Objective To identify features of clinical decision support systems critical for improving clinical practice. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Literature searches via Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to 2003; and searches of reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. Study selection Studies had to evaluate the ability of decision support systems to improve clinical practice. Data extraction Studies were assessed for statistically and clinically significant improvement in clinical practice and for the presence of 15 decision support system features whose importance had been repeatedly suggested in the literature. Results Seventy studies were included. Decision support systems significantly improved clinical practice in 68% of trials. Univariate analyses revealed that, for five of the system features, interventions possessing the feature were significantly more likely to improve clinical practice than interventions lacking the feature. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified four features as independent predictors of improved clinical practice: automatic provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow (P Conclusions Several features were closely correlated with decision support systems9 ability to improve patient care significantly. Clinicians and other stakeholders should implement clinical decision support systems that incorporate these features whenever feasible and appropriate.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/330/7494/765.full.pdf

Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success

Background: Research into adverse events (AEs) has highlighted the need to improve patient safety. AEs are unintended injuries or complications resulting in death, disability or prolonged hospital stay that arise from health care management. We estimated the incidence of AEs among patients in Canadian acute care hospitals. Methods: We randomly selected 1 teaching, 1 large community and 2 small community hospitals in each of 5 provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia) and reviewed a random sample of charts for nonpsychiatric, nonobstetric adult patients in each hospital for the fiscal year 2000. Trained reviewers screened all eligible charts, and physicians reviewed the positively screened charts to identify AEs and determine their preventability. Results: At least 1 screening criterion was identified in 1527 (40.8%) of 3745 charts. The physician reviewers identified AEs in 255 of the charts. After adjustment for the sampling strategy, the AE rate was 7.5 per 100 hospital admissions (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7– 9.3). Among the patients with AEs, events judged to be preventable occurred in 36.9% (95% CI 32.0%–41.8%) and death in 20.8% (95% CI 7.8%–33.8%). Physician reviewers estimated that 1521 additional hospital days were associated with AEs. Although men and women experienced equal rates of AEs, patients who had AEs were significantly older than those who did not (mean age [and standard deviation] 64.9 [16.7] v. 62.0 [18.4] years; p = 0.016). Interpretation: The overall incidence rate of AEs of 7.5% in our study suggests that, of the almost 2.5 million annual hospital admissions in Canada similar to the type studied, about 185 000 are associated with an AE and close to 70 000 of these are potentially preventable.

/pdf/the-canadian-adverse-events-study-the-incidence-of-adverse-4ip66k5tbq.pdf

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

Introduction: Adverse events in hospitals constitute a serious problem with grave consequences. Many studies have been conducted to gain an insight into this problem, but a general overview of the data is lacking. We performed a systematic review of the literature on inhospital adverse events. Methods: A formal search of Embase, Cochrane and Medline was performed. Studies were reviewed independently for methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and endpoints. Primary endpoints were incidence of in-hospital adverse events and percentage of preventability. Secondary endpoints were adverse event outcome and subdivision by provider of care, location and type of event. Results: Eight studies including a total of 74 485 patient records were selected. The median overall incidence of inhospital adverse events was 9.2%, with a median percentage of preventability of 43.5%. More than half (56.3%) of patients experienced no or minor disability, whereas 7.4% of events were lethal. Operation- (39.6%) and medication-related (15.1%) events constituted the majority. We present a summary of evidence-based interventions aimed at these categories of events. Conclusions: Adverse events during hospital admission affect nearly one out of 10 patients. A substantial part of these events are preventable. Since a large proportion of the in-hospital events are operation- or drug-related, interventions aimed at preventing these events have the potential to make a substantial difference.

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/17/3/216.full.pdf

The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review

http://www.atulgawande.com/documents/Analysisoferrorsreportedbysurgeonsatthreeteachinghospitals.pdf

Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals

Objective To determine the prevalence of depression and burnout among residents in paediatrics and to establish if a relation exists between these disorders and medication errors

Design Prospective cohort study

Setting Three urban freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States

Participants 123 residents in three paediatric residency programmes

Main outcome measures Prevalence of depression using the Harvard national depression screening day scale, burnout using the Maslach burnout inventory, and rate of medication errors per resident month

Results 24 (20%) of the participating residents met the criteria for depression and 92 (74%) met the criteria for burnout Active surveillance yielded 45 errors made by participants Depressed residents made 62 times as many medication errors per resident month as residents who were not depressed: 155 (95% confidence interval 057 to 422) compared with 025 (014 to 046, P<0001) Burnt out residents and non-burnt out residents made similar rates of errors per resident month: 045 (020 to 098) compared with 053 (021 to 133, P=02)

Conclusions Depression and burnout are major problems among residents in paediatrics Depressed residents made significantly more medical errors than their non-depressed peers; however, burnout did not seem to correlate with an increased rate of medical errors

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/336/7642/488.full.pdf

Rates of medication errors among depressed and burnt out residents: prospective cohort study.

