Cargando…

To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?

BACKGROUND: Patient record review is believed to be the most useful method for estimating the rate of adverse events among hospitalised patients. However, the method has some practical and financial disadvantages. Some of these disadvantages might be overcome by using existing reporting systems in w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Christiaans-Dingelhoff, Ingrid, Smits, Marleen, Zwaan, Laura, Lubberding, Sanne, van der Wal, Gerrit, Wagner, Cordula
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21356056
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-49
_version_ 1782200402580602880
author Christiaans-Dingelhoff, Ingrid
Smits, Marleen
Zwaan, Laura
Lubberding, Sanne
van der Wal, Gerrit
Wagner, Cordula
author_facet Christiaans-Dingelhoff, Ingrid
Smits, Marleen
Zwaan, Laura
Lubberding, Sanne
van der Wal, Gerrit
Wagner, Cordula
author_sort Christiaans-Dingelhoff, Ingrid
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient record review is believed to be the most useful method for estimating the rate of adverse events among hospitalised patients. However, the method has some practical and financial disadvantages. Some of these disadvantages might be overcome by using existing reporting systems in which patient safety issues are already reported, such as incidents reported by healthcare professionals and complaints and medico-legal claims filled by patients or their relatives. The aim of the study is to examine to what extent the hospital reporting systems cover the adverse events identified by patient record review. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using a database from a record review study of 5375 patient records in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands. Trained nurses and physicians using a method based on the protocol of The Harvard Medical Practice Study previously reviewed the records. Four reporting systems were linked with the database of reviewed records: 1) informal and 2) formal complaints by patients/relatives, 3) medico-legal claims by patients/relatives and 4) incident reports by healthcare professionals. For each adverse event identified in patient records the equivalent was sought in these reporting systems by comparing dates and descriptions of the events. The study focussed on the number of adverse event matches, overlap of adverse events detected by different sources, preventability and severity of consequences of reported and non-reported events and sensitivity and specificity of reports. RESULTS: In the sample of 5375 patient records, 498 adverse events were identified. Only 18 of the 498 (3.6%) adverse events identified by record review were found in one or more of the four reporting systems. There was some overlap: one adverse event had an equivalent in both a complaint and incident report and in three cases a patient/relative used two or three systems to complain about an adverse event. Healthcare professionals reported relatively more preventable adverse events than patients. Reports are not sensitive for adverse events nor do reports have a positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: In order to detect the same adverse events as identified by patient record review, one cannot rely on the existing reporting systems within hospitals.
format Text
id pubmed-3059299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30592992011-03-17 To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports? Christiaans-Dingelhoff, Ingrid Smits, Marleen Zwaan, Laura Lubberding, Sanne van der Wal, Gerrit Wagner, Cordula BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Patient record review is believed to be the most useful method for estimating the rate of adverse events among hospitalised patients. However, the method has some practical and financial disadvantages. Some of these disadvantages might be overcome by using existing reporting systems in which patient safety issues are already reported, such as incidents reported by healthcare professionals and complaints and medico-legal claims filled by patients or their relatives. The aim of the study is to examine to what extent the hospital reporting systems cover the adverse events identified by patient record review. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using a database from a record review study of 5375 patient records in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands. Trained nurses and physicians using a method based on the protocol of The Harvard Medical Practice Study previously reviewed the records. Four reporting systems were linked with the database of reviewed records: 1) informal and 2) formal complaints by patients/relatives, 3) medico-legal claims by patients/relatives and 4) incident reports by healthcare professionals. For each adverse event identified in patient records the equivalent was sought in these reporting systems by comparing dates and descriptions of the events. The study focussed on the number of adverse event matches, overlap of adverse events detected by different sources, preventability and severity of consequences of reported and non-reported events and sensitivity and specificity of reports. RESULTS: In the sample of 5375 patient records, 498 adverse events were identified. Only 18 of the 498 (3.6%) adverse events identified by record review were found in one or more of the four reporting systems. There was some overlap: one adverse event had an equivalent in both a complaint and incident report and in three cases a patient/relative used two or three systems to complain about an adverse event. Healthcare professionals reported relatively more preventable adverse events than patients. Reports are not sensitive for adverse events nor do reports have a positive predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: In order to detect the same adverse events as identified by patient record review, one cannot rely on the existing reporting systems within hospitals. BioMed Central 2011-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3059299/ /pubmed/21356056 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-49 Text en Copyright ©2011 Christiaans-Dingelhoff et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Christiaans-Dingelhoff, Ingrid
Smits, Marleen
Zwaan, Laura
Lubberding, Sanne
van der Wal, Gerrit
Wagner, Cordula
To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?
title To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?
title_full To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?
title_fullStr To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?
title_full_unstemmed To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?
title_short To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?
title_sort to what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21356056
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-49
work_keys_str_mv AT christiaansdingelhoffingrid towhatextentareadverseeventsfoundinpatientrecordsreportedbypatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsviacomplaintsclaimsandincidentreports
AT smitsmarleen towhatextentareadverseeventsfoundinpatientrecordsreportedbypatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsviacomplaintsclaimsandincidentreports
AT zwaanlaura towhatextentareadverseeventsfoundinpatientrecordsreportedbypatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsviacomplaintsclaimsandincidentreports
AT lubberdingsanne towhatextentareadverseeventsfoundinpatientrecordsreportedbypatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsviacomplaintsclaimsandincidentreports
AT vanderwalgerrit towhatextentareadverseeventsfoundinpatientrecordsreportedbypatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsviacomplaintsclaimsandincidentreports
AT wagnercordula towhatextentareadverseeventsfoundinpatientrecordsreportedbypatientsandhealthcareprofessionalsviacomplaintsclaimsandincidentreports