COURSE PRICE: $30.00
CONTACT HOURS: 4
Approval of physical therapy CE varies by state. You are responsible for obtaining approval from your licensing agency before taking the course if you want the course to count towards meeting your CE requirements. Read our PT Course Approvals FAQ for more information.
The planners and authors of this CE activity have disclosed no relevant financial relationships with any commercial companies pertaining to this activity.
Nancy Evans is a health science writer and editor with more than three decades of experience in healthcare publishing. She served as senior editor at Mosby/Times Mirror, senior editor in the health sciences division of Addison-Wesley, and senior medical editor at Appleton & Lange. She is an honorary member of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing. A breast cancer survivor since 1991, she currently works with Breast Cancer Fund as health science consultant. She has written and spoken extensively on breast cancer issues in the United States, Canada, Belgium, and New Zealand. Nancy co-produced (with Allie Light and Irving Saraf) the HBO documentary film Rachel's Daughters: Searching for the Causes of Breast Cancer. She is also the co-producer (with Light and Saraf) of Children and Asthma, a KQED documentary film, and the documentary, Good Food, Bad Food: Obesity in American Children.
Copyright © 2008 Wild Iris Medical Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Upon completion of this course, you will be able to:
In 1999 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) revealed an epidemic of medical errors in the United States, an epidemic that injures 1 in every 25 hospital patients and is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year. Medical errors are more deadly than breast cancer, motor vehicle accidents, or AIDS. The Institute of Medicine's To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System reports that medical errors cost the economy as much as $29 billion each year (IOM, 1999).
To Err Is Human made headlines across the country, capturing the attention of the public and the healthcare industry. From local hospitals and clinics to state and federal agencies, reducing or eliminating medical errors became a high priority. Four examples follow:
In 2007 the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a new rule that gave hospitals a powerful incentive to reduce medical errors. This rule denies reimbursement to hospitals for treatment of preventable errors, injuries, and infections (see box). It also stipulates that hospitals cannot pass these charges along to the beneficiary. This rule was mandated by the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act and took effect in October 2008 (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2007).
PREVENTABLE COMPLICATIONS NO LONGER COVERED BY MEDICARE
The following preventable complications will no longer be reimbursed by Medicare if acquired during an inpatient stay:
Source: Federal Register 2007; 72:47379–47428.
If private insurers follow Medicare's lead on refusal to pay for treatment of preventable errors, it could further benefit patient safety.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has shown that medical errors result most frequently from systems errors—the organization of healthcare delivery and the ways resources are provided in the delivery system. Only rarely are medical errors the result of the carelessness or misconduct of a single individual.
Donald Berwick, MD, president and CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, points out:
Errors are not a "bad apple" problem where a handful of doctors or other medical personnel are the culprits and need to be rooted out or disciplined. Rather it is a systemic problem, where healthcare systems actually produce conditions that lead people to make mistakes or fail to prevent them. This means that we need rigorous changes throughout the entire healthcare system that will make it harder for people to do something wrong and easier for them to do things right. (IOM, 2005)
The Joint Commission (JCAHO) reports that accredited U.S. hospitals "continue to show measurable improvements in healthcare quality and patient safety," but there is still much room for improvement (2007).
The public and healthcare providers agree, and are impatient with the pace of change. In a Commonwealth Fund survey of 12,000 adults in seven countries, U.S. adults were the most likely to report medical errors. One-third of adults with multiple chronic conditions reported either a medical error or a medication error (wrong dosage or wrong drug) during the past year (Schoen et al., 2007). According to the National Quality Forum (NQF), "systematic, national improvement in patient safety still remains uncoordinated and based on efforts that are driven by individual healthcare organizations, systems, or states, and improvement is not occurring in a unified national fashion."
A survey of hospitals in Missouri and Utah in 2002 and 2004 showed that although three-quarters of hospitals reported implementing a written patient safety plan, about one-tenth reported having no written plan at all. Only a third of the hospitals had fully implemented computerized physician order entry (CPOE) for prescription drugs by 2004, and only 3 percent of the hospitals implementing CPOE required physicians to use them. According to the researchers, "Quality systems are improving, but such change takes time, progress is slow, and the gap between the best possible care and actual care remains large" (Longo et al., 2005).
Errors can occur at any point in the healthcare delivery system. Acknowledging that errors happen, learning from them, and working to prevent future errors represents a major change in the culture of healthcare—a shift from blame and punishment to analysis of the root causes of errors and creation of strategies to improve. In other words, healthcare organizations need to create a culture of safety that views medical errors as opportunities to improve the system. Every person on the healthcare team has a role in making healthcare safer for patients and workers.
The IOM report defines an error as "the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (i.e., error of execution) or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (i.e., error of planning)."
An adverse event (AE) is an injury caused by medical management rather than the underlying condition of the patient. An AE attributable to error is a preventable adverse event, also called a sentinel event, because it signals the need to ask why the error occurred and make changes in the system.
Research on why humans make errors (Reason, 1990) has identified two types of errors: active and latent. Active errors tend to occur at the level of the individual, and their effects are felt almost immediately. Latent errors are more likely to be beyond the control of the individual, that is, they are errors in system or process design, faulty installation or maintenance of equipment, or ineffective organizational structure.
The effects of latent errors may not appear for months or even years but they can lead to a cascade of active errors, ending in catastrophe. For example, an undetected design flaw in an airplane (a latent error) may, years after the aircraft was built, cause the pilot to lose control of the plane (an active error) and result in a crash.
Close calls or near misses are potential adverse events, errors that could have caused harm but did not, either by chance or because something or someone in the system intervened. For example, a nurse who recognizes a potential drug overdose in a physician's prescription and does not administer the drug but instead calls the error to the physician's attention has prevented an adverse drug event (ADE). Close calls provide opportunities for developing preventive strategies and actions, and should receive the same level of scrutiny as AEs.
Surgical errors, or surgical adverse events include wrong-site, wrong-procedure, or wrong-person surgery and account for a high percentage of all AEs. A study of hospitals in Colorado and Utah found that surgical AEs accounted for two-thirds of all AEs and 1 of 8 hospital deaths (Gawande et al., 1999).
A review by the Joint Commission found that wrong-site surgery was most common in orthopedic procedures. Risk factors contributing to the error included: more than one surgeon involved in the case, multiple procedures performed during a single operating room visit, and unusual time pressures—particularly pressure to speed up preoperative procedures.
Surgical errors, such as wrong-site, wrong-procedure, or wrong-person surgery, are not the sole responsibility of the operating surgeon. All operating room personnel have a role in ensuring patient safety by verifying the surgical site and pointing out a possible error. To reduce the risk of wrong-site, wrong-procedure, or wrong-person surgeries, the Joint Commission developed a Universal Protocol, which all accredited healthcare organizations were required to implement by July 2004 (JCAHO, 2004).
Competent nursing care, including adequate RN staffing, following surgical procedures is critical. A study of Pennsylvania hospitals found that hospitals with higher proportions of nurses educated at the baccalaureate level or higher had lower rates of postoperative mortality and failure-to-rescue (deaths of patients with serious complications) (Aiken et al., 2003). A meta-analysis of 28 studies found that increased RN staffing lowered the odds of hospital mortality and all adverse patient events (Kane et al., 2007).
An accurate diagnosis is the first requirement for correct and effective treatment. Inaccurate diagnosis may delay treatment or result in incorrect, ineffective treatment or unnecessary tests, which can prove costly and invasive. Inexperience with a difficult diagnostic procedure can affect the accuracy of the results. For example, University of Pittsburgh researchers found that up to 12 percent of reviewed specimen pairs had an erroneous diagnosis, primarily due to suboptimal specimen collecting. Nearly 40 percent of those errors resulted in harm to patients (Raab et al., 2005).
