WebM&M Cases & Commentaries
WebM&M (Morbidity & Mortality Rounds on the Web) features expert analysis of medical errors reported anonymously by our readers. Spotlight Cases include interactive learning modules available for CME. Commentaries are written by patient safety experts and published monthly. Contribute by Submitting a Case anonymously.
Narrow Results Clear All
Communication between Providers
- Sbar 1
- Communication between Providers 51
- Culture of Safety 2
- Education and Training 19
- Error Reporting and Analysis 6
- Human Factors Engineering 15
- Legal and Policy Approaches 3
- Logistical Approaches 7
- Quality Improvement Strategies 20
- Specialization of Care 9
- Teamwork 7
- Clinical Information Systems
- Alert fatigue 7
- Device-related Complications 2
- Diagnostic Errors 13
- Discontinuities, Gaps, and Hand-Off Problems 37
- Identification Errors 6
- Interruptions and distractions 7
- Medical Complications 8
- Medication Errors/Preventable Adverse Drug Events 47
- Nonsurgical Procedural Complications 2
- Psychological and Social Complications 3
- Surgical Complications 10
- Allied Health Services 1
- Cardiology 10
- Primary Care 10
- Internal Medicine 41
- Nursing 5
- Palliative Care 1
- Pharmacy 14
- Health Care Executives and Administrators 48
Health Care Providers
- Nurses 12
- Physicians 26
- Non-Health Care Professionals 38
- Patients 1
Kheyandra Lewis, MD, and Glenn Rosenbluth, MD; November 2018
Early in the academic year, interns were on their first day of a rotation caring for an elderly man hospitalized for a stroke, who had developed aspiration pneumonia and hypernatremia. When the primary intern signed out to the cross-cover intern, he asked her to check the patient's sodium level and replete the patient with IV fluids if needed. Although the cross-covering intern asked for more clarification, the intern signing out assured her the printed, written signout had all the information needed. Later that evening, the patient's sodium returned at a level above which the written signout stated to administer IV fluids, and after reviewing the plan with the supervising resident, the intern ordered them. The next morning the primary team was surprised, stating that the plan had been to give fluids only if the patient was definitely hypernatremic. Confused, the cross-cover intern pointed out the written signout instructions. On further review, the primary intern realized he had printed out the previous day's signout, which had not been updated with the new plan.
Jason Bergsbaken, PharmD; September 2018
A woman with cancer was admitted to begin a chemotherapy cycle of IV etoposide (daily for 3 days) and IV cisplatin (single dose). At the hospital's cancer center satellite pharmacy, the pharmacist entered the order into the computer and prepared the first dose of the medications. While transcribing the order, the pharmacist inadvertently switched the duration of therapy for the two agents. The transposition did not affect the patient's first day of therapy. The second day fell on a Saturday, when the satellite pharmacy was closed; a different pharmacist who did not have access to the original chemotherapy order prepared the therapy order. Cisplatin was labeled, dispensed, and reached the bedside. The nurse bypassed the double-check policy for verifying the order prior to administration, and the patient received the second dose of cisplatin instead of the intended dose of etoposide.
- Spotlight Case
Resa E. Lewiss, MD; July 2018
After an emergency department (ED) physician interpreted results of a point-of-care ultrasound as showing stable low ejection fraction, some volume overload, and a mechanical mitral valve in place without regurgitation for a man with a history of congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and mechanical mitral valve replacement who presented with shortness of breath, the patient was admitted with a presumed diagnosis of volume overload. Reassured by the ED physician's interpretation of the ultrasound, the hospitalist ordered no further cardiac testing. The patient underwent hemodialysis, felt better, and was discharged. Less than 12 hours later, the patient returned critically ill and in cardiogenic shock. An emergency transthoracic echocardiogram found a thrombosed mitral valve, which had led to acute mitral stenosis and cardiogenic shock.
Jennifer Faig, MD, and Jessica A. Zerillo, MD, MPH; June 2018
Admitted to the oncology service for chemotherapy treatment, a woman with leukemia was noted to be neutropenic on hospital day 6. She had some abdominal discomfort and had not had a bowel movement for 2 days. The overnight physician ordered a suppository without realizing that the patient was neutropenic and immunosuppressed. Unaware that suppositories are contraindicated in neutropenic patients, the nurse administered the suppository. The patient developed a fever soon after receiving the suppository and required transfer to the intensive care unit for hypotension and management of septic shock.
Mary G. Amato, PharmD, MPH, and Gordon D. Schiff, MD; January 2018
Admitted for intravenous diuretic therapy and control of his atrial fibrillation, an older man was mistakenly given metoprolol tartrate instead of his home dose of extended-release metoprolol succinate. That night, he developed atrioventricular block, experienced a pulseless electrical activity cardiac arrest, and died. Review of the case identified problems in the human factors design in the computerized order entry system that contributed to the prescribing error.
- Spotlight Case
Craig A. Umscheid, MD, MSCE; John D. McGreevey, III, MD; and S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, MA; December 2017
Found unconscious at home, an older woman with advanced dementia and end-stage renal disease was resuscitated in the field and taken to the emergency department, where she was registered with a temporary medical record number. Once her actual medical record was identified, her DNR/DNI status was identified. After recognizing this and having discussions with the family, she was transitioned to comfort care and died a few hours later. Two months later, the clinic called the patient's home with an appointment reminder. The primary care physician had not been contacted about the patient's hospitalization and the electronic record system had not listed the patient as deceased.
