7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adverse events in patients with return emergency department visits

      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

          Objectives

          This study describes the proportion of emergency department (ED) returns within 7 days due to adverse events, defined as adverse outcomes related to healthcare received.

          Design

          Prospective cohort study.

          Setting

          We used an electronically triggered adverse event surveillance system at a tertiary care ED from May to June 2010 to examine ED returns within 7 days of index visit.

          Participants

          One of three trained nurses determined whether the visit was related to index emergency care. For such records, one of three trained emergency physicians conducted adverse event determinations.

          Main outcome measure

          We determined adverse event type and severity and analysed the data with descriptive statistics, χ 2 tests and logistic regression.

          Results

          Of 13 495 index ED visits, 923 (6.8%) were followed by ED returns within 7 days. The median age of all patients was 47 years and 52.8% were women. After nursing review, 211 cases required physician review. Of these, 53 visits were adverse events (positive predictive value (PPV)=5.7%, 95% CI 4.4% to 7.4%) and 30 (56.6%) were preventable. Common adverse event types involved management, diagnostic or medication issues. We observed one potentially preventable death and 58.5% of adverse events resulting in transient disability. The PPV of a modified trigger with a cut-off of return within 72 h, resulting in admission was 11.9% (95% CI 6.8% to 18.9%).

          Conclusions

          Our electronic trigger efficiently identified adverse events among 12% of patients with ED returns within 72 h, requiring hospital admission. Given the high degree of preventability of the identified adverse events, this trigger also holds promise as a performance measurement tool.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

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

          Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools.

          The growing recognition of harm as an unwelcome and frequently unrecognized byproduct of health care has initiated focused efforts to create highly reliable organizations for safe healthcare delivery. While debate continues over the exact magnitude of harm, there is a general acceptance of the need to improve our ability to deliver care in a safer manner. A major barrier to progress in safety has been the ability to effectively measure harm consistently and thus develop effective and targeted strategies to prevent its occurrence. This has resulted in a shift from initiatives focused exclusively on analysis of errors to those targeting events linked to harm. There is a growing recognition of a distinction between errors and adverse events as they often represent unique concepts fostering different strategies for improvement of safety. Conventional approaches to identifying and quantifying harm such as individual chart audits, incident reports, or voluntary administrative reporting have often been less successful in improving the detection of adverse events. As a result, a new method of measuring harm--the trigger tool--has been developed. It is easily customized and can be readily taught, enabling consistent and accurate measurement of harm. The history, application, and impact of the trigger tool concept in identifying and quantifying harm are discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Unplanned emergency department revisits within 72 hours to a secondary teaching referral hospital in Taiwan.

            When patients return to the emergency department (ED) shortly after being seen, it is generally assumed that their initial evaluation or treatment was inadequate. The purpose of this study was to determine the rates and causes of revisits to the ED of a 710-bed secondary teaching referral hospital (Kuang Tien General Hospital), to identify areas for improvement, and to define the initial ED presentations that are associated with such revisits. The study period was from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. There were 34,714 patients seen and discharged in the ED; 1899 patients returned within 72 h. Monthly revisit rates were calculated. The patients who revisited the ED within 72 h were retrospectively identified by the authors, and their charts were examined to determine the causes of the revisits. There were 1899 patients (5.47% of total) found to have revisited the ED within 72 h after their initial visit. The monthly revisit rates ranged from 2.85% to 6.25% (average, 5.47%). The rates of revisits that were related to factors of illness, patients, and doctors were 80.9%, 10.9%, and 8.2%, respectively. Among the factors related to doctors, 3.7% (70 cases) were misdiagnosis, and abdominal pain was the most common presentation (55.7%, 39/70). The most common initial ED presentations were for abdominal pain (12.9%), fever (12.6%), vertigo (4.5%), headache (2.1), and upper respiratory infection (2.1%). Unplanned ED revisits are associated with medical errors in prognosis, treatment, follow-up care, and information. Differentiation between the natural course of a disease, suboptimal therapy, over-anxious reaction of the patient, and medical errors is difficult. Although this study indicates that most revisits are illness-related, further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the most common and the most serious causes of revisits to see if improvements can be made. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prioritizing performance measurement for emergency department care: consensus on evidence-based quality of care indicators.

              The evaluation of emergency department (ED) quality of care is hampered by the absence of consensus on appropriate measures. We sought to develop a consensus on a prioritized and parsimonious set of evidence-based quality of care indicators for EDs. The process was led by a nationally representative steering committee and expert panel (representatives from hospital administration, emergency medicine, health information, government, and provincial quality councils). A comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify candidate indicators. The expert panel reviewed candidate indicators in a modified Delphi panel process using electronic surveys; final decisions on inclusion of indicators were made by the steering committee in a guided nominal group process with facilitated discussion. Indicators in the final set were ranked based on their priority for measurement. A gap analysis identified areas where future indicator development is needed. A feasibility study of measuring the final set of indicators using current Canadian administrative databases was conducted. A total of 170 candidate indicators were generated from the literature; these were assessed based on scientific soundness and their relevance or importance. Using predefined scoring criteria in two rounds of surveys, indicators were coded as "retained" (53), "discarded" (78), or "borderline" (39). A final set of 48 retained indicators was selected and grouped in nine categories (patient satisfaction, ED operations, patient safety, pain management, pediatrics, cardiac conditions, respiratory conditions, stroke, and sepsis or infection). Gap analysis suggested the need for new indicators in patient satisfaction, a healthy workplace, mental health and addiction, elder care, and community-hospital integration. Feasibility analysis found that 13 of 48 indicators (27%) can be measured using existing national administrative databases. A broadly representative modified Delphi panel process resulted in a consensus on a set of 48 evidence-based quality of care indicators for EDs. Future work is required to generate technical definitions to enable the uptake of these indicators to support benchmarking, quality improvement, and accountability efforts.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Qual Saf
                BMJ Qual Saf
                qhc
                bmjqs
                BMJ Quality & Safety
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-5415
                2044-5423
                February 2015
                24 December 2014
                : 24
                : 2
                : 142-148
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Queensway Carleton Hospital , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Lisa Calder, The Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, Room F658, Box 685, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4E9; lcalder@ 123456ohri.ca
                Article
                bmjqs-2014-003194
                10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003194
                4316869
                25540424
                7e2e1d34-88b1-48d0-9df0-97c9d1d9820e
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

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

                History
                : 8 May 2014
                : 4 November 2014
                : 15 November 2014
                Categories
                1506
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Public health
                emergency department,patient safety,quality improvement
                Public health
                emergency department, patient safety, quality improvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article