Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Adverse Incidents (adverse + incident)
Selected AbstractsAdverse Event Reporting: Lessons Learned from 4 Years of Florida Office DataDERMATOLOGIC SURGERY, Issue 9 2005Brett Coldiron MD, FACP Background Patient safety regulations and medical error reporting systems have been at the forefront of current health care legislature. In 2000, Florida mandated that all physicians report, to a central collecting agency, all adverse events occurring in an office setting. Purpose To analyze the scope and incidence of adverse events and deaths resulting from office surgical procedures in Florida from 2000 to 2004. Methods We reviewed all reported adverse incidents (the death of a patient, serious injury, and subsequent hospital transfer) occurring in an office setting from March 1, 2000, through March 1, 2004, from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. We determined physician board certification status, hospital privileges, and office accreditation via telephone follow-up and Internet searches. Results Of 286 reported office adverse events, 77 occurred in association with an office surgical procedure (19 deaths and 58 hospital transfers). There were seven complications and five deaths associated with the use of intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. There were no adverse events associated with the use of dilute local (tumescent) anesthesia. Liposuction and/or abdominoplasty under general anesthesia or intravenous sedation were the most common surgical procedures associated with a death or complication. Fifty-three percent of offices reporting an adverse incident were accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities, or American Association for Ambulatory Health Care. Ninety-four percent of the involved physicians were board certified, and 97% had hospital privileges. Forty-two percent of the reported deaths were delayed by several hours to weeks after uneventful discharge or after hospital transfer. Conclusions Requiring physician board certification, physician hospital privileges, or office accreditation is not likely to reduce office adverse events. Restrictions on dilute local (tumescent) anesthesia for liposuction would not reduce adverse events and could increase adverse events if patients are shifted to riskier approaches. State and/or national legislation establishing adverse event reporting systems should be supported and should require the reporting of delayed deaths. [source] Patient Injuries from Surgical Procedures Performed in Medical Offices: Three Years of Florida DataDERMATOLOGIC SURGERY, Issue 12p1 2004Brett Coldiron MD, FACP Background. Many state medical boards and legislatures are in the process of developing regulations that restrict procedures in the office setting with the intention of enhancing patient safety. The highest quality data in existence on office procedure adverse incidents have been collected by the state of Florida. Objective. The objective was to determine and analyze the nature of surgical incidents in office-based settings using 3 years of Florida data from March 2000 to March 2003. Methods. An incidence study with prospective data collection was performed. Individual reports that resulted in death or a hospital transfer were further investigated by determining the reporting physician's board certification status, hospital privilege status (excluding procedure specific operating room privileges), and office accreditation status. Results. In 3 years there were 13 procedure-related deaths and 43 procedure-related complications that resulted in a hospital transfer. Seven of the 13 deaths involved elective cosmetic procedures, 5 of which were performed under general anesthesia and 2 of which were performed with intravenous sedation anesthesia. Forty-two percent of the offices reporting deaths and 50% of the offices reporting procedural incidents that resulted in a hospital transfer were accredited by an independent accreditation agency. Ninety-six percent of physicians reporting surgical incidents were board-certified, and all had hospital privileges. Conclusions. Restrictions on office procedures for medically necessary procedures, such as requiring office accreditation, board certification, and hospital privileges, would have little effect on overall safety of surgical procedures. These data also show that the greatest danger to patients lies not with surgical procedures in office-based settings per se, but with cosmetic procedures that are performed in office-based settings, particularly when under general anesthesia. Our conclusions are dramatically different from those of a recent study, which claimed a 12-fold increased risk of death for procedures in the office setting. [source] Patient ethnicity and three psychiatric intensive care units compared: the Tompkins Acute Ward StudyJOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC & MENTAL HEALTH NURSING, Issue 3 2008L. BOWERS rmn phd Psychiatric care units provide care to disturbed patients in a context of higher security and staffing levels. Although such units are numerous, few systematic comparisons have been made, and there are indications that ethnic minority groups may be over-represented. The aim of this study was to compare the rates of adverse incidents and patterns of usage of three psychiatric intensive care units. The study used a triangulation or multi-method design, bringing together data from official statistics, local audit and interviews conducted with staff. Intensive care patients were more likely to be young, male and suffering a psychotic disorder, as compared with general acute ward patients. Caribbean patients were twice as likely, and Asian patients half as likely, to receive intensive care (age, gender and diagnosis controlled). There were large differences in service levels, staffing, team functioning and adverse incidents between the three units. Various aspects of physical security were important in preventing absconds. More evaluative research is required in order to define effective service levels, and to explore the nature of the interaction between ethnicity and inpatient care provision during acute illness. [source] Prescription errors in UK critical care unitsANAESTHESIA, Issue 12 2004S. A. Ridley Summary Drug prescription errors are a common cause of adverse incidents and may be largely preventable. The incidence of prescription errors in UK critical care units is unknown. The aim of this study was to collect data about prescription errors and so calculate the incidence and variation of errors nationally. Twenty-four critical care units took part in the study for a 4-week period. The total numbers of new and re-written prescriptions were recorded daily. Errors were classified according to the nature of the error. Over the 4-week period, 21 589 new prescriptions (or 15.3 new prescriptions per patient) were written. Eighty-five per cent (18 448 prescriptions) were error free, but 3141 (15%) prescriptions had one or more errors (2.2 erroneous prescriptions per patient, or 145.5 erroneous prescriptions per 1000 new prescriptions). The five most common incorrect prescriptions were for potassium chloride (10.2% errors), heparin (5.3%), magnesium sulphate (5.2%), paracetamol (3.2%) and propofol (3.1%). Most of the errors were minor or would have had no adverse effects but 618 (19.6%) errors were considered significant, serious or potentially life threatening. Four categories (not writing the order according to the British National Formulary recommendations, an ambiguous medication order, non-standard nomenclature and writing illegibly) accounted for 47.9% of all errors. Although prescription rates (and error rates) in critical care appear higher than elsewhere in hospital, the number of potentially serious errors is similar to other areas of high-risk practice. [source] | ||||||||||