OBJECTIVES: An efficient and reliable process for measuring harm due to medical care is needed to advance pediatric patient safety. Several pediatric studies have assessed the use of trigger tools in varying inpatient environments. Using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s adult-focused Global Trigger Tool as a model, we developed and pilot tested a trigger tool that would identify the most common causes of harm in pediatric inpatient environments. METHODS: After formal training, 6 academic children’s hospitals used this novel pediatric trigger tool to review 100 randomly selected inpatient records per site from patients discharged during the month of February 2012. RESULTS: From the 600 patient charts evaluated, 240 harmful events (“harms”) were identified, resulting in a rate of 40 harms per 100 patients admitted and 54.9 harms per 1000 patient days across the 6 hospitals. At least 1 harm was identified in 146 patients (24.3% of patients). Of the 240 total events, 108 (45.0%) were assessed to have been potentially or definitely preventable. The most common patient harms were intravenous catheter infiltrations/burns, respiratory distress, constipation, pain, and surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with earlier rates of all-cause harm in adult hospitals, harm occurs at high rates in hospitalized children. Availability and use of an all-cause harm identification tool will establish the epidemiology of harm and will provide a consistent approach to assessing the effect of interventions on harms in hospitalized children.

No abstract

AE rates in pediatric inpatients are high and did not improve from 2007 to 2012. Pediatric AE rates were substantially higher in teaching hospitals as well as in patients with more chronic conditions.

No abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Efforts to advance patient safety have been hampered by the lack of high quality measures of adverse events (AEs). This study's objective was to develop and test the Global Assessment of Pediatric Patient Safety (GAPPS) trigger tool, which measures hospital-wide rates of AEs and preventable AEs.

Aggregation of adverse drug event data has evolved in the last decade. Several approaches are available to augment the standard voluntary incident reporting system. Most of these methods are applicable to nonmedication adverse events as well. To identify appropriately system trends as well as process failures, intensive care units should participate in various collection methods. Several different methods are available for robust adverse drug event data collection, such as target chart review, nontargeted chart review, and direct observation. As the various methods usually capture different types of events, employing more than one technique will improve the assessment of intensive care unit care. Some of these surveillance methods offer real-time or near real-time identification of adverse drug events and potentially afford the practitioner time for intervention. Continued development of adverse drug event detection will allow for further quality improvement efforts and preventive strategies to be utilized.

Pediatric computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems on average are able to intercept a majority of potential medication errors, but vary widely among implementations. Prospective and repeated testing using the Leapfrog Group's evaluation tool is associated with improved ability to intercept potential medication errors.

Ensuring patient safety is becoming increasingly important for intensive care unit practitioners. The intensive care unit is particularly prone to medical errors because of the complexity of the patients, interdependence of the practitioners, and dependence on team functioning. This review provides historical perspectives, research foundations, and a practical "how to" guide to improving care in the intensive care unit. It also considers the organizational structure, the processes of care, and the occurrence of adverse outcomes in this setting. Effective intensive care unit quality and safety programs capitalize on institutional resources and have multidisciplinary input with clear leadership, input from quality improvement initiatives, a responsible yet nonpunitive culture, and data-driven assessment and monitoring to reduce medical errors. Intensive care unit practitioners need to capitalize on the benefits that patients and their families bring to the patient safety discourse. This provides opportunities for better understanding the risks of the intensive care unit and improving the consent process.