Effectiveness of routine reporting to identify minor and serious adverse outcomes in surgical patients

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 378-382

  Marang Van De Mheen, P J ^a,b   Van Hanegem, N ^a   Kievit, J ^a,b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Paediatric Association of the Netherlands   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL RECORD; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE; REOPERATION; RESIDENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROUTINE REPORTING; SAMPLING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURGEON; SURGICAL PATIENT; TECHNIQUE; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL RECORDS; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SURGERY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 27144495831     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2004.013250     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse outcomes and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Havard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370-6.
2. Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, et al. The incidence and nature of surgical adverse outcomes in Colorado en Utah in 1992. Surgery 1999;126:66-75.
3. Kable AK, Gibberd RW, Spigelman AD. Adverse outcomes in surgical patients in Australia. Int J Qual Health Care 2002;14:269-76.
4. Davis P, Ley-Yee R, Briant R, et al. Adverse outcomes in New Zealand public hospitals: principal findings from a national survey, Occasional Paper No 3. New Zealand: Ministry of Health, 2001.
5. Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Scott A, et al. Acknowledgement of "no fault" medical injury: review of patients' hospital records in New Zealand. BMJ 2003;326:79-80.
6. Hayward RA, Hofer TP. Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors. Preventability is in the eye of the reviewer. JAMA 2001;286:415-20.
7. Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Kievit J. Automated registration of adverse events in surgical patients in the Netherlands: the current status (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2003;147:1273-7.
8. Kievit J, Jeekel J, Sanders FBM. Adverse outcome registration and quality improvement (in Dutch). Med Contact 1999;54:1363-5.
9. American Society of Anesthesiologists. New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 1963;24:111.
10. Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Mertens BJA, van Houwelingen HC, et al. Surgery groups differ in adverse outcome probabilities and can be used to adjust hospital comparisons. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:56-62.
11. O'Neill AC, Petersen LA, Cook F, et al. Physician reporting compared with medical-record review to identify adverse medical events. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:370-6.
12. Wolff AM, Bourke J, Campbell IA, et al. Detecting and reducing hospital adverse events: outcomes of the Wimmera clinical risk management program. Med J Aust 2001;174:621-5.
13. Firth-Cozens J. Barriers to incident reporting. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:7.
14. Michel P, Quenon JL, Sarasqueta AM, et al. Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals. BMJ 2004;328:199-203.