69
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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 I 2 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references100

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Critical Care Safety Study: The incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care.

          Critically ill patients require high-intensity care and may be at especially high risk of iatrogenic injury because they are severely ill. We sought to study the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious errors in the critical care setting. We conducted a prospective 1-year observational study. Incidents were collected with use of a multifaceted approach including direct continuous observation. Two physicians independently assessed incident type, severity, and preventability as well as systems-related and individual performance failures. Academic, tertiary-care urban hospital. Medical intensive care unit and coronary care unit patients. None. The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence and rates of adverse events and serious errors per 1000 patient-days. A total of 391 patients with 420 unit admissions were studied during 1490 patient-days. We found 120 adverse events in 79 patients (20.2%), including 66 (55%) nonpreventable and 54 (45%) preventable adverse events as well as 223 serious errors. The rates per 1000 patient-days for all adverse events, preventable adverse events, and serious errors were 80.5, 36.2, and 149.7, respectively. Among adverse events, 13% (16/120) were life-threatening or fatal; and among serious errors, 11% (24/223) were potentially life-threatening. Most serious medical errors occurred during the ordering or execution of treatments, especially medications (61%; 170/277). Performance level failures were most commonly slips and lapses (53%; 148/277), rather than rule-based or knowledge-based mistakes. Adverse events and serious errors involving critically ill patients were common and often potentially life-threatening. Although many types of errors were identified, failure to carry out intended treatment correctly was the leading category.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis.

            Meta-analysis may be used to estimate an overall effect across a number of similar studies. A number of statistical techniques are currently used to combine individual study results. The simplest of these is based on a fixed effects model, which assumes the true effect is the same for all studies. A random effects model, however, allows the true effect to vary across studies, with the mean true effect the parameter of interest. We consider three methods currently used for estimation within the framework of a random effects model, and illustrate them by applying each method to a collection of six studies on the effect of aspirin after myocardial infarction. These methods are compared using estimated coverage probabilities of confidence intervals for the overall effect. The techniques considered all generally have coverages below the nominal level, and in particular it is shown that the commonly used DerSimonian and Laird method does not adequately reflect the error associated with parameter estimation, especially when the number of studies is small. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: senior lecturer
                Role: PhD candidate
                Role: lecturer
                Role: postdoctoral research associate
                Role: lecturer
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: chair
                Role: foundation year 2 doctor
                Role: dean
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2019
                17 July 2019
                : 366
                : l4185
                Affiliations
                [1 ]NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
                [2 ]Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [3 ]Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [4 ]Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: M Panagioti maria.panagioti@ 123456manchester.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7153-5745
                Article
                panm046422
                10.1136/bmj.l4185
                6939648
                31315828
                04e123f1-ef71-4420-a26a-6a45de6f2bc8
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 30 May 2019
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article