Previous research suggests that residents may underutilize adverse event reporting tools. This article describes an 18-month clinical learning collaborative among 16 sites intended to increase resident and fellow participation in patient safety event investigations. Researchers found the collaborative increased participation in event investigation and improved the quality of the investigation.

An accurate understanding of the frequency, severity, and preventability of adverse events is required to effectively improve patient safety. This study included review of more than 2,800 inpatient records from 11 American hospitals with nearly one quarter having at least one preventable or not preventable adverse event. Overall, approximately 7% of all admissions included at least one preventable event and 1% had a severity level of serious or higher. An accompanying editorial by Dr. Donald Berwick sees the results of this study as a needed stimulus for leadership to prioritize patient safety anew.

This article describes an innovative expert consensus process to generate a contemporary list of chart-review based triggers and adverse event measures for assessing the incidence of inpatient and outpatient adverse events. A panel of 71 experts from nine institutions identified 218 triggers and measures with high or very high clinical importance deemed suitable for chart review and 198 were found suitable for electronic surveillance; 192 items were suitable for both.   

Using a cohort of adults diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer, this study examined the relationship between oncology-specific triggers and mortality. It found that patients with at least one trigger had a higher risk of death than patients without a trigger; this association was strongest for nonmetastatic prostate cancer and nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. Triggers most commonly associated with increased odds of mortality were bacteremia, blood transfusion, hypoxemia and nephrology consultation. These findings support the validity of cancer-specific trigger tool but additional research is needed to replicate these findings.

To decrease the risk of diagnostic errors attributed to incomplete recommended diagnostic tests, this study evaluated an electronic monitoring tool alerting clinicians to incomplete imaging tests for their ambulatory patients. Compared to the control group (physicians not receiving alerts for their patients), after 90-days the intervention group had a higher rate of imaging completion (22.1% vs. 18.8%); this difference was sustained throughout the 12-month follow-up period (25.5% completion in the intervention group versus 20.9% in the control group). The authors found that this change was primarily driven by completion rates among patients referred for mammography.  To fully appreciate the implications of missed test notifications to reduce the risk of delayed diagnoses, more studies are necessary.

This article describes results of a cross-sectional recontact survey of Massachusetts residents on the persisting impacts of medical errors. Over half of respondents on the self-reporting a medical error 3-6 years ago survey stated at least one emotional impact, avoiding the doctor(s) or facility(s) involved in the error, and two-thirds of respondents reported a loss of trust after the medical error. Logistical regression analyses, controlling for error severity, suggests that open communication can reduce persistent emotional impacts and avoidance of doctors/facilities involved in the error.

Research has found that trigger tools perform poorly in cancer care. This cohort study comprised of adult patients undergoing treatment for breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer investigated the feasibility of a cancer-specific claims-based trigger tool to identify patients with potential adverse events. Results found that triggers affected 19% of patients during their initial year in treatment, and that trigger burden varied by disease, stage, and patient demographics. The most prevalent triggers were abnormal lab test results, blood transfusions, orders for non-contrast CT after chest radiation, and hypoxemia.

This retrospective cohort study identified frequent treatment-related adverse events for patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer, with 34% of patients experiencing an adverse event during their treatment course. Advanced disease and chemotherapy conferred higher risk for adverse events, as did non-White race and Hispanic ethnicity. The authors suggest that such factors could be used for prospective identification of patients at highest risk for adverse events.

Chemotherapy errors can result in serious patient harm. This review summarized the evidence on chemotherapy errors. Most studies were performed in single-institution academic settings and few studies examined how health information technology affects patient outcomes.

Incomplete follow-up of tests pending at hospital discharge is a persistent patient safety issue. This cluster-randomized trial used medical record review to assess whether an automated notification of test results to discharging hospitalist physicians and receiving primary care physicians improved follow-up compared with usual care. The intervention was focused on actionable test results, which constituted less than 10% of all pending tests. Even with the intervention, only 60% of tests deemed actionable had any documented follow-up in the medical record, and there was no significant difference compared to usual care. The authors conclude that automated clinician notification does not constitute a sufficient intervention to optimize management of tests pending at discharge. Previous WebM&M commentaries explored problems related to tests pending at discharge and how organizations can improve follow-up of abnormal test results.

Mortality reviews, in which all cases of in-hospital death are discussed in structured format, can detect patient safety problems. This study reports the results of a mortality review survey in hospital medicine and intensive care units at an academic medical center. The survey aimed to identify deaths that merited further investigation. Researchers identified five deaths that would not have come to light through other hospital case review mechanisms. Respondents expressed needs for both clinician support following patient deaths and greater advance care planning. The authors conclude that frontline care team surveys can augment existing hospital mortality review processes. Previous WebM&M commentaries have highlighted the importance of advance care planning, particularly for seriously ill older patients and those with advanced dementia.

