There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract Objective To systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched. Review methods Observational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated. Results Of the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337 025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10). Conclusions Around one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.
Since 2001, the University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) has fully disclosed and offered compensation to patients for medical errors. To compare liability claims and costs before and after implementation of the UMHS disclosure-with-offer program. Retrospective before-after analysis from 1995 to 2007. Public academic medical center and health system. Inpatients and outpatients involved in claims made to UMHS. Number of new claims for compensation, number of claims compensated, time to claim resolution, and claims-related costs. After full implementation of a disclosure-with-offer program, the average monthly rate of new claims decreased from 7.03 to 4.52 per 100,000 patient encounters (rate ratio [RR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.95]). The average monthly rate of lawsuits decreased from 2.13 to 0.75 per 100,000 patient encounters (RR, 0.35 [CI, 0.22 to 0.58]). Median time from claim reporting to resolution decreased from 1.36 to 0.95 years. Average monthly cost rates decreased for total liability (RR, 0.41 [CI, 0.26 to 0.66]), patient compensation (RR, 0.41 [CI, 0.26 to 0.67]), and non-compensation-related legal costs (RR, 0.39 [CI, 0.22 to 0.67]). The study design cannot establish causality. Malpractice claims generally declined in Michigan during the latter part of the study period. The findings might not apply to other health systems, given that UMHS has a closed staff model covered by a captive insurance company and often assumes legal responsibility. The UMHS implemented a program of full disclosure of medical errors with offers of compensation without increasing its total claims and liability costs. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Foundation.
In a previous paper we reported that 10.8% of patients admitted to two large hospitals in Greater London experienced one or more adverse events, of which half were deemed preventable. Here we examine the underlying causes of errors in clinical practice. Rather than identifying specific errors made by individuals, we have looked at possible faults in the organization of care. Adverse events were grouped according to stages in the care process: diagnosis, preoperative assessment and care, operative or invasive procedure (including anaesthesia), ward management, use of drugs and intravenous fluids and discharge from hospital. Less than 20% of preventable adverse events were directly related to surgical operations or invasive procedures and less than 10% to misdiagnoses. 53% of preventable adverse events occurred in general ward care (including initial assessment and the use of drugs and intravenous fluids) and 18% in care at the time of discharge. Probable contributory factors in these errors included dependence on diagnoses made by inexperienced clinicians, poor records, poor communication between professional carers, inadequate input by consultants into day-to-day care, and lack of detailed assessment of patients before discharge.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.