Skip to main content

All Content

Search Tips
Save
Selection
Format
Download
Published Date
Original Publication Date
Original Publication Date
PSNet Publication Date
Narrow Results By
PSNet Original Content
1 - 20 of 26
Vossoughi S, Perez G, Whitaker BI, et al. Transfusion (Paris). 2019;59:2827-2832.
This analysis of transfusion-related safety incident reports found that such events were more commonly reported for pediatric compared to adult patients. This finding could reflect differences in reporting practices or underlying transfusion safety differences. The authors call for continued attention to transfusion safety.
Cohen R, Ning S, Yan MTS, et al. Transfus Med Rev. 2019;33:78-83.
Inaccurate patient registration can result in information gaps that contribute to delay, misunderstandings, and harm. This review discusses registration errors in the blood transfusion process. The authors discuss how problems can occur during various stages in the transfusion process and result in blood-type discrepancies. They suggest improved reporting of identification mistakes and use of photo identification tools as strategies to prevent patient harm associated with registration errors.
Najafpour Z, Hasoumi M, Behzadi F, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:453.
Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a tool that facilitates prospective risk assessment and is frequently used to assess the risk of various processes in health care. The authors describe the use of FMEA at a single institution to improve the safety of the blood transfusion process.
Clifford SP, Mick PB, Derhake BM. J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep. 2016;4:2324709616647746.
Transfusion errors can have serious consequences. This case analysis discusses a wrong-patient transfusion error in a hospital's emergency room and reviews findings of the subsequent root cause analysis, which determined training weaknesses, time pressures, and distractions within the team due to the chaotic nature of trauma care.
Maskens C, Downie H, Wendt A, et al. Transfusion (Paris). 2014;54:66-73; quiz 65.
In this study, the vast majority of transfusion-related patient harm was due to blood products ordered inappropriately outside of hospital guidelines. On the laboratory side, the most serious threat to patient safety was mislabeled blood samples.
Rice-Townsend S, Hall M, Jenkins KJ, et al. J Pediatr Surg. 2010;45:1126-36.
This study sought to characterize the incidence and types of adverse events in pediatric surgery patients, using measures (the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators) originally developed for identifying adverse events in adults. The authors argue that applying adult measures to a pediatric population overestimates the incidence of adverse events.

Simmons D, ed. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2010;22:161-290. 

Articles in this special issue discuss safe practices, effective staffing, teamwork, and event analysis to enhance patient safety in the critical care setting.

Baker GR, ed. Healthc Q. 2009;12(Spec No Patient):1-198.  

This special issue discusses Canadian patient safety efforts in identifying risks, designing safe systems, implementing solutions, developing learning systems, and understanding legal decision making.
Snijders C, van Lingen RA, Klip H, et al. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2009;94:F210-5.
Incident reporting systems are one mechanism for hospitals to both identify and potentially prevent adverse events, although they have frequently failed to meet those expectations. This study describes findings from a voluntary system that produced a significant increase in reported neonatal events, many of which were associated with patient morbidity.
Golden, CO: HealthGrades, Inc.; April 2009. 
This analysis of patient safety in Medicare patients from 2005–2007 concludes that while modest improvements have been made, patient safety incidents still account for nearly 100,000 preventable deaths and nearly $7 billion in excess costs yearly. The report also recognizes the best performing hospitals with a "Patient Safety Excellence Award"—hospitals scoring in the top 15% according to a ranking methodology developed by the authors. As with prior HealthGrades reports, the study uses the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) to measure the incidence of patient safety problems and compare hospitals. The limitations of using PSIs as a performance measure have been discussed in a prior study and AHRQ WebM&M commentary, and it is important to note that this report did not undergo external peer review.
Levtzion-Korach O, Alcalai H, Orav EJ, et al. J Patient Saf. 2009;52:9-15.
The limitations of standard incident reporting systems have been well documented. Although ubiquitous and relatively easy to use, such systems detect only a fraction of adverse events, are underused by physicians, and yield data that often are not analyzed or disseminated promptly. This analysis of data from a commercial, web-based system at an academic hospital confirms some prior concerns, but the authors were able to demonstrate that rapid review of reports resulted in specific system changes to improve workflow and safety. A prior article presented a framework for using incident reporting data to improve patient safety.