Narrow Results Clear All
- Communication Improvement 1
Education and Training
- Students 1
- Error Reporting and Analysis 9
- Human Factors Engineering 1
Legal and Policy Approaches
- Quality Improvement Strategies 2
- Technologic Approaches 3
- Transparency and Accountability 1
Search results for "Regulation"
Leape LL. Perspect Health Reform. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund; March 17, 2010.
Of three approaches to enhancing patient safety—regulation/accreditation, financial incentives, and public reporting—this perspective, written by the father of the modern patient safety movement, details how public reporting holds the most potential to stimulate improvement.
Journal Article > Study
Sharif I, Tse J. Pediatrics. 2010;125:960-965.
Misunderstanding prescription drug labels is a recognized source of errors in ambulatory care. Low health literacy places patients at higher risk, and language barriers may also contribute to preventable medication errors, as illustrated vividly in an AHRQ WebM&M commentary. A prior study found that translated drug labels are available in many pharmacies, but this study found that Spanish-language labels generated by commercial translation systems are disturbingly inaccurate. Half of the labels contained at least one error, and the authors document examples of incomplete or inaccurate translations that could lead to serious patient harm (for example, "once a day" mistranslated as "eleven times per day"). A prior study also found that Spanish-speaking patients may be at higher risk of experiencing errors while hospitalized.
Opportunities and Recommendations for State–Federal Coordination to Improve Health System Performance: A Focus on Patient Safety.
Buxbaum J. Portland, ME: National Academy for State Health Policy; January 2010.
This briefing summarizes recommendations from a roundtable of health policy leaders, who selected the following areas as foci for initial federal–state coordination of safety efforts: reducing health care–associated infections, decreasing preventable hospital readmissions, and minimizing hospitalization for ambulatory conditions.
Huff C. Trustee. January 2010.
Perspectives on Safety > Interview
The Business Case for Improving Safety, May 2009
The Business Case for Improving Safety
More states shred bills for awful medical errors: patients in 23 states will no longer pay for certain mistakes, hospitals say.
Aleccia J. MSNBC News. August 12, 2008.
This article reports on the implementation and expansion of several states' non-payment policies for medical mistakes in light of similar policies set by Medicare and private insurance companies.
Fuhrmans V. Wall Street Journal. January 15, 2008:D1.
This article reports on health insurance companies adopting the tactic of not paying for preventable errors, which parallels a similar federal decision.
Journal Article > Study
Who pays for medical errors? An analysis of adverse event costs, the medical liability system, and incentives for patient safety improvement.
Mello MM, Studdert DM, Thomas EJ, Yoon CS, Brennan TA. J Empirical Leg Stud. 2007;4:835–860.
Organizational costs associated with medical errors, and specifically adverse drug events, have been reported. This study analyzes such costs and also examines what proportion is absorbed by hospitals. Using claims data from a past study, investigators determined that hospitals assumed only 22% of costs associated with injuries. The authors advocate for continued efforts to improve the business case for safety interventions, partly by understanding the marginal costs associated with a given safety improvement. Legal reforms or market interventions are also suggested as mechanisms to deal with the externalization of injury costs.
Carpenter D. Hosp Health Netw. November 2007;81:34-38.
Lerner M. Star Tribune. September 18, 2007;News section:5B.
This article reports on Minnesota's adoption of a policy for hospitals to not charge patients or insurers for never events or consequent treatment.
Kowalczyk L. Boston Globe. September 17, 2007;Metro section:1A.
This article reports on how numerous Massachusetts hospitals have implemented policies to waive charges for the set of serious errors categorized as never events.
Smerd J. Workforce Management. June 11, 2007;1, 16-19.
This article discusses the financial impact on employers when an employee is affected by medical error.
Talaga T, Cribb R. Toronto Star. March 19, 2007.
This article discusses disclosure of medical errors and shares stories from several Canadian hospitals on their policies for disclosing adverse events.
Journal Article > Commentary
Excusable neglect in malpractice suits against radiologists: a proposed jury instruction to recognize the human condition.
Caldwell C, Seamone ER. Ann Health Law. Winter 2007;16:43-77.
The authors discuss the uniqueness of errors in radiology and propose a jury instruction that takes into account errors of perception and judgment.