Patient safety/original researchSafety Climate and Medical Errors in 62 US Emergency Departments
Introduction
Medical errors are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The Institute of Medicine's report To Err Is Human estimated that adverse events occurred in 2.9% to 3.7% of 33 million hospitalizations and that 44,000 to 98,000 people die each year as a result of medical errors.1 Previous safety studies have focused on medical errors in the inpatient,2, 3, 4 outpatient,5 critical care,6 and long-term care settings.7 Emergency department (ED) care is considered especially prone to medical errors for several reasons, including the fast pace and frequency of complex and life-threatening conditions. Moreover, as documented in another Institute of Medicine report,8 the nation's EDs face serious challenges, such as crowding, that may increase the likelihood of errors. Although there are data on medication errors in the ED,9 there are sparse data on the overall incidence of medical errors in the ED. A single-ED study interviewed staff during a 7-day period and found that 18% of 1,935 patient visits had self-reported errors.10 A more recent ED interview study showed that 32% of 487 visits had at least 1 “nonideal” care event.11
Traditional approaches to identifying and preventing the causes of errors (eg, root-cause analysis) are often passive and emphasize individual factors.12 Active surveillance of frontline health care providers about systems factors that may cause errors is an innovative strategy for identifying correctable causes of errors.13 Likewise, the overall “ED safety climate”—by which we mean both human factors and measureable attributes of the systems of care, not outward manifestations of safety culture—is a potentially useful proxy for safety. However, the link between ED safety climate and actual medical errors is unknown.
We conducted the National Emergency Department Safety Study to address these major gaps in the patient safety literature. The objectives of National Emergency Department Safety Study were to describe the incidence and types of medical errors in EDs and to assess the validity of a survey instrument that directly identifies systems factors thought to contribute to errors in EDs. We hypothesized that better ED safety climate, as measured by our instrument, would be associated with lower incidence of preventable adverse events and higher incidence of intercepted near misses. By contrast, we expected no association between ED safety climate and nonpreventable adverse events or nonintercepted near misses.
Section snippets
Study Design and Setting
Details of the National Emergency Department Safety Study design and data collection have been previously published.14 In brief, it was a multicenter study that sought to characterize both human and systemic factors associated with the occurrence of errors in the ED. The study was coordinated by the Emergency Medicine Network (http://www.emnet-usa.org). We invited EDs affiliated with the network to participate in the study, with additional recruitment through postings on emergency medicine
Results
The 62 study EDs were located throughout the country, had large annual visit volumes, and cared for many patients with each of the 3 conditions (Table 1). All of the EDs were urban and most (77%) were affiliated with an emergency medicine residency program. The overall ED clinicians' perceptions of ED safety climate were represented by a mean safety score of 3.5 on a scale of 1 to 5. The ratings appeared lower for 4 subscales: physical environment, staffing, information coordination and
Limitations
Our study has several potential limitations. First, because most participating EDs are urban academic centers, the results may not be generalizable to other settings. Second, we did not sample all ED visits, so we are unable to estimate the incidence of errors for all ED conditions. Third, although the reliability of initial physician judgments was similar to that of previous studies, in which κ statistics have ranged from 0.2 to 0.6,3, 4 only 3% of charts produced rater disagreement that
Discussion
In this study of 9,821 patients presenting to 62 EDs with 3 common conditions, the incidence of adverse events was 4.1%, of which 37% were deemed preventable. Although our measure of ED safety climate was not associated with a statistically significant decrease in preventable adverse events, it was associated with a higher likelihood of intercepted near misses. Last, there was no association between ED safety climate and serious violations of national treatment guidelines.
The National Emergency
References (51)
- et al.
Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events in nursing homes
Am J Med
(2000) - et al.
Adverse drug events in emergency department patients
Ann Emerg Med
(2002) - et al.
Errors in a busy emergency department
Ann Emerg Med
(2003) - et al.
The safety of emergency care systems: results of a survey of clinicians in 65 US emergency departments
Ann Emerg Med
(2009) - et al.
Clinical policy: procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department
Ann Emerg Med
(2005) - et al.
Quality of care for acute asthma in 63 US emergency departments
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(2009) - et al.
Methodological considerations, such as directed acyclic graphs, for studying “acute on chronic” disease epidemiology: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease example
J Clin Epidemiol
(2009) - et al.
The presence of outcome bias in emergency physician retrospective judgments of the quality of care
Ann Emerg Med
(2011) - et al.
Using a multihospital survey to examine the safety culture
Jt Comm J Qual Saf
(2004) - et al.
A pilot study examining undesirable events among emergency department–boarded patients awaiting inpatient beds
Ann Emerg Med
(2009)
Nurse staffing in acute care settings: research perspectives and practice implications
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
Senior executive adopt-a-work unit: a model for safety improvement
Jt Comm J Qual Saf
To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System
Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patientsResults of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I
N Engl J Med
The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patientsResults of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II
N Engl J Med
Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado
Med Care
Adverse drug events in ambulatory care
N Engl J Med
The Critical Care Safety Study: the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care
Crit Care Med
The Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System
Incidence and types of non-ideal care events in an emergency department
Qual Saf Health Care
Five years after To Err Is Human: what have we learned?
JAMA
Measuring patient safety climate: a review of surveys
Qual Saf Health Care
The National Emergency Department Safety Study: study rationale and design
Acad Emerg Med
Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma—summary report 2007
J Allergy Clin Immunol
ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction—executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction)
Circulation
Cited by (0)
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. This study was supported by grant R01 HS013099 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Rockville, MD).
Please see page 556 for the Editor's Capsule Summary of this article.
Supervising editor: David L. Schriger, MD, MPH
Author contributions: CAC, PDC, JAG, EG, RK, DJM, SRR, and DB conceived and designed the study. DB obtained research funding. CAC, AFS, JAG, DJM, and DB collected the data. CAC and C-LT analyzed the data and drafted the article. All authors contributed substantially to article revision. CAC supervised the study and takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
A feedback survey is available with each research article published on the Web at www.annemergmed.com.
A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com.