An epistemology of patient safety research: A framework for study design and interpretation. Part 3. End points and measurement

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 170-177

  Brown, C ^a   Hofer, T ^b   Johal, A ^a,c   Thomson, R ^c,d   Nicholl, J ^e   Franklin, B D ^f   Lilford, R J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c NATIONAL PATIENT SAFETY AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^d NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SAFETY;

EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERVENTION STUDIES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAFETY MANAGEMENT;

EID: 47749153423     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: 14753901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2007.023655     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Donabedian A. Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. In: Griffith JR, ed. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press, 1980:4-163.
2. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ 2000;320:768-70.
3. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:i-iv, 1-74.
4. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, et al. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: Implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess 2002;6:1-244.
5. Mant J, Hicks N. Detecting differences in quality of care: the sensitivity of measures of process and outcome in treating acute myocardial infarction. BMJ 1995;311:793-6.
6. Romano PS, Geppert JJ, Davies S, et al. A national profile of patient safety in US hospitals. Health Aff 2003;22:154-66.
7. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalised patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370-6.
8. Caplan RA, Posner KL, Cheney FW. Effect of outcome on physician judgements of appropriateness of care. JAMA 1991;265:1957-60.
9. Hayward RA, Hofer TP. Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer. JAMA 2001;286:415-20.
10. Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J, et al. The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events. Health Technol Assessment 2001;5:1-194.
11. Lilford RJ, Mohammed M, Spieglehalter D, et al. Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma. Lancet 2004;263:1147-57.
12. Lilford RJ, Mohammed M, Braunholtz D, et al. The measurement of active errors: methodological issues. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:ii8-ii12.
13. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, et al. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 2006;332:413-16.
14. Wagner EH, Glasgow RE, Davis C, et al. Quality improvement in chronic illness care: a collaborative approach. Jt Comm J Quality Improv 2001;27:63-80.
15. Shortell SM, Jones RH, Rademaker AW, et al. Assessing the impact of total quality management and organisational culture on multiple outcomes of care for coronary artery bypass surgery patients. Med Care 2000;38:207-17.
16. National Patient Safety Agency. Seven steps to patient safety. London: National Patient Safety Agency, 2004.
17. Scott T, Mannion R, Marshall MN, et al. Does organisational culture influence health care performance? A review of the evidence. J Serv Res Pol 2003;8:105-17.
18. Cooper MD. Towards a model of safety culture. Saf Sci 2000;36:111-36.
19. Jha AK, Zhonghe Li MPH, Orav EJ, et al. Care in US hospitals: The hospital quality alliance program. N Engl J Med 2005;353:265-74.
20. Wilson B, Thornton JG, Hewison J, et al. The Leeds University maternity audit project. Int J Qual Health Care 2002;14:175-81.
21. National Coordinating Centre for Research Methodology. Future research. 2007. http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/nccrm/publication-RM05- JH33-DF.htm (accessed 1 Apr 2008).
22. Patterson M. Review of the validity and reliability of measures of human resource management. 2007. http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/ nccrm/publication-RM03-JH10-MP.htm (accessed 1 Apr 2008).
23. Landrigan CP, Rothschild JM, Cronin JW, et al. Effect of reducing interns' work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1838-48.
24. Dean Franklin B, Schachter M, Vincent C, et al. Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: their incidence and clinical significance. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:340-4.
25. Taxis K, Barber N. Causes of intravenous medication errors: an ethnographic study. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:343-7.
26. Boxwala AA, Dierks M, Keenan M, et al. Organisation and representation of patient safety data: current status and issues around generalisability and scalability. JAm Med Inform Assoc 2004;11:468-79.
27. Vincent C. Incident reporting and patient safety. BMJ 2007;334:51.
28. Pronovost PJ, Miller MR, Wachter RM. Tracking progress in patient safety: an elusive target. JAMA 2006;296:696-9.
29. Good PI, Hardin JW. Common errors in statistics (and how to avoid them), 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley, 2006.
30. National Audit Office. A safer place for patients: learning to improve patient safety. London: The Stationery Office, 2005.
31. Cullen DJ, Bates DW, Small SD, et al. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Quality Improv 1995;21:541-8.
32. Begaud B, Martin K, Haramburu F, et al. Rates of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in France. JAMA 2002;288:1588.
