20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adverse Events Related to Emergency Department Care: A Systematic Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To systematically review the literature regarding the prevalence, preventability, severity and types of adverse events (AE) in the Emergency Department (ED).

          Methods

          We systematically searched major bibliographic databases, relevant journals and conference proceedings, and completed reference reviews of primary articles. Observational studies (cohort and case-control), quasi-experimental (e.g. before/after) studies and randomized controlled trials, were considered for inclusion if they examined a broad demographic group reflecting a significant proportion of ED patients and described the proportion of AE. Studies conducted outside of the ED setting, those examining only a subpopulation of patients (e.g. a specific entrance complaint or receiving a specific intervention), or examining only adverse drug events, were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed study eligibility, completed data extraction, and assessed study quality with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

          Results

          Our search identified 11,624 citations. Ten articles, representing eight observational studies, were included. Methodological quality was low to moderate with weaknesses in study group comparability, follow-up, and outcome ascertainment and reporting. There was substantial variation in the proportion of patients with AE related to ED care, ranging from 0.16% (n = 9308) to 6.0% (n = 399). Similarly, the reported preventability of AE ranged from 36% (n = 250) to 71% (n = 24). The most common types of events were related to management (3 studies), diagnosis (2 studies) and medication (2 studies).

          Conclusions

          The variability in findings and lack of high quality studies on AE in the high risk ED setting highlights the need for research in this area. Further studies with rigorous, standardized outcome assessment and reporting are required.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

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

          The Quality in Australian Health Care Study.

          A review of the medical records of over 14,000 admissions to 28 hospitals in New South Wales and South Australia revealed that 16.6% of these admissions were associated with an "adverse event", which resulted in disability or a longer hospital stay for the patient and was caused by health care management; 51% of the adverse events were considered preventable. In 77.1% the disability had resolved within 12 months, but in 13.7% the disability was permanent and in 4.9% the patient died.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado.

            The ongoing debate on the incidence and types of iatrogenic injuries in American hospitals has been informed primarily by the Harvard Medical Practice Study, which analyzed hospitalizations in New York in 1984. The generalizability of these findings is unknown and has been questioned by other studies. We used methods similar to the Harvard Medical Practice Study to estimate the incidence and types of adverse events and negligent adverse events in Utah and Colorado in 1992. We selected a representative sample of hospitals from Utah and Colorado and then randomly sampled 15,000 nonpsychiatric 1992 discharges. Each record was screened by a trained nurse-reviewer for 1 of 18 criteria associated with adverse events. If > or =1 criteria were present, the record was reviewed by a trained physician to determine whether an adverse event or negligent adverse event occurred and to classify the type of adverse event. The measures were adverse events and negligent adverse events. Adverse events occurred in 2.9+/-0.2% (mean+/-SD) of hospitalizations in each state. In Utah, 32.6+/-4% of adverse events were due to negligence; in Colorado, 27.4+/-2.4%. Death occurred in 6.6+/-1.2% of adverse events and 8.8+/-2.5% of negligent adverse events. Operative adverse events comprised 44.9% of all adverse events; 16.9% were negligent, and 16.6% resulted in permanent disability. Adverse drug events were the leading cause of nonoperative adverse events (19.3% of all adverse events; 35.1% were negligent, and 9.7% caused permanent disability). Most adverse events were attributed to surgeons (46.1%, 22.3% negligent) and internists (23.2%, 44.9% negligent). The incidence and types of adverse events in Utah and Colorado in 1992 were similar to those in New York State in 1984. Iatrogenic injury continues to be a significant public health problem. Improving systems of surgical care and drug delivery could substantially reduce the burden of iatrogenic injury.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Five years after To Err Is Human: what have we learned?

              Five years ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) called for a national effort to make health care safe. Although progress since then has been slow, the IOM report truly "changed the conversation" to a focus on changing systems, stimulated a broad array of stakeholders to engage in patient safety, and motivated hospitals to adopt new safe practices. The pace of change is likely to accelerate, particularly in implementation of electronic health records, diffusion of safe practices, team training, and full disclosure to patients following injury. If directed toward hospitals that actually achieve high levels of safety, pay for performance could provide additional incentives. But improvement of the magnitude envisioned by the IOM requires a national commitment to strict, ambitious, quantitative, and well-tracked national goals. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality should bring together all stakeholders, including payers, to agree on a set of explicit and ambitious goals for patient safety to be reached by 2010.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2013
                12 September 2013
                : 8
                : 9
                : e74214
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pediatrics and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
                [2 ]Cochrane Child Health Field, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
                [3 ]Alberta Research Center for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
                Iran University of Medical Sciences, Islamic Republic of Iran
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: All authors have no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Antonia Stang and Amy Plint have collaborated on other research projects on the topic of patient safety with one of the authors of the articles reviewed in the SR (Lisa Calder). Aireen Wingert and Lisa Hartling have no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: AS AP LH. Performed the experiments: AS AP AW. Analyzed the data: AS AP AW. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LH. Wrote the paper: AS.

                Article
                PONE-D-13-18434
                10.1371/journal.pone.0074214
                3772011
                24069281
                00a6703e-b834-43d1-90a5-a4c0abed5c48
                Copyright @ 2013

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 2 May 2013
                : 29 July 2013
                Page count
                Pages: 7
                Funding
                Amy Plint received support for this project from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, CIHR( http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca). Lisa Hartling holds a New Investigator Salary Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article