An analysis of the causes of adverse events from the Quality in Australian Health Care Study

Abstract

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.

The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review

“…Three studies were excluded because of an insufficient number of patient records; one of these studies used retrospective record review;9 the other studies would otherwise have been excluded due to methodological designs that differed from the large record review studies 10 11. Five studies presented data of patient populations already included in other publications,12 – 16 and six studies presented insufficient data on the primary endpoint 17 – 22…”

Development and validation of the SURgical PAtient Safety System (SURPASS) checklist

“…To determine the contents of the list, a large number of sources concerning the causes, nature and locations of surgical errors, complications and adverse events were consulted 8 21 – 32. The surgical pathway was then divided into distinct stages and the critical safety risks in each of these stages were identified and formulated as items on the different parts of the checklist.…”

How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations

“…For example, in the UK over 39 000 reports were received by the National Patient Safety Agency relating to failures in documentation in 20076 and in Australia7 1.8% of medical errors were found to be due to the unavailability of clinical information. In a survey of theatre team members, respondents believed that nearly 10% of errors in the operating theatre were related to equipment problems 8.…”