33. Giles S, Fletcher M, Baker M, et al. Incident reporting and analysis. In: Walshe K, Boaden R, eds. Patient safety: research into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005:108-17.
34. World Health Organization. WHO draft guidelines for adverse event reporting and learning systems. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2005.
35. Gandhi TK, Weingart SN, Borus J, et al. Adverse drug events in ambulatory care. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1556-64.
36. Weingart SN, Price J, Duncombe D, et al. Patient-reported safety and quality of care in outpatient oncology. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2007;33:83-94.
37. Weingart SN, Pagovich O, Sands DZ, et al. What can hospitalized patients tell us about adverse events? Learning from patient-reported incidents. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:830-6.
38. Barber N, Dean Franklin B, Carnford T, et al. Safer, faster, better? Evaluating electronic prescribing. Report to the patient safety research programme, 2006.
39. Resar RK, Rozich JD, Simmonds T, et al. A trigger tool to identify adverse events in the intensive care unit. Jt Comm J Quality Improv 2006;32:585-90.
40. Griffin FA, Resar RK. Global trigger tool White Paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Health Improvement, 2007.
41. Sharek PJ, Horbar JD, Mason W, et al. Adverse events in the neonatal intensive care unit: development, testing, and findings of an NICU-focused trigger tool to identify harm in North American NICUs. Pediatrics 2006;118:1332-40.
42. Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK. Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:194-200.
43. Classen D, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA 1991;266:2847-51.
44. Jha AK, Duncan BW, Bates DW. Simulator-based training and patient safety. In: Shojana KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, eds. Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2001.
45. Resar RK, Rozich JD, Classen D. Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:ii39-ii45.
46. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg MA, et al. Identifying hospital admissions due to adverse drug events using a computer-based monitor. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001;10:113-19.
47. Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, et al. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. JAm Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:305-14.
48. Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Khan R, et al. Profiling care provided by different groups of physicians: effects of patient case-mix (bias) and physician-level clustering on quality assessment results. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:111-21.
49. Kahn KL, Rubenstein LV, Draper D, et al. The effects of the DRG-based prospective payment system on quality of care for hospitalised Medicare patients: an introduction to the series. JAMA 1990;264:1953-5.
50. Michel P, Quenon JL, DeSarasquesta AM, et al. Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hosptials. BMJ 2004;328:199.
51. Thomas EJ, Petersen LA. Measuring errors and adverse events in health care. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:61-7.
52. Murff HJ, Patel VL, Hripcsak G, et al. Detecting adverse events for patient safety research: a review of current methodologies. J Biomed Inform 2003;36:131-13.
53. National Patient Safety Agency. Building a memory: preventing harm, reducing risks and improving patient safety. London: National Patient Safety Agency, 2005.
54. Safran DG, Miller W, Beckman H. Organisational dimensions of relationship-centred care: theory, evidence and practice. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:S9-S15.
55. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2635-45.
56. Kirk SA, Campbell S, Kennell-Webb S, et al. Assessing the quality of care of multiple conditions in general practice. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:421-7.
57. Hopkins Tanne J. AMA developed measures of doctors' performance. BMJ 2006;332:506.
58. Jacobs R, Smith P, Goddard M. How robust are hospital ranks based on composite performance measures? Med Care 2005;43:1177-84.
59. Hutchinson A. Comparative study of different methods to study quality of care/safety. http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/nccrm/ publication-RM03-JH08-AH.htm (accessed 1 Apr 2008).
60. Kerr EA, Hofer T, Hayward RA, et al. Quality by any other name?: a comparison of three profiling systems for assessing health care quality. Health Serv Res 2007;42:2070-87.
61. Heinrich HW. Industrial accident prevention. New York: McGraw Hill, 1931.
62. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37-46.
63. Lilford RJ, Edwards A, Girling A, et al. Inter-rater reliability of case-note audit: A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:173-80.
64. Hutchinson TP. Kappa muddles together two sources of disagreement: tetrachoric correlation is preferable. Res Nurs Health 1993;16:313-16.
65. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.
66. Goldman RL. The reliability of peer assessments of quality of care. JAMA 1992;267:958-60.
67. Rubenstein LV, Kahn KL, Reinish EJ, et al. Changes in quality of care for five diseases measured by implicit review, 1981-1986. JAMA 1990;264:1974-9.
68. Hofer TP, Bernstein SJ, DeMonner S, et al. Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality. Med Care 2000;38:152-61.