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.

No abstract

The high AE rate for surgical procedures supports the need for monitoring and intervention strategies. The 18 screening criteria provide a tool to identify admissions with a greater risk of a surgical AE. Risk factors for an AE were age and procedure, and these should be assessed prior to surgery. Prophylactic interventions for infection and deep vein thrombosis could reduce the occurrence of AEs in hospitals.

Objective To assess the frequency and nature of adverse events to patients in selected hospitals in developing or transitional economies. Participants Convenience sample of 26 hospitals from which 15 548 patient records were randomly sampled. DesignMain outcome measures Two stage screening. Initial screening based on 18 explicit criteria. Records that screened positive were then reviewed by a senior physician for determination of adverse event, its preventability, and the resulting disability.Results Of the 15 548 records reviewed, 8.2% showed at least one adverse event, with a range of 2.5% to 18.4% per country. Of these events, 83% were judged to be preventable, while about 30% were associated with death of the patient. About 34% adverse events were from therapeutic errors in relatively non-complex clinical situations.Inadequate training and supervision of clinical staff or the failure to follow policies or protocols contributed to most events. ConclusionsUnsafe patient care represents a serious and considerable danger to patients in the hospitals that were studied, and hence should be a high priority public health problem. Many other developing and transitional economies will probably share similar rates of harm and similar contributory factors. The convenience sampling of hospitals might limit the interpretation of results, but the identified adverse event rates show an estimate that should stimulate and facilitate the urgent institution of appropriate remedial action and also to trigger more research. Prevention of these adverse events will be complex and involves improving basic clinical processes and does not simply depend on the provision of more resources. IntroductionPreventable harm to patients resulting from their healthcare is unacceptable at any time. Patient safety is first and foremost a clinical problem, but it is also an important cause of wasted resources. Keeping patients safe can also be viewed as a public health problem and a human rights issue.1 Documentation of the scale of iatrogenic harm to patients has been accelerating [3][4][5] and the focus moved from negligence to preventability. Results suggested that rates of adverse events in patients in hospital in the developed world were much higher than previously thought, with multiple studies showing rates of at least 8%. 6 Of these adverse events, more than 50% were judged to be preventable, and a worrying number of the patients experienced permanent disability or death as a result of the events. These reports suggest that the deaths of between 0.5% and 2% of patients in hospital are associated with an adverse event, which was often, but not always, preventable. These studies would rank harm from healthcare high on the list of all causes of death for the countries being studied. All published studies to date, however, have been from developed countries, with no reports from developing or transitional economies. This knowledge gap is a serious limitation to understanding the extent of the problem at the global level and, more imp...

Objective To examine the causes of adverse events (AEs) resulting from healthcare to assist in developing strategies to minimise preventable patient injury. Design Descriptions of the 2353 AEs previously reported by the Quality in Australian Health Care Study (QAHCS) were reviewed. A qualitative approach was used to develop categories for human error and for prevention strategies to minimise these errors. These categories were then used to classify the AEs identified in the QAHCS, and the results were analysed with previously reported preventability and outcome data. Results 34.6% of the causes of AEs were categorised as “a complication of, or the failure in, the technical performance of an indicated procedure or operation”, 15.8% as “the failure to synthesise, decide and/or act on available information”, 11.8% as “the failure to request or arrange an investigation, procedure or consultation”, and 10.9% as “a lack of care and attention or failure to attend the patient”. AEs in which the cause was cognitive failure were associated with higher preventability scores than those involving technical performance. The main prevention strategies identified were “new, better, or better implemented policies or protocols” (23.7% of strategies), “more or better formal quality monitoring or assurance processes” (21.2%), “better education and training” (19.2%), and “more consultation with other specialists or peers” (10.2%). Conclusion The causes of AEs or errors leading to AEs can be characterised, and human error is a prominent cause. Our study emphasises the need for designing safer systems for care which protect the patient from the inevitability of human error. These systems should provide new policies and protocols and technological support to aid the cognitive activities of clinicians.

Accreditation results predict leadership behaviours and cultural characteristics of healthcare organisations but not organisational climate or consumer participation, and a positive trend between accreditation and clinical performance is noted.

Information from patients who are unable to continue their visits to a study centre may be of major importance for the interpretation of results in multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials. To validate a questionnaire based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), patients in five different European centres were assessed independently by pairs of trained EDSS raters, first by telephone interview and a few days later by standardized neurological examination. Seventy women and 40 men with an average age of 43.7 years (range 19-74 years) were included in the study. Mean EDSS score at the last visit was 4.5 (0-9). EDSS assessment by telephone was highly correlated with the EDSS determined by physical examination (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.95). An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 94.8% was found for the total sample; 77.6% and 86%, respectively, for patients with EDSS < 4.5 (n = 46) and > 4.5 (n = 64). Kappa values for full agreement were 0.48; for variation by +0.5 steps and +1.0 steps, 0.79 and 0.90, respectively. Best agreement could be found in higher EDSS scores, where assessment by telephone interview might be needed most. The telephone questionnaire is a valid tool to assess EDSS score in cases where the patient is unable to continue visiting a study centre or in long-term follow-up of trial participants.

The significantly worse survival in lower SES areas from cancers of the stomach, liver, lung, and breast may be due to poorer access to high-quality cancer care. Estimates of the number of lives potentially extendable by improving cancer survival in lower SES areas suggest that priority should be given to improving lung cancer care in lower SES areas in NSW, Australia.