Yael K. Heher, MD, MPH; November 2017
A resident entered orders into the EHR for a biopsy specimen of a patient's rash to be sent to pathology for evaluation. The biopsy specimen was delivered to the laboratory without a copy of the orders. Because pathology and the medicine service did not share the same EHR, the laboratory could neither view the orders nor direct the biopsy to the appropriate area for analysis without a printed copy. The next day, the resident attempted to look up the results but found none.
Matthew J. Doyle, MBBS; April 2017
Prior to undergoing a CT scan, a patient with no allergies documented in the electronic health record (EHR) described a history of hives after receiving contrast. During a follow-up clinic visit, the patient inquired whether this contrast reaction was listed in the EHR. Investigation revealed that it had been removed from the patient's profile, thus leaving the record with no evidence of allergy to contrast.
- Spotlight Case
Daniel J. Morgan, MD, MS, and Andrew Foy, MD; March 2017
Brought to the emergency department from a nursing facility with confusion and generalized weakness, an older woman was found to have an elevated troponin level but no evidence of ischemia on her ECG. A consulting cardiologist recommended treating the patient with three anticoagulants. The next evening, she became acutely confused and a CT scan revealed a large intraparenchymal hemorrhage with a midline shift.
- Spotlight Case
Anthony C. Easty, PhD; February 2017
A few weeks after falling and hitting her head, a woman with metastatic cancer was admitted to the hospital for observation after a brain scan showed a subdural hematoma with a midline shift. Repeat imaging showed an enlarging hematoma, which required surgical evacuation. The admitting provider had mistakenly prescribed blood thinner for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (contraindicated in the setting of subdural hematoma) by clicking the box in the electronic health record admission order set.
Gerald J. Kost, MD, PhD, MS, and Sharon Ehrmeyer, PhD; February 2017
In an outpatient clinic, the nurse entered results of all daily point-of-care tests into the electronic health record at the end of her shift. She mistakenly entered one patient's urine pregnancy test result as positive instead of negative. When the patient's provider received electronic notification of the result, she recognized the error and corrected the medical record.
Mary Foley, PhD, RN; February 2017
A man with end-stage renal disease was admitted with acute renal failure and mental status changes. The patient refused to take his lactulose owing to loose stools. Although nursing staff noted the refusal in the medical record, they did not inform his primary team. When the patient became more confused, a nurse alerted the team but did not describe the missed doses of lactulose. The patient continued to decline and was transferred to the ICU.
John D. McGreevey III, MD; November 2016
A transition from paper orders to CPOE left out an important safety reminder, resulting in mismanagement of an elderly patient's low potassium and magnesium levels. This led to a fatal arrhythmia. The paper-based electrolyte order set had provided a reminder that magnesium replacement should accompany potassium replacement; however, in the computerized system, a separate order set was necessary for each electrolyte.
- Spotlight Case
Robert L. Wears, MD, PhD; October 2016
While attempting to order a CT scan with only oral contrast for a patient with poor kidney function, an intern ordering a CT for the first time selected "with contrast" from the list, not realizing that meant both oral and intravenous contrast. The patient developed contrast nephropathy.
Mitchell Levy, MD; October 2016
Administered antibiotics in the emergency department and rushed to the operating room for emergent cesarean delivery, a pregnant woman was found to have an infection of the amniotic sac. After delivery, she was transferred to the hospital floor without a continuation order for antibiotics. Within 24 hours, the inpatient team realized she had developed septic shock.
Kiran Gupta, MD, MPH, and Raman Khanna, MD; July/August 2016
A woman with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease underwent hip surgery and experienced shortness of breath postoperatively. A chest radiograph showed a pneumothorax, but the radiologist was unable to locate the first call physician to page about this critical finding.
Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD; July/August 2016
Because the hospital and the ambulatory clinic used separate electronic health records on different technology platforms, information on a new outpatient oxycodone prescription for a patient scheduled for total knee replacement was not available to the surgical team. The anesthesiologist placed an epidural catheter to administer morphine, and postoperatively the patient required naloxone and intubation.
- Spotlight Case
Maria J. Silveira, MD, MA, MPH; June 2016
An older man with multiple medical conditions was found hypoxic, hypotensive, and tachycardic. He was taken to the hospital. Providers there were unable to determine the patient's wishes for life-sustaining care, and, unaware that he had previously completed a DNR/DNI order, they placed him on a mechanical ventilator.
- Spotlight Case
Patricia Juang, MD, and Kristen Kulasa, MD; April 2016
While hospitalized, a man with diabetes had difficult-to-control blood sugars, with multiple episodes of both critical hypoglycemia and serious hyperglycemia. Because "holds" of the patient's insulin were not clearly documented in the electronic health record and blood sugar readings were not uploaded in real time, providers were unaware of how much insulin had actually been given.
Robert A. Green, MD, MPH, and Jason Adelman, MD, MS; January 2016
Presenting to his new primary physician's office for his first visit, a man was checked in under the record of an existing patient with the exact same name and age. The mistake wasn't noticed until the established patient received the new patient's test results by email.