On Patient Care (original) (raw)
Related papers
BMC Health Services Research, 2011
In Britain over 39,000 reports were received by the National Patient Safety Agency relating to failures in documentation in 2007 and the UK Health Services Journal estimated in 2008 that over a million hospital outpatient visits each year might take place without the full record available. Despite these high numbers, the impact of missing clinical information has not been investigated for hospital outpatients in the UK.Studies in primary care in the USA have found 13.6% of patient consultations have missing clinical information, with this adversely affecting care in about half of cases, and in Australia 1.8% of medical errors were found to be due to the unavailability of clinical information.Our objectives were to assess the frequency, nature and potential impact on patient care of missing clinical information in NHS hospital outpatients and to assess the principal causes. This is the first study to present such figures for the UK and the first to look at how clinicians respond, including the associated impact on patient care. Prospective descriptive study of missing information reported by surgeons, supplemented by interviews on the causes.Data were collected by surgeons in general, gastrointestinal, colorectal and vascular surgical clinics in three teaching hospitals across the UK for over a thousand outpatient appointments. Fifteen interviews were conducted with those involved in collating clinical information for these clinics.The study had ethics approval (Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Research Ethics Committee), reference number (09/H0707/27). Participants involved in the interviews signed a consent form and were offered the opportunity to review and agree the transcript of their interview before analysis. No patients were involved in this research. In 15% of outpatient consultations key items of clinical information were missing. Of these patients, 32% experienced a delay or disruption to their care and 20% had a risk of harm. In over half of cases the doctor relied on the patient for the information, making a clinical decision despite the information being missing in 20% of cases. Hospital mergers, temporary staff and non-integrated IT systems were contributing factors. If these findings are replicated across the NHS then almost 10 million outpatients are seen each year without key clinical information, creating over a million unnecessary appointments, and putting nearly 2 million patients at risk of harm. There is a need for a systematic, regular audit of the prevalence of missing clinical information. Only then will we know the impact on clinical decision making and patient care of new technology, service reorganisations and, crucially given the present financial climate, temporary or reduced staffing levels. Further research is needed to assess the relationship between missing clinical information and diagnostic errors; to examine the issue in primary care; and to consider the patients perspective.
Missing clinical information: the system is down
ABSTRACT In clinical medicine, the key to a successful patient-physician relationship is good communication. The ability to listen, explain, and empathize is as important as the ability to diagnose and treat. Why then, when it comes to communicating among ourselves, do physicians and health care organizations settle for mediocrity? Communication problems exist between specialists and primary care physicians,1 the laboratory and physicians’ offices,2- 3 hospitalists and office-based physicians,4 the hospital and physicians’ offices,5 and nursing homes and physicians’ offices.6
Medical errors in primary care clinics - a cross sectional study
Bmc Family Practice, 2012
Background: Patient safety is vital in patient care. There is a lack of studies on medical errors in primary care settings. The aim of the study is to determine the extent of diagnostic inaccuracies and management errors in public funded primary care clinics. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in twelve public funded primary care clinics in Malaysia. A total of 1753 medical records were randomly selected in 12 primary care clinics in 2007 and were reviewed by trained family physicians for diagnostic, management and documentation errors, potential errors causing serious harm and likelihood of preventability of such errors. Results: The majority of patient encounters (81%) were with medical assistants. Diagnostic errors were present in 3.6% (95% CI: 2.2, 5.0) of medical records and management errors in 53.2% (95% CI: 46.3, 60.2). For management errors, medication errors were present in 41.1% (95% CI: 35.8, 46.4) of records, investigation errors in 21.7% (95% CI: 16.5, 26.8) and decision making errors in 14.5% (95% CI: 10.8, 18.2). A total of 39.9% (95% CI: 33.1, 46.7) of these errors had the potential to cause serious harm. Problems of documentation including illegible handwriting were found in 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0, 99.1) of records. Nearly all errors (93.5%) detected were considered preventable. Conclusions: The occurrence of medical errors was high in primary care clinics particularly with documentation and medication errors. Nearly all were preventable. Remedial intervention addressing completeness of documentation and prescriptions are likely to yield reduction of errors.
Medical ErrorsWhat and When: What Do Patients Want to Know?
Academic …, 2002
The American health care system has recently come under intense scrutiny for its response to an unac-ceptably high level of medical errors.1 The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has identified ''effective physi-cian communication'' of medical errors and ''unfet-tered patient access to ...