Problems with the primary care–subspecialty referral process can lead to diagnostic delays. This focus group study of oncologists and primary care physicians examined insights from clinicians about communicating with other clinicians regarding delays in diagnosis. The analysis revealed fears about giving and receiving feedback during the cancer diagnostic process. Respondents had significant concern about affecting collegial relationships and expressed a desire for a formal mechanism for communication. Lack of clear responsibility was also viewed as a barrier to communication. The authors conclude that enhancing safety culture to promote open blame-free feedback among treating clinicians could enhance timeliness and accuracy of diagnosis.

Cancer care has been the setting for seminal, practice-changing errors. This retrospective study aimed to identify adverse events in cancer care through medical record review, using a random sample of breast, colorectal, and lung cancer cases from 2012. As with prior studies, physician investigators determined preventability and extent of harm. Over a third of patients experienced an adverse event, and about 32% of adverse events were deemed preventable. Most adverse events occurred in the inpatient setting. Adverse events included medication errors and hospital-acquired conditions, such as pressure ulcers and falls. The authors conclude that patient safety remains an important consideration for cancer care that merits further research and improvement efforts.

Trigger tools are an increasingly important method to detect adverse events. A trigger is a finding identified through structured data that signals a potential adverse event that should be examined by a member of the health care team. In this retrospective cohort study of patients treated for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer, investigators tested a trigger tool with 76 components. After narrowing it to the 49 best-performing triggers, the tool had a positive predictive value of 0.48, meaning that nearly half of the triggers truly represented adverse events. Almost 20% of the triggers represented preventable events. The authors suggest that automation of their trigger tool could lead to real-time identification of adverse events in oncology. A past PSNet interview featured David Classen, one of the pioneers of the trigger tool methodology for detecting adverse events.

Patient engagement is increasingly recognized as a priority for patient safety efforts. This study team developed and tested a reporting system for patients and families to bring safety concerns to the attention of health care systems. Only 37 errors were reported during the study period of 17 months; most reports did not involve patient harm. As with prior studies of patient safety reporting, not all reports were related to a safety concern. The most common category of mistakes reported was problems with diagnosis or advice from a provider. These results demonstrate the feasibility of implementing an incident reporting system for patients and families, and they underscore the need to focus on diagnostic safety in outpatient settings. A past PSNet interview featured Dave deBronkart, a leading advocate for engaging patients in their care.

Delayed cancer diagnosis is a critical patient safety concern in primary care. Rectal bleeding is an important issue to recognize promptly, because it may be a symptom of colon cancer, for which delayed diagnosis can lead to worse outcomes. For this retrospective study, physician reviewers examined 438 abstracted medical records of patients with rectal bleeding to identify problems in the diagnostic process. In the majority of cases, they identified problems such as failure to elicit sufficient family history, incomplete physical examination performance or documentation, and lack of needed laboratory testing. Consistent with prior studies, failure to order laboratory testing and plan follow-up were associated with worse care quality. These findings emphasize the challenges of achieving timely and accurate diagnosis in the outpatient setting. In a related editorial, Hardeep Singh suggests that enhancing electronic health record capability and trigger tools could address diagnostic delays in primary care.

This study examined whether locating inpatient medical teams on specific units, known as regionalization, would result in improved communication. Investigators found that the rate of adverse events and the extent of physician–nurse agreement about the care plan did not significantly change after this regionalization occurred. More robust interprofessional interventions are needed to enhance patient safety.

Test result notification is a longstanding patient safety problem. This time series analysis examined changes in documented communication between the interpreting radiologist and the treating physician for abnormal test results following implementation of an electronic alert notification system. The system allows radiologists to send alerts within their workflow for synchronous communication via pager for critical results and asynchronous communication via email for abnormal but noncritical results with alerts persisting until acknowledged by treating physicians. The authors used an automated text searching algorithm to identify radiology reports with and without documented communication and employed manual record review and adjudication to detect abnormal findings. They found that the electronic alert system led to higher levels of documented communication for abnormal findings without increasing documented communication of normal reports, allaying concerns about alert fatigue. This work demonstrates how systems thinking about provider workflow can result in technology approaches to enhance safety.

The communication of critical test results is a National Patient Safety Goal. This study describes an automated alert notification system for critical imaging results at a large academic medical center. The introduction of the system led to better closed-loop communication and appropriate documentation.