Misdiagnosis is a major factor contributing to delays in treatment, according to JCAHO (2002). Hospital emergency departments accounted for just over one-half of all sentinel-event cases of patient death or permanent injury due to delays in treatment. However, these serious events also happen in other healthcare settings, including intensive-care units, medical-surgical units, inpatient psychiatric hospitals, the operating room, and the home care setting. Fifty-two of the 55 reported cases of delays in treatment resulted in patient death.
Medication errors are one of the most common types of error, and are of primary concern to nurses who administer medications, practitioners who prescribe them, and pharmacists who dispense them. Medication errors are called preventable ADEs.
In 2005 U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) reported that MEDMARX, the largest nongovernmental database of medication errors, has received more than 1million medication error records since the program's inception in 1998. About half of the reported errors reached the patient; however, 98 percent resulted in no harm (USP, 2005). Nevertheless, medication errors harm more than 1.5 million patients each year (IOM, 2006). Deaths from medication errors nearly tripled between 1998 and 2005 (Moore-Cohen-Furberg, 2007).
According to the IOM (2006), medication errors occur most frequently in prescribing and administering. These errors include:
According to USP's frequently asked questions (2005):
The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (2007) received multiple reports of mix-ups between insulin and heparin. In two cases where insulin was added to infant TPN solutions, death resulted. These mix-ups were most commonly associated with mental slips (confusion), because both drugs are dosed in 10 ml vials and packaged similarly. In addition, insulin and heparin vials are often placed next to each other on a counter or drug cart, or under a pharmacy IV admixture hood (ISMP, 2007).
One study funded by AHRQ in two tertiary-care hospitals found that errors in ordering medications accounted for 56 percent of preventable ADEs, while errors in administering medications accounted for 34 percent (Bates et al., 1995). A second study showed that dosage errors in particular were primarily due to the physician's lack of knowledge about the drug or about the patient for whom it was prescribed (Leape et al., 1995).
A later study to identify risk factors for preventable ADEs among patients admitted to medical and surgical units at two large hospitals found few such factors, suggesting that focusing on improving medication systems would prove more effective (Bates et al., 1999). Medication errors are covered in greater detail later in this course.
A variety of devices are used in healthcare settings, and the professionals who use them are often responsible for ordering and sometimes even repairing equipment in their facilities. The use of electrical stimulation, EMG, ultrasound, range-of-motion devices, lifts, wheelchairs, handheld and computerized testing equipment, whirlpools, exercise equipment, and other devices is common in physical therapy practice. Design flaws, misuse, and malfunction are all common causes of medical errors.
Data collected by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the late 1980s demonstrated that almost half of all medical device recalls resulted from design flaws. In 1990, Congress passed the Safe Medical Devices Act (SMDA), which requires that designs be "appropriate and address the intended use of the device, including the needs of the user and patient." The application of human factors principles during a device's design has been demonstrated to reduce user error (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
Under the SMDA, a facility (hospital, ambulatory surgical center, nursing home, or outpatient center) is required to report to the FDA anything that reasonably suggests that a medical device contributed to the death of a patient or caused serious injury or illness to a patient. Facilities are also required to submit a semi-annual report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services summarizing incidences of death, injury, and illness attributed to medical devices (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
A study involving thirty-five occupational therapists (OTs) in four states explored the concept of practice errors. The OTs identified the following items as examples of practice errors:
The participants also identified these practices as contributing to practice errors:
The results of the OT study add to the findings of the Institute of Medicine and other groups who are working to expand the definition of medical errors. Lack of a standardized nomenclature complicates the development of an effective industry-wide response. The term medication error was originally used to describe medication errors committed by doctors, nurses, and pharmacists. But this term clearly comes up short when the discussion turns to a host of practice errors not related to medications. Recall the Institute of Medicine's earlier definition of medical error: An error is defined as the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim.
To ensure consideration of all relevant issues related to medical errors, the Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (a federal entity overseen by the AHRQ), has expanded the definition as follows:
Under this expanded definition, patient safety encompasses three complementary activities: preventing errors, making errors visible, and mitigating the effects of errors. This broadening of the definition of medical errors is important because it acknowledges that practice errors are committed by all healthcare providers—not just nurses, pharmacists, and doctors.
Participants in the OT study reported they experienced strong emotional reactions to practice errors and also reported lasting changes in their own practice habits as a result of the errors. But, as with the USP report discussed earlier, in which almost one-third of the personnel involved with initiating or perpetuating an error were reportedly not informed of their involvement in the error event, errors are often not discussed with other medical professionals, nor are system-wide steps taken to prevent others from committing the same error.
Analysis of medical errors continues to show that human fallibility is only part of the picture. System failures are also guilty. In a major study, Leape and colleagues (1995) showed that failures at the system level—in disseminating pharmaceutical information, in checking drug dosages and patient identities, and in making patient information available—were the real culprits in more than 75 percent of adverse drug events. In 2005, Pauker and colleagues stated:
Most systems and most individuals resist change. Systems must have substantial inertia to make them stable, and medicine is no exception. In many ways, medicine is still a "cottage industry" of individuals (both clinical and administrative) who do things their own way, in their own silos. (Pauker et al., 2005)
Cost containment is a system-level factor that can affect medical errors. According to researchers at AHRQ, financial pressure at hospitals is associated with increases in the rate of AEs. Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) State Inpatient Data for Florida, they found that patients have significantly higher odds of experiencing AEs when hospital profit margins decline over time. These include nursing-related AEs, surgery-related AEs, and all likely preventable AEs (Encinosa-Bernard, 2005).
Cost containment measures that reduce staffing, particularly RN staffing, and thereby increase AEs, may prove to be a false economy. According to the Midwest Business Group on Health (Chalise, 2005), 30 percent of total healthcare costs result from poor-quality healthcare that includes medical errors.
Research on system failures that have led to major industrial disasters (Peterson, 1996) found that the systems had nine characteristics in common:
Healthcare systems with these characteristics create an unsafe environment for both patients and staff.
As the IOM acknowledges, "To err is human." However, research has shown that certain factors can increase the error rate (Reason, 1990):
Focusing on the multi-causal nature of errors does not alter the role of individual accountability for safe practice. In fact, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing has testified as follows:
Both systems liability for mistakes and individual accountability are important to protect the public. Absent individual accountability standards, practitioners who leave organizations after serious errors occur and are employed elsewhere will never receive necessary remediation or education to address human factors, thus compromising the safety of the patient. (Ridenour, 2000)
The safety of all patients is of paramount concern for all care providers. However, some patients—for example, the very young and the very old—are particularly vulnerable to the effects of medical errors, often due to their inability to participate actively as a member of the healthcare team, most commonly related to communication issues. Nurses and other care providers need to recognize the special needs of these patients and act accordingly.
The normal aging process commonly includes some degree of impairment in vision and hearing. Older people may also suffer varying degrees of cognitive impairment. Alone or in combination, these problems contribute to difficulties in communication between patients and care providers. Serious illness, accidents, or trauma such as surgery that require hospitalization add another layer of anxiety and possible confusion that can further interfere with communication between patients and care providers, potentially leading to errors.
Older patients are at special risk from medication errors, which can have life-threatening or even fatal effects due to the declining ability of the aging body to metabolize drugs. According to researchers from AHRQ and the National Center for Health Statistics, women 65 to 74 years of age had the highest incidence of ADEs (Zhan et al., 2005).
Visual, hearing, or cognitive problems may lead to misunderstanding of instructions or failure to question an incorrect or unfamiliar drug. When caring for older patients, communication with a responsible family member or other patient advocate is essential.
Older patients are also at high risk of falling. Reasons include medication effects, existing health problems such as arthritis, confusion or other cognitive deficit, or postural hypotension. Many older people need to use the bathroom during the night and need assistance to avoid falls.