Implementation Science, 2015
Background: Patient safety research has focused largely on hospital settings despite the fact that in many countries, the majority of patient contacts are in primary care. The knowledge base about patient safety in primary care is developing but sparse and diagnostic error is a relatively understudied and an unmeasured area of patient safety. Diagnostic error rates vary according to how 'error' is defined but one suggested hallmark is clear evidence of 'missed opportunity' (MDOs) makes a correct or timely diagnosis to prevent them. While there is no agreed definition or method of measuring MDOs, retrospective manual chart or patient record reviews are a 'gold standard'. This study protocol aims to (1) determine the incidence of MDOs in English general practice, (2) identify the confounding and contributing factors that lead to MDOs and (3) determine the (potential) impact of the detected MDOs on patients. Methods/Design: We plan to conduct a two-phase retrospective review of electronic health records in the Greater Manchester (GM) area of the UK. In the first phase, clinician reviewers will calibrate their performance in identifying and assessing MDOs against a gold standard 'primary reviewer' through the use of 'double' reviews of records. The findings will enable a preliminary estimate of the incidence of MDOs in general practice, which will be used to calculate the number of records to be reviewed in the second phase in order to estimate the true incidence of MDO in general practice. A sample of 15 general practices is required for phase 1 and up to 35 practices for phase 2. In each practice, the sample will consist of 100 patients aged ≥18 years on 1 April 2013 who have attended a face-to-face 'index consultation' between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2015. The index consultation will be selected randomly from each unique patient record, occurring between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. Discussion: There are no reliable estimates of safety problems related to diagnosis in English general practice. This study will lay the foundation for safety improvements in this area by providing a more reliable estimate of MDOs, their impact and their contributory factors.
Hospital patients' reports of medical errors and undesirable events in their health care
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2012
Objective To investigate hospital patients' reports of undesirable events in their health care. Design Cross-sectional mixed methods design. Participants A total of 80 medical and surgical patients (mean age 58, 56 male). Intervention Patients were interviewed post-discharge using a survey to assess patient reports of errors or problems in their care. Patients' medical records and notes were also reviewed. Main outcome measures Frequency of health care process problems, medical complications and interpersonal problems, and patient willingness to report an undesirable event in their care. Results In total, 258 undesirable events were reported (rate of 3.2 per person), including 136 interpersonal problems, 90 medical complications and 32 health care process problems. Patients identified a number of events that were reported in the medical records (30 out of 36). In addition, patients reported events that were not recorded in the medical records. Patients were more willing (P < 0.05) to report undesirable events to a researcher (as in the present case) than to a local or national reporting system. Conclusion Patients appear able to report undesirable events that occur in their health care management over and above those that are recorded in their medical records. However, patients appear more willing to report these incidents for the purpose of a study rather than to an established incident reporting system. Interventions aimed at educating and encouraging patients about incident reporting systems need to be developed in order to enhance this important contribution patients could make to improving patient safety. bs_bs_banner
The clinician's role in meeting patient information needs: suggested learning outcomes
Medical Education, 2001
Background Patients have always ful®lled their information needs from a variety of different sources over time. Clinician±patient consultations are one part of that process. Some patients have increasing opportunities to obtain information through new sources such as the internet, touch-screens, and patient-held records. Others remain poorly informed.
2011
Aim To compare the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in newly written medication orders and how quickly they were rectified, in three NHS organisations. Methods Errors in newly written inpatient and discharge medication orders were recorded in Spring/Summer 2009 by ward pharmacists on medical admissions and surgical wards, as well as the number of erroneous doses administered (or omitted) before errors were corrected. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the effects of ward (nested within organisation) and clinical specialty, and whether the pharmacist had checked the patient's medication history during data collection. Causes were explored using semistructured interviews with key informants. Results Overall, 1025 prescribing errors were identified in 974 of 6605 medication orders (14.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.8% to 15.6%). A mean of 0.9 doses were administered (or omitted) before each error was corrected (range 0e11), with differences between specialties and organisations. The error rate on medical admissions wards (16.3%) was significantly higher than that on surgical wards (12.2%), but this was accounted for by the higher proportion of prescribing being on admission, where omission of patients' usual medication was often identified. There were significant differences among wards (and organisations). Contributing factors included lack of feedback on errors, poor documentation and communication of prescribing decisions, and lack of information about patients' medication histories from primary care. Conclusions There were variations among wards, organisations and specialties in error rates and how quickly they were rectified. Exploring reasons for differences between organisations may be useful in identifying best practice and potential solutions.