Families as Partners in Hospital Error and Adverse Event Surveillance

Importance

Medical errors and adverse events (AEs) are common among hospitalized children. While clinician reports are the foundation of operational hospital safety surveillance and a key component of multifaceted research surveillance, patient and family reports are not routinely gathered. We hypothesized that a novel family-reporting mechanism would improve incident detection.

Objective

To compare error and AE rates (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs clinicians, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a prospective cohort study including the parents/caregivers of 989 hospitalized patients 17 years and younger (total 3902 patient-days) and their clinicians from December 2014 to July 2015 in 4 US pediatric centers. Clinician abstractors identified potential errors and AEs by reviewing medical records, hospital incident reports, and clinician reports as well as weekly and discharge Family Safety Interviews (FSIs). Two physicians reviewed and independently categorized all incidents, rating severity and preventability (agreement, 68%-90%; κ, 0.50-0.68). Discordant categorizations were reconciled. Rates were generated using Poisson regression estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures on the same patient.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Error and AE rates.

Results

Overall, 746 parents/caregivers consented for the study. Of these, 717 completed FSIs. Their median (interquartile range) age was 32.5 (26-40) years; 380 (53.0%) were nonwhite, 566 (78.9%) were female, 603 (84.1%) were English speaking, and 380 (53.0%) had attended college. Of 717 parents/caregivers completing FSIs, 185 (25.8%) reported a total of 255 incidents, which were classified as 132 safety concerns (51.8%), 102 nonsafety-related quality concerns (40.0%), and 21 other concerns (8.2%). These included 22 preventable AEs (8.6%), 17 nonharmful medical errors (6.7%), and 11 nonpreventable AEs (4.3%) on the study unit. In total, 179 errors and 113 AEs were identified from all sources. Family reports included 8 otherwise unidentified AEs, including 7 preventable AEs. Error rates with family reporting (45.9 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-1.2) higher than rates without family reporting (39.7 per 1000 patient-days). Adverse event rates with family reporting (28.7 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.1-fold (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = .006) higher than rates without (26.1 per 1000 patient-days). Families and clinicians reported similar rates of errors (10.0 vs 12.8 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 0.8; 95% CI, .5-1.2) and AEs (8.5 vs 6.2 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2). Family-reported error rates were 5.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-13.0) higher and AE rates 2.9-fold (95% CI, 1.2-6.7) higher than hospital incident report rates.

Conclusions and Relevance

Families provide unique information about hospital safety and should be included in hospital safety surveillance in order to facilitate better design and assessment of interventions to improve safety.

Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program

BACKGROUND

Miscommunications are a leading cause of serious medical errors. Data from multicenter studies assessing programs designed to improve handoff of information about patient care are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective intervention study of a resident handoff-improvement program in nine hospitals, measuring rates of medical errors, preventable adverse events, and miscommunications, as well as resident workflow. The intervention included a mnemonic to standardize oral and written handoffs, handoff and communication training, a faculty development and observation program, and a sustainability campaign. Error rates were measured through active surveillance. Handoffs were assessed by means of evaluation of printed handoff documents and audio recordings. Workflow was assessed through time-motion observations. The primary outcome had two components: medical errors and preventable adverse events.

RESULTS

In 10,740 patient admissions, the medical-error rate decreased by 23% from the preintervention period to the postintervention period (24.5 vs. 18.8 per 100 admissions, P<0.001), and the rate of preventable adverse events decreased by 30% (4.7 vs. 3.3 events per 100 admissions, P<0.001). The rate of nonpreventable adverse events did not change significantly (3.0 and 2.8 events per 100 admissions, P=0.79). Site-level analyses showed significant error reductions at six of nine sites. Across sites, significant increases were observed in the inclusion of all prespecified key elements in written documents and oral communication during handoff (nine written and five oral elements; P<0.001 for all 14 comparisons). There were no significant changes from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the duration of oral handoffs (2.4 and 2.5 minutes per patient, respectively; P=0.55) or in resident workflow, including patient-family contact and computer time.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the handoff program was associated with reductions in medical errors and in preventable adverse events and with improvements in communication, without a negative effect on workflow. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and others.).

Breathlessness in spinal cord injury depends on injury level

Little is known about the prevalence and predictors of breathlessness in individuals with neurologically complete chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). Between December 1992 and September 1993, we mailed a respiratory questionnaire to 1,147 community-based individuals with chronic SCI. The questionnaire included four questions about the presence of breathlessness during activities related to moving about. Of the 485 who replied (42 percent response rate), analysis was limited to adult males with neurologically complete motor injuries who reported using a hand-propelled wheelchair more than 50 percent of the time to get around. Of 130 subjects (33 tetraplegics, 53 high thoracic SCI, 44 lower injury levels), the patients with tetraplegia reported breathlessness more frequently (range for the four questions, 21-33%) than those with high thoracic (range, 9-15%) or lower injury levels (range, 2-11%). For each of the four questions there was a significant trend (p < 0.05) for subjects with higher levels of injury to report the greatest prevalence of breathlessness (tetraplegia > high thoracic > lower). The frequency of breathlessness was greatest in those with neurologically complete cervical injuries, an effect that was independent of obesity, smoking, age, and years since SCI. The mechanisms of breathlessness in SCI are unclear but elucidation might lead to strategies for providing relief.

Breathlessness and exercise in spinal cord injury

After spinal cord injury (SCI), breathlessness during daily activities is common. In 308 individuals with SCI, the authors measured pulmonary function and administered a survey regarding health status, participation in wheelchair athletics, and breathlessness during different activities. The following questions were included: A. Are you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on the level or going up a slight hill?; B. Do you have to go slower than people of your own age on the level because of breathlessness?; C. Do you ever have to stop for breath when going at your own pace on the level?; and D. Do you ever have to stop for breath after going about 100 yards on the level? The analysis was restricted to 183 subjects with neurologically motor complete or incomplete SCI who, to get around, used hand-propelled wheelchairs more than 50% of the time. Of these, 56 (31%) reported breathlessness during some types of activities. Subjects with neurologically motor complete cervical or high thoracic SCI (T-6 and above) were more likely to report breathlessness than others (39% compared with 25%, p = .039). Among wheelchair athletes, the prevalence of breathlessness was 8/49 (16%) versus 48/134 (36%) for non-athletes (p = .011). Adjusting for smoking, neurological level, and history of obstructive lung disease, non-athletes were 2.3 times more likely to report breathlessness than athletes were (p = .049 to .075, depending on regression model). This relationship persisted when adjusted for percent predicted forced expiratory volume (FEV1) and maximal expiratory and inspiratory pressures. Therefore in SCI, wheelchair athletes are less likely to report breathlessness than non-athletes, but the mechanism does not appear to be improvement in respiratory muscle performance or pulmonary function.