The younger the patient, the greater the risk of serious medication errors with devastating effects. Weight-based dosing is required for almost all pediatric drugs, and errors often occur when physicians or pharmacists convert dosage from pounds (for adults) to kilograms (for children). The USP advises that parents should know their child's weight in kilograms and reconfirm with the doctor that the dosage is correct for that weight.
One research study in two urban teaching hospitals found that errors occurred in 5.7 percent of medication orders during the care of 1,120 pediatric patients admitted during 1999 (Kaushal et al., 2001). In addition, the rate of potential ADEs (close calls or near misses) was three times the rate of potential ADEs found in a similar study of hospitalized adults.
The researchers noted that physicians at both hospitals handwrote medication orders, copies of which were sent to the pharmacy. According to the researchers, computerized medication order entry and decision support (with automatic checks on patient drug allergies, drug dosage, and drug-drug interaction) could have prevented most of the potential ADEs, as could including clinical pharmacists in ward rounds. Nearly 80 percent of potential ADEs occurred in drug ordering, and 34 percent involved incorrect dosing.
Infants and young children do not have the communication abilities needed to alert clinicians about adverse effects that they experience. Infants, particularly newborns, are physiologically ill-equipped to deal with drug errors. Parents of infants and children need to be fully informed and involved in their child's care during hospitalization and must be educated to question caregivers about medications and procedures. The box below provides tips parents can use to ensure their child's safety and quality of care.
TIPS FOR PARENTS TO HELP PREVENT MEDICATION ERRORS
While medication errors can happen to any patient at any age, the consequences may be far more devastating when children are involved. With this in mind, USP offers parents the following tips to help prevent medication errors from happening to their children:
Source: AHRQ, 2002.
A decade ago, Israeli scientists published a study in which engineers observed patient care in ICUs for twenty-four-hour stretches. They found that the average patient required 178 individual actions per day, ranging from administering a drug to suctioning the lungs, and every one of them posed risks.
—ATUL GAWANDE, 2007
Intensive care units (ICUs) host the sickest patients whose conditions require extraordinarily complex care. These patients are more vulnerable to medical errors and more prone to injury. AHRQ researchers reported that more than 20 percent of patients admitted to two ICUs at a teaching hospital experienced an adverse event, almost half of which were preventable. A significant number of the AEs involved medication errors, most commonly a wrong-dose error. Most of the AEs occurred during routine care, not at admission or during an emergency (AHRQ, 2005b).
The complexity of care in the ICU can cause highly skilled clinicians to overlook the basics, leading to life-threatening, sometimes fatal misconnections, infections, and other complications. Patients in the ICU often have feeding tubes, chest drainage tubes, and central venous catheters, all of which require invasive procedures for placement. The most common types of AEs in the ICU involve these lines, tubes, and drains. One study found that nearly two-thirds of these line, tube and drain AEs are preventable, and that they occur more often during holidays, among children ages 1 to 9, and among patients with medically complex conditions.
According to the Joint Commission (2006), tubing and catheter misconnections are "a persistent and potentially deadly occurrence." Although misconnections are often caught and corrected before the patient is injured, these AEs can have life-threatening consequences. Nine sentinel events involving tubing misconnections have been reported to the Joint Commission, eight of which resulted in death, and the other in permanent loss of function. Patients affected included seven adults and two infants.
The U.S. Pharmacopeia's review of more than 300 cases of misconnections between 1999 and 2004 found that the AEs involved such errors as:
Luer connectors were implicated in many of the misconnections. These universal connectors have a "female" and a "male" component designed to lock together. Unfortunately, this universal design allows tubes or catheters with dissimilar function to be connected, with potentially disastrous results. Other factors contributing to misconnections include the routine use of tubes or catheters for unintended purposes, such as using IV extension tubing for epidurals, irrigation, drains, and central lines. In addition, movement of the patient from one setting to another, and staff fatigue related to working consecutive shifts contributed to these AEs.
Reducing or eliminating tube misconnections will require changes in purchasing, equipment design, and staff education. The Joint Commission recommends the steps outlined below.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE TUBE MISCONNECTIONS
In addition, the Joint Commission urges product manufacturers to implement "designed incompatability," as appropriate, to prevent dangerous misconnections of tubes and catheters.
Source: JCAHO, 2006.
Central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections are not only potentially fatal but also cost the healthcare system an estimated $2.3 billion each year (O'Grady, 2002). Preventing these dangerous oversights may have a low-cost, high-yield solution such as a simple checklist of evidence-based practices in infection control like handwashing and other fundamental procedures.
Provonost and colleagues (2006) demonstrated the dramatic value of using a checklist in ICU to ensure that basic protocols are followed. In a study of large and small hospitals in Michigan, researchers found that using the checklist of five evidence-based practices recommended by CDC reduced the infection rate by two-thirds (Provonost et al., 2006). These practices included handwashing, using full-barrier precautions during the insertion of central venous catheters, cleansing the skin with chlorhexidine, avoiding the femoral site if possible, and removing any unnecessary catheters.
Patients on ventilators are prone to bacterial pneumonia as well as development of stomach ulcers. Resar and colleagues (2005) found that use of a checklist that included a "bundle" of evidence-based care processes,* such as propping up the patient's bed at least 30 degrees (to prevent aspiration of oral secretions) and administering antacid medications (to prevent stomach ulcers), reduced the incidence of pneumonias in ventilator patients by one-fourth and reduced length of stay in ICU by one half.
*The bundle included four processes: peptic ulcer disease prophylaxis, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, elevation of the head of the bed, and a sedation vacation.
When literacy collides with healthcare, the issue of "health literacy"* begins to cast a long patient safety shadow.
—JCAHO, 2007, "What did the doctor say?"
Health literacy is defined as the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions. A U.S. Department of Education (2003) assessment found that more than one-third of the U.S. population has only basic or below basic health literacy.
Meeting the healthcare needs of a culturally and ethnically diverse population may require bilingual care providers, translators or interpreters, or other communication experts. Without these experts available, communication of vital information between patient and provider can lead to misunderstanding and errors.
Many hospitals have translators or interpreters available for patients who do not speak English. If translation assistance is not available, communicating with a family member or other support person is essential. It is important to keep your words simple and concrete, and to use pictures or diagrams to explain procedures.
General guidelines to assist nurses caring for patients from thirty-five different cultural groups can be found in Culture and Nursing Care: A Pocket Guide (Lipson, Dibble & Minarik, 2005). Each chapter outlines issues related to health and illness, symptom expression, self-care, birth, death, religion, family participation in care, and other topics.
According to the Partnership for Clear Health Communication (2007), "the average American reads at the eighth or ninth grade level" while health information is usually written at a higher reading level. In addition, fear, vulnerability, shock concerning a diagnosis, family stresses, and multiple health problems can interfere with patients' ability to understand medical information. The Partnership's Ask Me 3 initiative promotes three basic questions that patients should ask their providers in every healthcare interaction:
When caring for patients whose verbal abilities are limited either by education, development, or neurologic impairment, assistive devices such as an alphabet board, a picture board, or a magic slate may prove helpful. Patients who are unable to speak because of a tracheostomy or other surgical procedure should also have these devices available, along with pencil and paper (Adkins, 1991).
Falls are a commonly reported sentinel event, and can be fatal. Older patients are not the only population at risk. Any patient who has had excessive blood loss may experience postural hypotension, increasing the risk of falling. Maternity patients or other patients who have epidural anesthesia are at risk for falls due to decreased lower-body sensation. Factors that increase the risk of falls are summarized below.
FACTORS THAT INCREASE RISK FOR FALLS
Source: Harkreader, 2005.
There is good evidence that a well-designed fall intervention and treatment program significantly reduces the risk for falls in both institutionalized and community-dwelling adults. Studies by Tinetti et al. and other researchers have shown that falls can be significantly reduced when risk factors are addressed.
