harm in real world practice, and demonstrates that while most patients experience treatment success, adverse events may be high in some groups. However, the methodologies used to measure these parameters were inconsistent and some demographic groups had only a small number of studies.

Adverse events experienced by homecare patients: a scoping review of the literature

PURPOSE

The paper summarizes the results of a scoping review that focused on the occurrence of adverse events experienced by homecare patients.

DATA SOURCES

The literature search covered published and grey literature between 1998 and 2007. Databases searched included: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and EBM REVIEWS including the Cochrane Library, AGELINE, the National Patient Safety Foundation Bibliography, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient Safety Net bibliography.

STUDY SELECTION

Papers included research studies, review articles, policy papers, opinion articles and legal briefs. Inclusion criteria were: (i) homecare directed services provided in the home by healthcare professionals or caregivers; (ii) addressed a characteristic relevant to patient experienced adverse events (e.g. occurrences, rates, definitions, prevention or outcomes); and (iii) were in English. Data extraction A pool of 1007 articles was reduced to 168 after analysis. Data were charted according to six categories: definitions, rates, causes, consequences, interventions and policy.

RESULTS

Eight categories emerged: adverse drug events, line-related, technology-related, infections and urinary catheters, wounds, falls, studies reporting multiple rates and other. Reported overall rates of adverse events ranged from 3.5 to 15.1% with higher rates for specific types. Few intervention studies were found. Adverse events were commonly associated with communication problems. Policy suggestions included the need to improve assessments, monitoring, education, coordination and communication.

CONCLUSION

A standardized definition of adverse events in the homecare setting is needed. Prospective cohort studies are needed to improve estimates and intervention studies should be undertaken to reduce the risk that homecare patients will experience adverse events.