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.
To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System
(2000) - et al.
Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patientsResults of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I
N Engl J Med
(1991) - et al.
The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patientsResults of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II
N Engl J Med
(1991) - et al.
Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado
Med Care
(2000) - et al.
Adverse drug events in ambulatory care
N Engl J Med
(2003) - et al.
The Critical Care Safety Study: the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care
Crit Care Med
(2005) - et al.
Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events in nursing homes
Am J Med
(2000) The Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System
(2006)- 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)
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
The safety of emergency care systems: results of a survey of clinicians in 65 US emergency departments
Ann Emerg Med
Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma—summary report 2007
J Allergy Clin Immunol
Clinical policy: procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department
Ann Emerg Med
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
Quality of care for acute myocardial infarction in 58 US emergency departments
Acad Emerg Med
Quality of care for acute asthma in 63 US emergency departments
J Allergy Clin Immunol
The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: ICD-9-CM
Costs of medical injuries in Utah and Colorado
Inquiry
Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug eventsImplications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group
JAMA
Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients
JAMA
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Cited by (63)
When Safety Event Reporting Is Seen as Punitive: “I've Been PSN-ed!”
2021, Annals of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, all team members are susceptible to error and vulnerable to the fallout, and they may bear silent witness to mistakes while agonizing over conflicting loyalties to patients, institutions, and teams.3 The purpose of reporting systems is to identify safety issues to make changes and improvements in the health system.4–9 However, a culture of blame discourages event reporting, and receiving punitive reports inhibits the development of a just culture,10 thus reducing individual and system improvement in patient safety.
Exploring patient safety culture in emergency departments: a Tunisian perspective
2021, International Emergency NursingCitation Excerpt :The study also showed that these units require more patient safety improvement efforts than other areas in the hospital [7]. Furthermore, a Spanish study conducted in 62 urban EDs, revealed that at least 7% of patients arriving in a serious state have suffered adverse events [8]. In addition, it has been shown that 12% of all emergency returns, within 7 days of the first visit, were related to adverse events [9].
Acute Workplace Hazards in Orthopedic Surgery: Resident Survey Regarding Splash and Workplace Violence Events
2020, Journal of Surgical EducationThe Emergency Department Trigger Tool: A Novel Approach to Screening for Quality and Safety Events
2020, Annals of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Conditions such as increasing acuity, time pressures, frequent handoffs, and hospital crowding and boarding create an environment with a high potential for adverse events. Previous studies have often focused on error rather than harm or on specific adverse event types (eg, drug events) or subpopulations (eg, asthma, boarding patients).5-11 It is increasingly recognized that the focus of patient safety and quality initiatives should be on prevention of harm rather than errors, which are widespread but rarely result in adverse events.
Risk management maturity enhancement in healthcare through the application of quality management principles
2024, International Journal of Learning and Change
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.