In one well-known study by Tinetti and colleagues (1994), fall risk was reduced in community-dwelling older adults when certain risk factors were targeted for intervention. Targeted risk factors included review of postural hypotension, use of sedative-hypnotic agents, use of more than four medications, environmental hazards, transfer problems, and gait and strength abnormalities. Treatment included adjustment of medications, physical therapy instruction and home exercise program, home modifications, and periodic monitoring for falls.
In another study by Shumway-Cook and colleagues (1997), fall risk was decreased by up to 33 percent in community-dwelling older adults by identifying specific balance impairments and addressing the impairment with outpatient physical therapy and an individualized home program.
In 2001, Health Canada published a comprehensive report called A Best Practices Guide for the Prevention of Falls Among Seniors Living in the Community. The report recommended evidence-based "best practices" in seven areas: exercise, environment modification, education, medication, clinical intervention, multi-factorial intervention, and health promotion. Some of the findings include the following:
In 2001 the AHRQ published a review of several studies that looked at interventions intended to reduce the incidence of falls in healthcare facilities. The review examined a number of practices often used in an effort to decrease falls in medical facilities. These practices include the use of physical restraints and bedrails, bed alarms, special flooring, and hip protectors.
There is reason for concern regarding each of these interventions. Mechanical restraints can cause severe injury, strangulation, and mobility limitations that may predispose patients to other adverse outcomes (pressure ulcers, incontinence, confusion). Restrained patients appear to have a modest increase in fall risk and fall injuries based on several studies.
Restraints also limit mobility, a shared risk factor for a number of adverse geriatric outcomes, and increase the risk of iatrogenic events. They certainly do not eliminate falls, and decreasing their use can be accomplished without increasing fall rates. In some instances reducing the use of restraints may actually decrease the risk of falling (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
Although the use of bedrails has decreased in recent years, they are still widely used in medical facilities to prevent injury from falls. According to the ARQH, however, the potential for harm with use of bedrails is well-documented, most notably death from a variety of mechanisms including strangulation. Several studies reveal no statistically significant difference in falls compared with historical controls when bedrails are removed (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
According to the AHRQ, there is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of bed alarms in preventing falls in elderly patients to recommend the practice (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
One proposed practice to prevent injury from falls is to alter flooring material on hospital wards and in nursing homes. Carpeting, soft vinyl, or other materials could potentially improve falls outcomes. One such product, the Penn State Safety Floor, is designed to remain relatively rigid under normal walking conditions but to deform elastically to absorb impact forces during a fall.
One study showed an increase in the number of falls with carpeting but a decrease in the rate of injuries. The choice of specialized flooring could be made either to reduce the risk of falling or to reduce the risk of an injury once a fall has occurred, or both (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
External hip protectors appear to be an effective means to reduce the risk of a hip fracture in persons aged 65 and over who fall. Discomfort from wearing the device, difficulty managing the garment while dealing with continence, and the potential for skin irritation and breakdown are causes for concern in fragile older people. Although long-term compliance is low, there is strong evidence to support the ability of hip protectors to prevent hip fractures (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
Nurses and other healthcare professionals who do not write prescriptions or dispense drugs from the pharmacy, still may be in a position to identify potential errors in prescribing and dispensing and thereby protect the patient. Nurses administering medication should always observe the following six "Rights":
The IOM report Preventing Medication Errors (2006) found that medication errors are "surprisingly common and costly to the nation," and outlines a comprehensive approach to decreasing the prevalence of these errors. Basic steps in achieving this goal are summarized below. If hospitals implemented all of these practices, it could markedly reduce medication errors.
BEST PRACTICES FOR MEDICATION SAFETY
To reduce the occurrence of adverse drug events (ADEs—events that can cause, or lead to, inappropriate medication use and patient harm):
Patients can:
Providing organizations and practitioners can:
Purchasers can:
To reduce the potential for taking a medication that was not prescribed for them or cannot be safely taken by them, patients should ask the following questions before accepting prescription drugs:
Source: National Client Safety Partnership, News Release, May 12, 1999.
Physical and occupational therapists need to be knowledgeable about the medications their patients are taking, including indications and contraindications. They should have a knowledge of pharmacology adequate to recognize when a patient is having a poor response to a medication, and they can play a vital role in making a referral to an appropriate practitioner when there is a change of condition or an emerging medical problem.
In general, PTs and OTs may discuss a medication with a patient but cannot interpret information about medication use, because interpretation is beyond the physical therapy scope of practice. Physical therapists should only discuss medication issues that are within their scope of practice and within their scope of knowledge. PTs and OTs should nevertheless be alert to adverse effects, contraindications, and abuse of OTC medications.
As with other health professionals, PTs and OTs have a duty to question any order, including medication orders that they believe is below the accepted standard of care or in violation of a hospital or employer policy or procedure. This includes drug or treatment orders that are illegible or unclear; PTs and OTs have a duty to request clarification from the doctor or practitioner who is responsible for the order.
During each patient visit, PTs and OTs should complete a general assessment of the patient, looking for any change in medical condition such as dehydration, fever, clammy skin, abnormal vital signs, or other gross signs that may indicate a change of condition, poor response to a treatment regimen, or the onset of a new medical problem.
In some cases, an emerging medical problem may have been overlooked and vital medications withheld due to the lack of an appropriate diagnosis. Common problems associated with medications in a variety of OPT/OT settings are described below.
| Setting | Issues | Common Medications |
|---|---|---|
| Pediatrics | Family education and issues related to pediatric dosing are common problems. |
|
| Geriatrics and Home Health |
|
|
| Outpatient |
|
|
Systems-based analysis of medication errors and ADEs suggest that changes in the medication ordering system, including the introduction of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) with clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), may reduce medication-related errors (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
Computerized physician order entry automates the medication ordering process. Basic clinical decision support software may include suggestions or default values for drug doses, routes, and frequencies. More sophisticated software can perform drug allergy checks, drug laboratory value checks, and drug-drug interaction checks, in addition to providing reminders to the physician about drug guidelines or corollary orders at the time of ordering. More-powerful CDSS software can incorporate patient-specific information or pathogen-specific information, such as suggesting appropriate anti-infective regimens (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
CPOE is helping many hospitals reduce ADEs but it has not eliminated medication errors. The USP reported that nearly 20 percent of hospital and health system medication errors reported to MEDMARX in 2003 involved computerization or automation (such as automated dispensing devices used in patient care areas of more than half of U.S. hospitals). Nearly half of all CPOE errors were dosing errors (extra dose, wrong dose, or omission). Because of computerization, however, only 1.3 percent of those errors resulted in patient harm (USP, 2004).
University of Pittsburgh researchers reported an unexpected increase in pediatric critical care mortality after implementation of a CPOE (Han et al., 2005). This study of children transported to a hospital for specialized care found that CPOE was associated with an increase of 3.86 percent in mortality, suggesting that hospitals should continue to monitor mortality rates as well as medical errors once CPOE systems have been implemented.
Published studies of ADEs have consistently identified certain classes of medications as particularly serious threats to patient safety. These "high-risk" medications include concentrated electrolyte solutions such as potassium chloride, intravenous insulin, chemotherapeutic agents, intravenous opiate analgesics, and anticoagulants such as heparin and warfarin (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
Heparin and warfarin are medications the use or misuse of which carry significant potential for injury, including thromboembolic complications in patients with atrial fibrillation or deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and bleeding complications. These medications are commonly involved in ADEs for a variety of reasons, including the complexity of dosing and monitoring, patient compliance, numerous drug interactions, and dietary interactions that can affect drug levels (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
Individuals who may be at risk for venous thromboembolism and DVT include general surgery, orthopedic, neurosurgery, and medical patients. Patients with total knee and hip replacements and hip fracture repairs are at risk for DVT. Several studies suggest that there may be a lack of awareness among practitioners about the potential for injury with these types of medications.
