Narrow Results Clear All
- Patient Safety Primers 1
- Perspectives on Safety 2
- Commentary 12
- Review 10
- Study 31
- Audiovisual 1
- Book/Report 20
- Legislation/Regulation 2
- Newspaper/Magazine Article 4
- Tools/Toolkit 1
- Web Resource 12
- Press Release/Announcement 3
- Communication Improvement 11
- Culture of Safety 5
- Education and Training 7
Error Reporting and Analysis
- Error Analysis 21
- Error Reporting
- Human Factors Engineering 7
Legal and Policy Approaches
- Regulation 10
- Logistical Approaches 1
- Quality Improvement Strategies 19
- Specialization of Care 1
- Teamwork 2
- Technologic Approaches 9
- Transparency and Accountability 1
- Device-related Complications 1
- Diagnostic Errors 2
- Discontinuities, Gaps, and Hand-Off Problems 1
- Identification Errors 18
- Inpatient suicide 4
- Medical Complications 24
- Medication Errors/Preventable Adverse Drug Events 7
- Nonsurgical Procedural Complications 4
- Psychological and Social Complications 7
- Surgical Complications 35
- Transfusion Complications 3
- Dentistry 1
- Internal Medicine 27
- Nursing 3
- Pharmacy 2
- Health Care Executives and Administrators
Health Care Providers
- Nurses 2
- Non-Health Care Professionals 34
- Patients 5
- Australia and New Zealand 4
- Europe 7
- Canada 4
Search results for ""
Perspectives on Safety > Interview
Organizations Working to Improve Quality and Safety, June 2015
Dr. Cassel, President and CEO of the National Quality Forum (NQF), is a leading expert in geriatric medicine, medical ethics, and quality of care. We spoke with her about NQF's work in developing and utilizing quality measures to improve safety in health care.
Perspectives on Safety > Annual Perspective
with commentary by Sumant Ranji, MD, 2016
The toll of medical errors is often expressed in terms of mortality attributable to patient safety problems. In 2016, there was considerable debate regarding the number of patients who die due to medical errors. This Annual Perspective explores the methodological approaches to estimating mortality attributable to preventable adverse events and discusses the benefits and limitations of existing approaches.
Patient Safety Primers
Falls are a common source of patient harm in hospitals, and are considered a never event when they result in serious injury. Fall prevention requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach that entails individualized risk assessment and preventive interventions.
Journal Article > Commentary
West JC. J Healthc Risk Manag. 2006;26:15-21.
The author compares surgical event data from the first Minnesota state report on medical error with published research on similar incidents. He concludes that, because adverse events occur infrequently in individual institutions, large-scale databases are needed to aggregate data for study.
Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of Public Affairs; May 18, 2006.
This fact sheet provides information regarding the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' initiative to better understand and minimize never events.
St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Health; March 2019.
The National Quality Forum has defined 29 never events—patient safety problems that should never occur, such as wrong-site surgery and patient falls. Since 2003, Minnesota hospitals have been required to report such incidents. The 2018 report summarizes information about 384 adverse events that were reported and found pressure ulcers and invasive procedure events increased, while fall-related deaths decreased. Reports from previous years are also available.
St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Health; January 2009.
This report provides background on the Minnesota Never Events reporting initiative, tips for patients on how to receive the safest care possible, and a table of events reported by all hospitals in the state.
Journal Article > Review
Achieving the National Quality Forum's "Never Events": prevention of wrong site, wrong procedure, and wrong patient operations.
Michaels RK, Makary MA, Dahab Y, et al. Ann Surg. 2007;245:526-532.
Wrong site operations are rare and often occur when systems to prevent them fail. This study reviewed existing prevention strategies, such as the Joint Commission's Universal Protocol, to develop a framework for hospitals to assess their wrong site event prevention efforts. The proposed framework asks whether a behaviorally specific policy has been enacted and whether staff understand the policy, and goes on to recommend directly observing the policy being put into practice. The authors advocate standardized interventions utilizing effective methods to measure safety. A previous Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) WebM&M commentary discusses factors that place patients at risk for wrong site surgery.
Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; 2011. ISBN: 9780982842188.
The National Quality Forum originally defined 27 health care "never events"—patient safety events that pose serious harm to patients, but should be considered preventable—in 2002. The 2011 update now consists of 29 events, organized into surgical events (e.g., wrong-site surgery), device events (e.g., air embolism), care management events (e.g., death or disability due to medication errors), patient protection events (e.g., patient suicide), environmental events (e.g., fires), radiologic events, and criminal events. One notable addition to the original list is that serious harm associated with failure to properly follow up on test results is now considered a never event. Since the development and dissemination of this list, many states have mandated that health care facilities report all instances of these events. When such an event occurs, many institutions mandate performance of a root cause analysis.
Carpenter D. Hosp Health Netw. November 2007;81:34-38.
O'Reilly KB. American Medical News. January 7, 2008.
This article discusses the evolving payer trend to withhold hospital reimbursement related to never events.
Ostrom CM. Seattle Times. January 29, 2008;News section:A1.
This article discusses a voluntary initiative in the state of Washington to cease billing patients for costs associated with preventable errors.
NY Medicaid ups the ante: by refusing to pay for 14 'never events,' the nation's biggest Medicaid program could propel other states into action.
DerGurahian J. Mod Healthc. June 16, 2008;38:6.
ASQ Quarterly Quality Report. Milwaukee, WI: American Society of Quality; October 2008.
This report describes strategies for health care institutions to prevent never events, based on results of a 2008 survey of quality professionals.
Levinson DR. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General; December 2008. Report No. OEI-06-07-00470.
The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 mandated that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report to Congress the incidence of "never events" among Medicare beneficiaries, payment by Medicare for services in connection with such events, and the process used to identify events and deny payments. This report addresses that mandate by providing a descriptive analysis of the key issues to understanding hospital-based adverse events. The report is focused around discussion of seven critical issues that are explored in detail. Of note, OIG expanded the study of never events to the broader topic of adverse events in their analysis.
Adverse Events in Hospitals: Care Study of Incidence Among Medicare Beneficiaries in Two Selected Counties.
Levinson DR. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General; December 2008. Report No. OEI-06-08-00220.
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) no longer reimburses hospitals for the costs associated with certain preventable adverse events, many (but not all) of which are considered never events. This report from the federal Office of the Inspector General (OIG) examines the adverse events in a sample of Medicare beneficiaries. As outlined in a previous report, the OIG chose to evaluate the overall incidence of adverse events, including "no pay for errors" conditions, never events, and all other adverse consequences of hospitalization, including non-preventable adverse events. Therefore, the 15% overall incidence of adverse events found in this study should be interpreted with caution. Less than 1% of patients experienced a never event, and approximately 4% experienced a condition on CMS's no pay for errors list.
National Patient Safety Agency. London, UK: National Reporting and Learning Service; 2009.
This report from the United Kingdom is intended to guide Primary Care Trusts in implementing never events policies for 2009-2010.
Journal Article > Review
Tishler CL, Reiss NS. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2009;31:103-109.
Suicide attempts by inpatients are considered a never event, and, as such, are also considered reportable sentinel events by the Joint Commission. This article reviews the suicide rate in hospitals, related risk factors, methods of suicidal behavior, factors that contribute to the event, and suggestions for prevention and risk assessment.
Journal Article > Commentary
Clancy CM. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24:166-168.
This commentary describes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) nonpayment policy for never events and explores its potential impact on health care.
Journal Article > Commentary
Milstein A. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2388-2390.
Never events represent a list of adverse events that are serious, unambiguous, and usually preventable. The National Quality Forum defined 28 never events in a 2007 consensus report that led to state mandates for reporting and financial implications for payment of services. This commentary discusses the context of these policy implications and how they are a small step toward motivating hospitals and clinicians to improve quality and safety.