Narrow Results Clear All
- Communication Improvement 1
- Education and Training 2
- Error Reporting and Analysis
- Legal and Policy Approaches
- Quality Improvement Strategies 2
- Technologic Approaches 2
- Discontinuities, Gaps, and Hand-Off Problems 1
- Identification Errors 3
- Medical Complications 6
- Medication Safety 1
- Psychological and Social Complications 1
- Surgical Complications 6
- Transfusion Complications 1
Search results for "Never Events"
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
O'Reilly KB. American Medical News. January 7, 2008.
This article discusses the evolving payer trend to withhold hospital reimbursement related to never events.
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.
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.
Journal Article > Study
Potential unintended consequences due to Medicare's "No Pay for Errors Rule"? A randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention with internal medicine residents.
Mookherjee S, Vidyarthi AR, Ranji SR, Maselli J, Wachter RM, Baron RB. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:1097-1101.
A 2008 policy change by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) eliminated reimbursement for certain preventable errors, including selected never events and hospital-acquired infections. The impact of the policy was debated, including the ability of providers and systems to accurately identify conditions present on admission. This study involved an educational intervention to assess the policy's impact on clinical practice among trainees. In a series of presented clinical vignettes, members of the intervention group, who received education about the new policy as part of the study, were less likely than participants who received no such education to select the most clinically appropriate response. While all the trainees acknowledged responsibility to understand CMS documentation rules and felt poorly trained to do so, their responses to the vignettes raised concern about the potential harm and unintended consequences caused by unnecessary testing and procedures that may result from the policy. The implications of the CMS policy are further discussed in an AHRQ WebM&M perspective.
Blaney B. Associated Press [USA Today]. March 12, 2007.
This article reports on the abduction of a newborn by an individual masquerading as a hospital employee. Infant abduction is one of the patient safety "never events" defined by the National Quality Forum.