For institutions or groups attempting to improve appropriate use of measures to prevent venous thromboembolism, guidelines made available via computerized support systems or order sets provide the most effective means of implementing appropriate prophylaxis, especially when these systems are linked to effective educational programs (Making Healthcare Safer, 2001).
High-alert (high-risk/high-hazard) drugs such as neuromuscular blocking agents, chemotherapy agents (some of which are carcinogens), and opioid analgesics require special precautions to prevent catastrophic errors. Although many of these drugs carry a black box warning (BBW), the FDA's strongest labeling requirement, one recent study indicates that some physicians and pharmacists may ignore BBWs in prescribing and dispensing drugs (Wagner et al., 2005).
The Institute for Safe Medical Practices recommends the following measures to prevent catastrophic errors with neuromuscular blocking agents:
Limit access. When possible, dispense neuromuscular blocking agents from the pharmacy as prescribed for patients. Allow floor stock of these agents only in the OR, ED, and critical care units where patients can be properly ventilated and monitored.
Segregate storage. When these agents must be available as floor stock, have the pharmacy assemble the vials in a sealed box with warnings affixed as noted below. Sequester the boxes in both refrigerated and nonrefrigerated locations.
Warning labels. Affix fluorescent red labels that note: "Warning: Paralyzing Agent–Causes Respiratory Arrest" on each vial, syringe, bag, and storage box of neuromuscular blocking agents. Commercially available labels can be purchased from United Ad Label Co. Call 1-800-992-5755 and order item #AM282. (ISMP, 2005)
In December 2007, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a second safety warming on the fentanyl skin patch because the agency "continued to receive reports of deaths and life-threatening side effects after doctors have inappropriately prescribed the patch or after" people incorrectly used it. The patch is marketed as Duragesic and also in various generic forms (FDA, 2007). It was approved in 1990 for use in patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe pain who have become opioid tolerant—those who have been using another opioid narcotic pain medication around-the-clock for a week or longer. It is most commonly prescribed for people with cancer.
Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps can also result in medication errors, more than tripling the risk of patient harm. According to the USP, the most common types of error involving PCA pumps were improper dose/quantity, unauthorized/wrong drug, and dose omission. Despite the built-in safety features of PCA pumps—including a lockout interval that sets a minimum time between each dose and a maximum allowable dose during a specified time period—medication errors involving these pumps continue (USP-CAPS, 2004). USP recommendations for preventing errors with PCA pumps are included below.
PREVENTING ERRORS IN PATIENT-CONTROLLED ANALGESIA (PCA)
Source: USP-CAPS, 2004.
Many physical therapists and other health professionals work or consult in non-healthcare settings such as adult day care, summer camps, schools, group homes, board-and-care facilities, and jails. These facilities are usually licensed by the state but often use unlicensed staff members to dispense medications to patients. According to the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention, medication errors are a significant problem in these settings.
The council recently published recommendations for the handling of medications (including OTC medications) in these settings. Recommendations includes proper storage, written policies and procedures, limitations on the type of medications stored by the organization, training programs, safeguards to prevent theft of controlled medications, and reporting and evaluation of medical errors. (See http://www.nccmerp.org/councilRecs.html for more information.)
Good communication lies at the heart of good practice and thus promotes patient safety. Many errors have been demonstrated to arise from the lack of adequate or accurate communication. Meticulous medical documentation helps to prevent practice errors and provides a shield against errors arising from miscommunication.
Documentation must be credible and timely and must accurately reflect the patient's condition as well as the care given. Illegible writing, overuse of abbreviations, and poor transfer of information (both within the department and when a patient transfers to another department) can cause medical errors. Clinicians must learn and follow their facility's policies and procedures about charting.
If a practice error occurs, especially if it results in a lawsuit, good documentation is essential. In Reporting Risk Check-Up, Susan Abeln makes several key points about documentation:
Electronic medical records (EMRs) and other information technology can improve communication and patient safety if fully implemented in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. For example, EMRs can help reduce medication errors, avoid the need to repeat laboratory tests, and improve continuity of care across the healthcare system. All healthcare providers within a system have access to accurate and complete information when they need it.
One barrier to adoption of EMRs is the cost. According to the Leapfrog Group, a national coalition of large healthcare providers, a purchase and implementation of EMRs in a 200-bed hospital can cost from $1 to $7 million. However, the return on investment in terms of increased efficiency and improved patient safety can be substantial (Joint Commission, 2005).
One of the largest HMOs, Kaiser Permanente, which serves 3.2 million people in Northern California, has implemented a sophisticated EMR system to help improve patient safety and quality of care. Every doctor in every Kaiser hospital, clinic, and ambulatory care center has instant access to each of their patient's charts. According to Robert Pearl, the Executive Director and CEO of Kaiser Permanente, the use of EMRs has helped reduce the death rate from heart disease among Kaiser members 30 percent below the rate in the general population, adjusted for age and sex (Pearl, 2005).
Improving patient safety begins with prompt reporting of errors, followed by analysis of the root causes and contributing factors and development of a plan of action to prevent similar errors in the future. Only in this way can a healthcare organization assess the safety of care delivered and determine whether safety is improving.
The mistaken attitude in healthcare that errors are solely the fault of individual practitioners has proved a major barrier to reporting. Instead of analyzing the multiple factors that contribute to errors, efforts have focused almost entirely on making providers more careful, reinforced by fear of punishment when they fail. Until the mid-1990s, this punitive attitude severely limited the reporting of errors. In fact, research shows that when the fear of punishment is removed, reporting of errors increases by as much as ten- to twenty-fold (Leape, 2000).
Each accredited healthcare organization must have two systems in place for reporting errors: an internal system and an external system. The Joint Commission, whose mission is "to continuously improve the safety and quality of care provided to the public," requires that healthcare organizations:
The Joint Commission defines a sentinel event as any unexpected occurrence involving death or serious physical or psychological injury, or the risk thereof. Including the words "or the risk thereof" broadens the definition to include potential sentinel events (close calls/near misses). In other words, if similar circumstances recurred, a serious adverse outcome would be likely. Reportable Joint Commission sentinel events are summarized below.
JOINT COMMISSION REPORTABLE SENTINEL EVENTS
The Joint Commission encourages, but does not require, reporting of any sentinel event meeting the criteria below.
Unanticipated death or major permanent loss of function, unrelated to the natural course of the patient's illness or underlying condition, or one of the following (even if the outcome was not death or major permanent loss of function unrelated to the natural course of the patient's illness or underlying condition):
Source: JCAHO, 2005.
Accredited facilities are to report not only actual but also potential sentinel events, the close calls and near misses that afford valuable learning opportunities for prevention of future errors. Once sentinel events are reported, the Joint Commission requires facilities to submit the findings of their root cause analyses and corrective action plans. This information can be included in JCAHO's review of sentinel events, helping track national trends and develop strategies for improving patient safety. Says the Joint Commission:
If the submitted root cause analysis or action plan is not acceptable or none is submitted within 45 days, the organization is at risk for being placed on Accreditation Watch by the Accreditation Committee of the Joint Commissioners. Accreditation Watch is a publicly disclosable attribute of an organization's existing accreditation status and signifies that the organization is under close monitoring by the Joint Commission. The Accreditation Watch status is removed once the organization completes and submits an acceptable root cause analysis.
Failure to perform an acceptable root cause analysis and implement appropriate actions can result in a change in accreditation status, including loss of accreditation. (JCAHO, 2005)
Since 1995 the Joint Commission has reviewed 4,693 sentinel events (JCAHO, 2007). Of these, the most common are patient suicide, operative/postoperative complications, wrong-site surgery, and medication errors. The JCAHO publishes an online report, Sentinel Event Alert (http://www.jointcommission.org/sentinelevents/sentineleventalert/), which identifies events, describes their common causes, and suggests actions to prevent these occurrences. Accredited organizations are expected to:
The Joint Commission requires that a thorough, credible root cause analysis (RCA) and corrective action plan be performed for each reported sentinel event within 45 days of the event's occurrence or of the organization's becoming aware of the event. According to Joint Commission (2007) research: "Inadequate communication between care providers or between care providers and patients/families is consistently the main root cause of sentinel events. Other leading root causes include incorrect assessment of a patient's physical or behavioral conditions and inadequate leadership, orientation or training."