Objectives: To examine the feasibility of detecting adverse events through record review in British hospitals and to make preliminary estimates of the incidence and costs of adverse events. Design: Retrospective review of 1014 medical and nursing records. Setting: Two acute hospitals in Greater London area. Main outcome measure: Number of adverse events. Results: 110 (10.8%) patients experienced an adverse event, with an overall rate of adverse events of 11.7% when multiple adverse events were included. About half of these events were judged preventable with ordinary standards of care. A third of adverse events led to moderate or greater disability or death. Conclusions: These results suggest that adverse events are a serious source of harm to patients and a large drain on NHS resources. Some are major events; others are frequent, minor events that go unnoticed in routine clinical care but together have massive economic consequences

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/322/7285/517.full.pdf

Adverse events in british hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review

Introduction Monitoring hospital mortality rates is widely recommended. However, the number of preventable deaths remains uncertain with estimates in England ranging from 840 to 40 000 per year, these being derived from studies that identified adverse events but not whether events contributed to death or shortened life expectancy of those affected.

Methods Retrospective case record reviews of 1000 adults who died in 2009 in 10 acute hospitals in England were undertaken. Trained physician reviewers estimated life expectancy on admission, to identified problems in care contributing to death and judged if deaths were preventable taking into account patients' overall condition at that time.

Results Reviewers judged 5.2% (95% CI 3.8% to 6.6%) of deaths as having a 50% or greater chance of being preventable. The principal problems associated with preventable deaths were poor clinical monitoring (31.3%; 95% CI 23.9 to 39.7), diagnostic errors (29.7%; 95% CI 22.5% to 38.1%), and inadequate drug or fluid management (21.1%; 95% CI 14.9 to 29.0). Extrapolating from these figures suggests there would have been 11 859 (95% CI 8712 to 14 983) adult preventable deaths in hospitals in England. Most preventable deaths (60%) occurred in elderly, frail patients with multiple comorbidities judged to have had less than 1 year of life left to live.

Conclusions The incidence of preventable hospital deaths is much lower than previous estimates. The burden of harm from preventable problems in care is still substantial. A focus on deaths may not be the most efficient approach to identify opportunities for improvement given the low proportion of deaths due to problems with healthcare.

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/21/9/737.full.pdf

Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a retrospective case record review study

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.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014107680109400702

Exploring the causes of adverse events in NHS hospital practice.

Background: Over the past five years, in most hospitals in England and Wales, incident reporting has become well established but it remains unclear how well reports match clinical adverse events. International epidemiological studies of adverse events are based on retrospective, multi-hospital case record review. In this paper the authors describe the use of incident reporting, pharmacist surveillance and local real-time record review for the recognition of clinical risks associated with hospital inpatient care.

Methodology: Data on adverse events were collected prospectively on 288 patients discharged from adult acute medical and surgical units in an NHS district general hospital using incident reports, active surveillance of prescription charts by pharmacists and record review at time of discharge.

Results: Record review detected 26 adverse events (AEs) and 40 potential adverse events (PAEs) occurring during the index admission. In contrast, in the same patient group, incident reporting detected 11 PAEs and no AEs. Pharmacy surveillance found 10 medication errors all of which were PAEs. There was little overlap in the nature of events detected by the three methods.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that incident reporting does not provide an adequate assessment of clinical adverse events and that this method needs to be supplemented with other more systematic forms of data collection. Structured record review, carried out by clinicians, provides an important component of an integrated approach to identifying risk in the context of developing a safety and quality improvement programme.

/pdf/hospital-staff-should-use-more-than-one-method-to-detect-4srnapc10o.pdf

Hospital staff should use more than one method to detect adverse events and potential adverse events: incident reporting, pharmacist surveillance and local real-time record review may all have a place

Objectives: To redesign the existing clinical review form (RF2) used in previous retrospective case record review studies in order to clarify the review process and provide a more powerful analysis of adverse events; and then to ask clinicians to pilot and evaluate the new modular review form (MRF2). The review form is divided into five sections, each with a defined purpose, providing a modular structure. 

Design: Design and testing of the MRF2 on a sample of medical and nursing records, and evaluation of the reviewers' responses regarding the new review form. 

Setting: Hospital based teams from eight countries. 

Results: The modular review form was reported to be comprehensive, well structured, and clear. Most of the reviewers agreed with the positive statements regarding the review form. Overall, the modular structure was thought to be helpful. Several modifications have been made to the final version to take account of criticisms and suggestions. 

Conclusions: The full potential of case record review has yet to be explored. The benefits of this review form include a modular format which enables reviewers or project leaders to select the focus of their review based on resources and the purpose of the review, and to identify contributory factors which indicate areas for improvement and prevention. The training of reviewers is of vital importance for record review. Record review remains one of the primary methods for assessing the incidence of adverse events and the new format is suitable for both prospective and retrospective review.

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/12/6/411.full.pdf

Graham Neale

Papers

Adverse events in british hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review

Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a retrospective case record review study

Exploring the causes of adverse events in NHS hospital practice.

Hospital staff should use more than one method to detect adverse events and potential adverse events: incident reporting, pharmacist surveillance and local real-time record review may all have a place

Case record review of adverse events: a new approach