Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: A synthesis of the literature

,

Original Research

Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: A synthesis of the literature

J Fam Pract. 2002 November;51(11):927-932

PDF Download

References

1. Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA 1994;272:1851-68.

2. Lesar TS, Briceland L, Stein DS. Factors related to errors in medication prescribing. JAMA 1997;277:312-7.

3. Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991;324:377-84.

4. Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000;38:261-71.

5. Wilson T, Sheikh A. Enhancing public safety in primary care. BMJ 2002;324:584-7.

6. Wilson T, Pringle M, Sheikh A. Promoting patient safety in primary care: Research, action, and leadership are required. BMJ 2001;323:583-4.

7. Green L, Fryer G, Yawn B, Lanier D, Dovey S. The ecology of medical care revisited. N Engl J Med 2001;344:2021-5.

8. Sheikh A, Hurwitz B. Setting up a database of medical error in general practice: conceptual and methodological considerations. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:57-60.

9. Victoroff MS. The right intentions: errors and accountability. J Fam Pract 1997;45:38-9.

10. Bhasale AL, Miller GC, Reid S, Britt HC. Analysing potential harm in Australian general practice; an incident-monitoring study. Med J Aust 1998;169:73-6.

11. Dovey SM, Meyers DS, Phillips RL Jr, et al. A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:233-8.

12. Ely JW, Levinson W, Elder NC, Mainous AG, III, Vinson DC. Perceived causes of family physicians’ errors. J Fam Pract 1995;40:337-44.

13. Fischer G, Fetters MD, Munro AP, Goldman EB. Adverse events in primary care identified from a risk-management database. J Fam Pract 1997;45:40-6.

14. Gandhi TK, Sittig DF, Franklin M, Sussman AJ, Fairchild DG, Bates DW. Communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:626-31.

15. Holden J, O’Donnell S, Brindley J, Miles L. Analysis of 1263 deaths in four general practices. Br J Gen Pract 1998;48:1409-12.

16. Britten N, Stevenson FA, Barry CA, Barber N, Bradley CP. Misunderstandings in prescribing decisions in general practice: qualitative study. BMJ 2000;320:484-8.

17. Battles JB, Shea CE. A system of analyzing medical errors to improve GME curricula and programs. Acad Med 2001;76:125-33.

18. Runciman WB, Helps SC, Sexton EJ, Malpass A. A classification for incidents and accidents in the health-care system. J Qual Clin Pract 1998;18:199-211.

19. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ 2000;320:768-70.

20. Toxic: cascades: a comprehensive way to think about medical errors. Am Fam Phys 2000;62-848.

21. Barach P, Moss F. Delivering safe health care. BMJ 2001;232:585-6.

22. Deyo R. A key medical decision maker: the patient. BMJ 2001;323:466-7.

23. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.

24. Pizzi L, Goldfarb N, Nash D. Other Practices Related to Patient Participation in Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research; 2001. AHRQ publication 01-E058.

25. Kuzel A, Woolf S, Engel J, et al. Characterizing medical error in primary care settings. Paper presented at: North American Primary Care Research Group 29th Annual Meeting; 2001; Halifax, Nova Scotia.

26. Hofer TP, Kerr EA, Hayward RA. What is an error? Effect Clin Pract 2000;3:261-9.

27. Brennan TA. The Institute of Medicine report on medical errors— could it do harm? N Engl J Med 2000;342:1123-5.

28. Andrews LB, Stocking C, Krizek T, Gottlieb LKC, Vargish T, Siegler M. An alternative strategy for studying adverse events in medical care. Lancet 1997;349:309-13.

29. Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ, Jaen CR, et al. Illuminating the “black box.” A description of 4454 patient visits to 138 family physicians. J Fam Pract 1998;46:377-89.

30. Committee on Health Care Quality in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm. A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

31. Ioannidis J, Lau J. Evidence on interventions to reduce medical errors. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:325-34.

However, we found a striking gap in the literature of an absence of discussion of the contribution of patient factors to medical errors, despite a logic suggesting these are important issues.^21,22 A new model of patient safety dynamics should incorporate features of these models and add patient issues. Our proposed “Hourglass” model, derived from the classification system, incorporates 4 potential components of preventable adverse events in the primary care setting: 2 relating mainly to the primary health care system (process errors and patient safety factors) and 2 relating mainly to patients (patient risk factors for adverse events and patient-controlled patient safety factors; Figure). At the top of the hourglass, patient encounters enter like pieces of sand that flow through a health care system full of process errors that happen regularly. But, as in the Swiss Cheese model, there are barriers (patient safety factors) stopping these process errors from becoming preventable adverse events. Unfortunately, these barriers sometimes allow errors to slip through and a bad outcome results. Luckily, only a small number of patient encounters likely exits the primary health care system with a preventable adverse event, as demonstrated by the narrow part of the hourglass.

Outside the doctor’s office, factors in the patient’s milieu influence the probability of a preventable adverse event occurring. We postulate an experience analogous to that within the health care system. There are more factors increasing a patient’s likelihood of suffering a preventable adverse event,²³ but there are also patient-controlled factors serving as barriers against errors and their consequences. These are not well researched²⁴ but occur, for example, when a patient receives a blue pill from the pharmacy that had been pink in the past. The patient may prevent an adverse event by not taking the pill and double-checking with the clinician and pharmacist.

The order in which various process errors and safety factors interact with each other likely varies with each encounter and episode. Interactions within the classification suggest that, for any episode of disease or preventive care, the hourglass gets shaken and turned over numerous times as the health care system and patient factors interact with each other at multiple levels.

Future research needs

The literature review that led to our classification system and the proposed model of interaction have identified specific areas for future study. These include assessing patients’ perspectives, investigating prevalence and causality, and testing interventions designed to improve patient safety. The current medical literature based primarily on physician reports describes events that are meaningful to the physician half of the dyad between patient and physician. Patients’ opinions about what constitutes error and the role of patients as active participants in error and safety are unknown,²⁴ although preliminary studies are currently underway.²⁵

No published studies to date have explored the prevalence of preventable adverse events and errors in primary care. Physician self-report biases reporting toward remembered events and errors. In addition, medical error studies to date have not directly studied causal links between errors and adverse events.^26,27 Observational and epidemiologic studies incorporating multiple methods may be necessary to ascertain and compare all components of the medical error equation: the amount of harm done, the preventable adverse events and near misses, the process errors, and the error-free functioning of the health care system. Although observational studies have assessed adverse events in a hospital setting²⁸ and described primary care practices,²⁹ they have not been used to assess preventable adverse events in the primary care setting.

This literature review and synthesis may have missed some studies that merited inclusion. Only English-language studies were included. Studies pertaining to specific diseases, diagnoses, or treatments or from non-primary care settings may have shed light on the interaction of errors, adverse events, and harm but could not have helped in defining a classification system for primary care errors. The small number of studies available and their small sample sizes also limit the depth and breadth of derived classification components.

Decreasing medical errors and increasing patient safety are important parts of quality health care.³⁰ Currently, the research agenda aiming to identify effective error reduction strategies appears to be based more on ease of study subject or accessibility of patients than on the severity or importance of the problem.³¹ By categorizing process errors and preventable adverse events and studying their relations more thoroughly and by adding the patient’s perspective, interventions can be designed that address the most common and the most serious of preventable adverse events in primary care.