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for Patient Safety, offers the following guidance in root cause analysis.
Root Cause Analysis
The goal of a root cause analysis (RCA) is to find out:
Root cause analysis is a tool for identifying prevention strategies. It is a process that is part of the effort to build a culture of safety and move beyond the culture of blame.
In RCA, basic and/or contributing causes underlying variations in performance associated with Adverse Events (AE) or Close Calls (CC) are discovered in a focused review process similar to diagnosis of disease—with the goal always in mind of preventing recurrence.
Root cause analysis is:
When developing root cause statements, the following five guidelines need to be considered:
To be thorough, an RCA must include:
To be credible, an RCA must:
The medical imperative is clear: to make health care safe we need to redesign our systems to make errors difficult to commit, and create a culture in which the existence of risk is acknowledged and injury prevention is recognized as everyone's responsibility.
—LEAPE ET AL., 1998
Traditionally, healthcare has operated on a "culture of blame." One of the common tools for redress in a culture of blame is the lawsuit. The fear of being sued presumably leads to more careful and safer behavior by health professionals. But neither studies nor anecdotal evidence bear this out. This may be, in part, because analysis of medical lawsuits shows that "not only do many patients sue when negligence has not occurred; most victims of negligence do not sue" (Keepnews & Mitchell, 2003).
Within a medical organization, medical errors are recorded on an incident report. But, because reporting of medical errors has traditionally focused on the identification and punishment of individual health professionals, there is a huge disincentive for reporting. Filing an incident report is time-consuming, frustrating, and often ineffective. "Evidence suggests that such internal reporting systems have resulted in significant under-reporting of errors, frustrating efforts to gain an accurate picture of error rates and/or to gauge the effectiveness of error prevention efforts" (Keepnews & Mitchell, 2003). Any health practitioner who has reported errors or filed incident reports is aware that in many cases no action is taken.
One of the main goals of the organizations working to improve patient safety is to encourage the creation of a "culture of safety" in which medical errors are discussed openly and addressed thoroughly. When an organization values safety this commitment is evident throughout the organization from top management to the bedside. A culture of safety includes:
In 2005, the Joint Commission released a white paper entitled Healthcare at the Crossroads: Strategies for Improving the Medical Liability System and Preventing Client Injury. This report outlines a public policy action plan based on three broad recommendations:
The Joint Commission issued new mandatory goals and recommendations to improve patient safety that took effect in January 2008. Hospitals and other organizations will be evaluated by accreditation representatives to see whether these recommendations or acceptable alternative measures are being implemented. Failure to implement the recommendations could result in loss of accreditation and federal funding.
The 2008 National Patient Safety Goals and Recommendations are summarized below. New goals are in boldface type.
2008 JOINT COMMISSION NATIONAL SAFETY GOALS
Goal 1. Improve the accuracy of patient identification.
Recommendations:
Goal 2. Improve the effectiveness of communication among caregivers.
Recommendations:
Goal 3. Improve the safety of using medications.
Goal 4. Not applicable
Goal 5. Retired in 2006
Goal 6. Not applicable
Goal 7. Reduce the risk of healthcare-associated infections.
Goal 8. Accurately and completely reconcile medications across the continuum of care.
Goal 9. Reduce the risk of patient harm resulting from falls.
Goal 10. Not applicable
Goal 11. Not applicable
Goal 12. Not applicable
Goal 13. Encourage patients' active involvement in their own care as a patient safety strategy.
Goal 14. The organization identifies safety risks inherent in its patient population.
Goal 16. Improve recognition and response to changes in a patient's condition.
Source: JCAHO, 2007.
| Do Not Use | Potential Problem | Use Instead |
|---|---|---|
| *Applies to all orders and all medication-related documentation that is handwritten (including free-text computer entry) or on pre-printed forms. Exception: A "trailing zero" may be used only where required to demonstrate the level of precision of the value being reported, such as for laboratory results, imaging studies that report size of lesions, or catheter/tube sizes. It may not be used in medication orders or other medication-related documentation. Source: JCAHO, 2005. |
||
| U (unit) | Mistaken for "0" (zero), the number "4," (four) or "cc" | Write "unit" |
| IU (International Unit) | Mistaken for IV (intravenous), or the number 10 (ten) | Write "International Unit" |
| Q.D., QD, q.d., qd (daily) | Mistaken for each other | Write "daily" |
| Q.O.D., QOD, q.o.d, qod (every other day) | Period after the Q mistaken for "I" and the "O" mistaken for "I" | Write "every other day" |
| Trailing zero (X.0 mg)* | Decimal point is missed | Write X mg |
| Lack of leading zero (.X mg) | Decimal point is missed | Write 0.X mg |
| MS | Can mean morphine sulfate or magnesium sulfate | Write "morphine sulfate" |
| MSO4 and MgSO4 | Confused for one another | Write "magnesium sulfate" |
Strange as it may seem, hospitals in Pennsylvania, Montana, and Utah have reduced the incidence of medical errors and also reduced costs by implementing the Toyota Production System (TPS) (Printezis & Gopalakrishnan, 2007). This system is based on root cause analysis and emphasizes teamwork and frequent rapid problem solving to prevent similar errors from recurring. TPS achieves system redesign based on concepts of flow maximization, elimination of waste from every aspect of the operation, and respect for the people involved. Four organizing principles undergird the system:
Applying TPS in hospitals and other healthcare facilities holds promise for improving patient safety as well as reducing costs.
In July 2001 the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality released a report outlining evidenced-based clinical recommendations for improving patient safety. Titled Making Healthcare Safer: A Critical Analysis of Client Safety Practices, the report reviews 79 practices to prevent AEs and improve patient safety, based on current research. The eleven most highly rated practices are listed in the box below. The authors of this report emphasized that this list should not be considered complete, and that it was weighted toward care of the very ill, rather than the mildly or chronically ill (Shojania et al., 2001).
CLINICAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
The U.S. is part of an six-country collaboration to develop and implement standardized protocols to reduce medical errors. The High 5s Project focuses on the following critical areas in care of hospitalized patients:
The impact of implementing these protocols will be monitored over the next five years (Medical News Today, 2007).
Nearly 15 million instances of medical harm occur in the US each year—a rate of over 40,000 per day…It is time to declare this toll unacceptable, time to end it.
—INSTITUTE FOR HEALTHCARE IMPROVEMENT, 2006
To speed the most urgent improvements in patient safety, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), a nonprofit organization headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, launched the 100,000 Lives campaign in December 2004. The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, and the Joint Commission signed on as collaborators together with four government agencies: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Veterans Health Administration, and AHRQ.
More than 3,100 hospitals enrolled in the campaign, which saved an estimated 122,000 in 18 months (IHI, 2007). The campaign focused on six basic measures, based on the best practices from AHRQ's Making Healthcare Safer report, and include:
*Rapid-Response Teams ensure that critical early warnings of a patient's deteriorating condition and potential cardiac arrest are taken seriously. Their role is to assess, stabilize, assist with communication, educate and support, and assist with transfer, if necessary. Research in Australia has shown that rapid-response teams may be able to cut hospital death rates by 20 percent or more (Berwick, 2005).
