BACKGROUND Notions about the most common errors in medicine currently rest on conjecture and weak epidemiologic evidence. We sought to determine whether cascade analysis is of value in clarifying the epidemiology and causes of errors and whether physician reports are sensitive to the impact of errors on patients.
METHODSEighteen US family physicians participating in a 6-country international study fi led 75 anonymous error reports. The narratives were examined to identify the chain of events and the predominant proximal errors. We tabulated the consequences to patients, both reported by physicians and inferred by investigators.RESULTS A chain of errors was documented in 77% of incidents. Although 83% of the errors that ultimately occurred were mistakes in treatment or diagnosis, 2 of 3 were set in motion by errors in communication. Fully 80% of the errors that initiated cascades involved informational or personal miscommunication. Examples of informational miscommunication included communication breakdowns among colleagues and with patients (44%), misinformation in the medical record (21%), mishandling of patients' requests and messages (18%), inaccessible medical records (12%), and inadequate reminder systems (5%). When asked whether the patient was harmed, physicians answered affi rmatively in 43% of cases in which their narratives described harms. Psychological and emotional effects accounted for 17% of physician-reported consequences but 69% of investigator-inferred consequences.CONCLUSIONS Cascade analysis of physicians' error reports is helpful in understanding the precipitant chain of events, but physicians provide incomplete information about how patients are affected. Miscommunication appears to play an important role in propagating diagnostic and treatment mistakes.
INTRODUCTIONT he early years of the patient safety movement focused on the lowhanging fruit-the medical errors that are easiest to recognize and remedy (eg, adverse drug events, surgical mishaps). It is unclear, however, whether these errors are the most common or most harmful to patients.1 Properly measuring the incidence and morbidity of errors requires sound epidemiologic research, and the results and validity of such research depend greatly on how precisely errors are defi ned and the settings where the research is conducted.Errors are diffi cult to measure, not only because of inadequate reporting and varied defi nitions, but also because most error incidents are not single acts but a chain of events.2 Prescribing the wrong dose of a drug may be counted as a single error and given a single name, such as a prescribing error, but the physician' s prescribing error may have occurred because the medical record contained an incorrect body weight or because a laboratory report was missing.
317
CASCADE ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL ERRORScan produce skewed statistics and propagate imprecise notions about the anatomy, causes, and consequences of errors. This imprecision affects patients, clinicians, and policy makers, because it misplaces blam...