Is there a ‘best measure’ of patient safety?

Comprehensive Measurement of the Burden of Disease due to Adverse Events: A New Analysis of the Cross-Sectional Patient Safety Incident Inquiry

BACKGROUND

A methodology for comprehensively and reasonably measuring the burden of disease due to adverse events has yet to be clearly established. In this study, a new and systematic method for measuring the burden of disease due to adverse events was tested by utilizing the results of a medical record review, which is commonly used as a gold standard.

METHODS

Using the characteristics of preventable adverse events identified in the 2019 Patient Safety Incidents Inquiry (PSII), conducted to monitor the level of patient safety in Korea accurately, the resulting disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and economic costs were estimated. DALYs were calculated as the sum of the years lived with a disability for patients who suffered permanent disability, or more, due to preventable adverse events, and the years of life lost due to premature mortality was calculated for patients who died due to preventable adverse events. The economic cost was calculated using the main diagnostic codes of patients who suffered preventable adverse events, identified as prolonged hospitalization in PSII, and the average medical cost by disease category and age group.

RESULTS

Estimates of DALYs due to preventable adverse events were 1,114.4 DALYs per 100,000 population for the minimum standard and 1,658.5 DALYs per 100,000 population for the maximum standard. Compared to the 2015 Korea Burden of Disease results, the ranking of DALYs due to preventable adverse events was sixth for the minimum standard and third for the maximum standard. The annual medical cost of adverse events in 2016 was estimated to be approximately Korean Republic Won (KRW) 870 billion (700 million US dollars). Medical expenses due to preventable adverse events were calculated to be approximately KRW 150 billion (120 million US dollars) as a minimum standard and approximately KRW 300 billion (240 million US dollars) as a maximum standard.

CONCLUSION

If this more standard method of systematically calculating the disease burden due to adverse events is used, it will be possible to compare the size of the patient safety problem with that of other diseases. The results of this study indicate that we still need to pay more attention to the issue of patient safety.

Development of the Korean Patient Safety Incidents Code Classification System

OBJECTIVES

Attempts to understand patient safety using administrative data in Korea have been rare. This study develops a Korean patient safety incident code classification system and identifies its characteristics to boost diagnosis code usage for assessing patient safety.

METHODS

Based on existing literature, we selected Korean Standard Classification of Diseases 7 codes for characterizing patient safety incidents using diagnosis codes. We conducted 2 rounds of review to evaluate the codes applicability to different patient safety incidents using the Delphi method. The verified diagnosis codes were then classified by incident type.

RESULTS

Of the 54,259 Korean Standard Classification of Diseases 7 codes, 4509 were applicable for Korean patients, which were divided into 2435 code groups and 2074 candidate groups. The codes were classified into 6 categories (diagnosis, medication, patient care, operation or procedure, infection related, and other) and then further classified into 35 subcategories. The major categories of patient safety incidents, in the order of frequency, involved medication, fluid and blood related (1719, 38.1%), operation and procedure related (1339, 29.7%), and patient care related (991, 22.0%). Meanwhile, there were only 2 codes related to diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides a basis for estimating patient safety incidents using diagnosis codes. We suggest that gradually increasing the utilization and accuracy of the patient safety incident codes will help develop effective patient safety indicators in Korea similar to other countries. Moreover, clinicians are also needed to be aware of using the developed code classification system.