Encouraged by the results of the 100,000 Lives campaign, the IHI launched a new campaign in 2006 focused on preventing harm to patients: the 5 Million Lives Campaign. The goal was to enlist 4,000 hospitals to adopt twelve changes in care: the six listed above plus the following:
*The 5 Million Lives Campaign defines "medical harm" as: Unintended physical injury resulting from or contributed to by medical care (including the absence of indicated medical treatment), that requires additional monitoring, treatment or hospitalization, or that results in death. Such injury is considered harm whether or not it is considered preventable, resulted from a medical error, or occurred within a hospital.
Institute for Health Improvement CEO Donald M. Berwick (2005) explained in a Newsweek editorial:
…more than half [the enrolled hospitals] are reporting their death rates so that we (and they) can track progress. That takes courage in a world where hospitals, fearing blame and lawsuits, too often feel the need to hide their mistakes.
Making the patient and the family part of the healthcare team is an important strategy in improving patient safety and reducing medical errors. Several organizations have materials available to educate patients about their role on the healthcare team. The AHRQ has developed a simple message for patients called Five Steps to Safer Healthcare, as well a comprehensive patient fact sheet that hospitals are encouraged to make available to patients (http://www.ahrq.gov/consumer/5steps.htm).
The single most important way patients can help to prevent errors is to be an active members of the healthcare team. That means taking part in every decision about their healthcare. Research shows that patients who are personally involved with their care tend to get better results. Some specific tips, based on the latest scientific evidence about what works best, are listed below.
TIPS FOR PATIENTS TO HELP PREVENT MEDICAL ERRORS
Medicines
Hospital Stays
Surgery
Other Steps You Can Take
Source: AHRQ, 2000.
While systems changes move slowly, healthcare professionals can be change agents in their own department and facility. As an advocate for patients, each person can make a difference. As Leape and Berwick (2005) wrote:
…the most important stakeholders who have been mobilized [to advance patient safety] are the thousands of devoted physicians, nurses, therapists and pharmacists at the ground level—in the hospitals and clinics—who have become much more alert to safety hazards. They are making myriad changes, streamlining medication processes, working together to eliminate infections and trying to improve habits of teamwork. The level of commitment of these frontline professionals is inspiring.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
http://www.ahrq.gov
Client Safety Network
http://psnet.ahrq.gov
Association of Operating Room Nurses
http://www.aorn.org
Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI)
http://www.ihi.org
Institute for Safe Medication Practices
http://www.ismp.org
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)
http://www.jcaho.org
The Leapfrog Group
http://www.leapfroggroup.org
National Center for Patient Safety (Veterans Administration)
http://www.va.gov/ncps
National Center for Client Safety
http://www.clientsafety.gov
National Patient Safety Foundation
http://www.npsf.org
National Quality Forum
http://www.qualityforum.org
Patient Safety Network
http://psnet.ahrq.gov
Society of Pediatric Nurses
https://www.pedsnurses.org
Abeln SH. (1999). Reporting risk check-up—How well does your documentation protect you from malpractice claims? In Law and Liability Part 1, Liability Issues. Professional Issues Learning Series. Alexandria, VA: American Physical Therapy Association.
Adkins ERH. (1991). Nursing care of clients with impaired communications. Rehabilitation Nursing 16:74–76.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (2005a). Five Steps to Safer Healthcare. Retrieved from http://www.ahrq.gov/about/cj2005/cj2005.pdf.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (2005b, August 8). ICU clients at significant risk for adverse events and serious errors. Press release. Retrieved December 7, 2005 from http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2005/icuerrpr.htm.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (2000, February). 20 Tips to Help Prevent Medical Errors. Client fact sheet. AHRQ Publication No. 00-PO38. Retrieved December 21, 2007 from http://www.ahrq.gov/consumer/20tips.htm.
Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Cheung RB, et al. (2003). Educational levels of hospital nurses and surgical client mortality. JAMA 290:1617–23. Retrieved December 8, 2005 from http://www.nejm.com.
Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Sloane DM, et al. (2002). Hospital nurse staffing and client mortality, nurse burnout, and job dissatisfaction. JAMA 288:1987–93. Retrieved December 8, 2005 from http://www.nejm.com.
Bates D, Cullen D, Laird N, et al. (1995). Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. JAMA 274(1): 29–34.
Bates DW, Miller EB, Cullen DJ, et al. (1999). Client risk factors for adverse drug events in hospitalized clients. Archives of Internal Medicine 159: 2553–60.
Berwick DM. (2005, December 12). Keys to safer hospitals: A set of simple precautions could prevent 100,000 needless deaths every year. Newsweek. Retrieved December 17, 2005 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10312472/site/newsweek.
Blendon RJ, DesRoches CM, Brodie M, et al. (2002). Views of practicing physicians and the public on medical errors. New England Journal of Medicine 347: 1933–40.
Campbell EG, Regan S, Gruen RL, et al. (2007). Professionalism in medicine: Results of a national survey of physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine 147: 795–802.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (2007). Medicare Program: Changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2008 rates: Correction. Federal Register 72(214): 62585.
Chalise R. (2005). Stop rising healthcare costs using Toyota lean production methods. Milwaukee WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Encinosa WE, Bernard DM. (2005). Hospital finances and client safety outcomes. Inquiry 42:60–72. Retrieved December 8, 2005 from http://www.inquiryjournalonline.org.
Field TS, Gilman GH, Subramanian S, et al. (2005). The costs associated with adverse drug events among older adults in the ambulatory setting. Medical Care 43:1171–76. Retrieved December 8, 2005 from http://www.lww-medicalcare.com.
First Professionals Insurance Company (FPIC). (2006). Risk management products and services. Preventive Action (newsletter) 19 (4):3.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2007) Consumer update: Second safety warning on fentanyl skin patch. Retrieved December 21, 2007 from www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/fentanylpatch122107.html.
Gallagher TH, Waterman AD, Ebers AG, et al. (2003). Clients' and physicians' attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors. JAMA 289:1001–07. Retrieved December 8, 2005 from http://www.jama.com.
Gawande AA. (2007, December 10). Annals of Medicine: The checklist. New Yorker.
Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, et al. (1999) The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 126(1): 66–75.
Gebhardt F. (2005, May 15). More states require med error reports. Drug Topics. Retrieved December 11, 2005 from http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=160854.
Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, et al. (2005). Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 116:1506–12. Abstract retrieved December 18, 2005 from http://www.pediatrics.org.
Harkreader H. (2005). Fundamentals of Nursing: Caring and Clinical Judgment, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Health Canada. (2001). A Best Practices Guide for the Prevention of Falls Among Seniors Living in the Community. Retrieved February 1, 2004, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/seniors-aines/pubs/best_practices/pdf/BestPractice_Falls_e.pdf.
Institute for Safe Medication Practices. (2005, September 22). Paralyzed by mistakes: Preventing errors with neuromuscular blocking agents. ISMP Medication Safety Alert! Retrieved December 8, 2005 from http://www.ismp.org/MSAarticles/20050922.htm.
Institute of Medicine. (2005, Fall). Healthcare: Improving Quality, Ensuring Safety. Newsletter. Retrieved December 7, 2005 from http://www.iom.edu/news.asp?id=30781.
Institute of Medicine. (1999). To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2007). JCAHO Do-Not-Use List. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/DoNotUseList/.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2007). Improving America's hospitals: The Joint Commission's annual report on quality and safety 2007. Retrieved December 5, 2007 from http://www.jointcommission.org.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2007). "What did the doctor say?" Improving health literacy to protect patient safety. Retrieved 11/15/07 from http://www.jointcommission.org/PublicPolicy/health_literacy.htm.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2007). Sentinel Event Statistics. Retrieved December 28, 2007 from http://www.jointcommission.org.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2007). 2008 National patient safety goals: Hospital program. Retrieved December 27, 2007 from http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/NationalPatientSafetyGoals/08.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2006). Tubing misconnections: A persistent and potentially deadly occurrence. Sentinel Event Alert 36. April 3, 2006. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from http://www.jointcommission.org/SentinelEvents/SentinelEventAlert/sea_36.htm.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2005a). 2006 Critical-Access Hospital and Hospital National Client Safety Goals. Retrieved December 18, 2005 from http://www.JCAHO.org/accredited+organizations/client+safety/06_npsg/.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2005b). Healthcare at the Crossroads: Strategies for Improving the Medical Liability System and Preventing Patient Injury. White paper. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/167DD821-A395-48FD-87F9-6AB12BCACB0F/0/Medical_Liability.pdf.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2003). Universal Protocol. Retrieved December 29, 2007 from http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/UniversalProtocol/.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). (2002). Delays in Treatment. Sentinel Event Alert 26. June 17, 2002.
Joint Commission Perspectives on Client Safety (2005). Using electronic medical records to improve care. Volume 5, Issue 7. Retrieved December 19, 2005 from http://www.jcrinc.com/printview.asp?durki=10721.
Kaiser Family Foundation (2004, November 17). Five years after IOM report on medical errors, nearly half of all consumers worry about the safety of their healthcare. Press release. Retrieved December 11, 2005 from http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/pomr111704pkg.cfm.
Kane RL, Shamliyan TA, Mueller C, et al. (2007). The association of Registered Nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Care 45:1195–1204.
Kaushal R, Bates D, Landrigan C, et al. (2001). Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. JAMA 255 (16):2114–20.
Keepnews D, Mitchell P. (2003, September 30). Health systems' accountability for patient safety. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 8(3):2. Retrieved from http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic22/tpc22_2.htm.
Landrigan, CP, Rothschild JM, Cronin JW, et al. (2004). Effect of reducing interns' work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units. New England Journal of Medicine 351:1838–48. Retrieved December 11, 2005 from http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/351/18/1838.pdf.
Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ, et al. (1995). Systems analysis of adverse drug events. JAMA 274:35–43.
Leape LL, Berwick DM. (2005). Five years after To Err Is Human: What have we learned? JAMA 293:2384–90. Retrieved December 8, 2005 from http://www.jama.com.
Leape LL, Woods DD, Hatlie MJ, et al. (1998). Promoting client safety by preventing medical error [editorial]. JAMA 280:1444–47.
Leape LL. (2000). Accelerating Change Today (A.C.T.) for America's health. Washington DC: The National Coalition on Healthcare. Retrieved from http://www.aha.org/medicationsafety/medsafety.asp.
Lipson J, Dibble S, Minarik P. (2005). Culture and Nursing Care: A Pocket Guide. San Francisco: University of California Nursing Press.
Longo DR, Hewett JE, Bin G, et al. (2005). The long road to client safety: A status report on client safety systems. JAMA 294:2858–06. Retrieved December 17, 2005 from http://www.jama.com.
National Client Safety Partnership. (1999, May 12). Healthcare leaders urge adoption of methods to reduce adverse drug events. Press release: May 12, 1999. Washington DC: Veterans Administration Public Affairs Office.
Medical News Today. (2007). Six countries take formal, concrete steps towards preventing patient safety problems. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newsid=88008.
Moore TJ, Cohen MR, Furberg CD. (2007). Serious adverse drug events reported to the Food and Drug Administration, 1998-2005. Archives of Internal Medicine 167:1752–59.
National Quality Forum. (2007). Serious reportable events in healthcare 2006. Update: A consensus report. Retrieved December 5, 2007from http://www.qualityforum.org.
Needham DM, Sinopoli DJ, Thompson DA, et al. (2oo5). A system factors analysis of "line, tube, and drain" incidents in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine 33: 1701–07.
O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, et al. (2002). Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR Recommendation Report 51 (RR-10): 1–29.
Partnership for Clear Health Communication. (2007). What Is Ask Me 3? Retrieved November 11, 2007 from http://askmethree.org/PFCHC/what_is_ask.asp.
Pauker SG, Zane EM, Salem DN. (2005). Creating a safer healthcare system: Finding the constraint. JAMA 294:2906–08. Retrieved December 17, 2005 from http://www.jama.com.
Pearl R. (2005, November 30). National use of technology would cut medical errors. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved December 4, 2005 from http://www.mercurynews.com.
Peterson D. (1996). Human Error Reduction and Safety Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Printezis A, Gopalakrishnan M. (2007). Current pulse: Can a production system reduce medical errors in healthcare? Quality Management in Healthcare 16:226–38.
Provonost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. (2006). An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. New England Journal of Medicine 355:2725–32.
Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. (2005). Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnoses. Cancer 104:2205–13. Retrieved October 14, 2005 from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.
Reason JT. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Resar R, Pronovost P, Haraden C, et al. (2005). Using a bundle approach to improve ventilator care processes and reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia. Joint Commission. Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 31:243–48.
Ridenour J. (2000, September 11). Written testimony submitted to the National Summit on Medical Errors and Client Safety Research: Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QulC). Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.ncsbn.org/pdfs/QulCtestimony2.pdf.
Scheirton L, Mu K, Lohman H. (2003). Occupational Therapists' Response to Practice Errors in Physical Rehabilitation Settings. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 57(3), 307–314.
Schoen C, Osborn R, Doty MM, et al. (2007). Toward higher-performance health systems: Adults' healthcare experiences in seven countries, 2007. Health Affairs DOI10.1377/hlthaff.26.6w717.
Shojania K, Duncan B, McDonald K, Wachter RM (eds.). (2001). Making healthcare safer: A critical analysis of client safety practices. Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 43; AHRQ publication 01-E058. Retrieved December 14, 2005 from http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ptsafety/chap57.htm.
Shumway-Cook A, Gruber W, et al. (1997).The effect of multidimensional exercises on balance, mobility, and fall risk in community-dwelling older adults. Physical Therapy 77:1.
Tinetti ME, et al. (1994). A multifactorial intervention to reduce the risk of falling among elderly people living in the community. NEJM 331:821–27.
United States Pharmacopeia (USP). (2005). Medication errors frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.usp.org/clientSafety/mer/faq.html.
United States Pharmacopeia (USP). (2005, September 27). USP's national adverse drug event database hits one million records milestone. Press release. Retrieved December 9, 2005 from http://www.usp.org.
United States Pharmacopeia (USP). (2004, December 20). Computer entry a leading cause of medication errors. Press release. Retrieved December 9, 2005 from http://www.usp.org.
United States Pharmacopeia (USP). (2000). Summary of 1999 information submitted to MEDMARX: A national database for hospital medical error reporting. Rockville, MD: author.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for Client Safety. (2005). Root Cause Analysis. Retrieved December 9, 2005 from http://www.va.gov/ncps/rca.html.
USP Center for the Advancement of Client Safety (CAPS). (2004). Quality Review 81. Retrieved December 9, 2005 from http://www.usp.org.
Vernon JA, Trujillo A, Rosenbaum S, DeBuono B. (2007). Low health literacy: Implications for national health policy. University of Connecticut, Storrs. Retrieved November 15, 2007 from http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/departments/healthpolicy/chsrp/
downloads/LowHealthLiteracyReport10_4_07.pdf.
Wagner AK, Chan KA, Dashevsky I, et al. (2005, November 18). FDA prescribing warnings: Is the black box half empty or half full? Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 15: 369–86.
Weeks WB, Bagian JP. (2000). Developing a culture of safety in the Veterans Health Administration. Effective Clinical Practice, November-December. Retrieved July 3, 2002 from http://www.acponline.org/journals/ecp/novdec00/weeks.htm.
Zhan C, Arispe I, Kelley E, et al. (2005). Ambulatory care visits for treating adverse drug effects in the United States, 1995–2001. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Client Safety 31:372–78. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jcaho/jcjqs/2005/.
TherapyCEU.com is a division of Wild Iris Medical Education
Copyright © 1999-2010 Wild Iris Medical Education, Inc.
Photograph © 2008 Jon Klein
Get discounts, special offers, and information.
We do not sell, rent, or share our mailing list.