4.5 Article

Safety Climate and Medical Errors in 62 US Emergency Departments

Journal

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 60, Issue 5, Pages 555-563

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.02.018

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Rockville, MD) [R01 HS013099]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study objective: We describe the incidence and types of medical errors in emergency departments (EDs) and assess the validity of a survey instrument that identifies systems factors contributing to errors in EDs. Methods: We conducted the National Emergency Department Safety Study in 62 urban EDs across 20 US states. We reviewed 9,821 medical records of ED patients with one of 3 conditions (myocardial infarction, asthma exacerbation, and joint dislocation) to evaluate medical errors. We also obtained surveys from 3,562 staff randomly selected from each ED; survey data were used to calculate average safety climate scores for each ED. Results: We identified 402 adverse events (incidence rate 4.1 per 100 patient visits; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7 to 4.5) and 532 near misses (incidence rate 5.4 per 100 patient visits; 95% Cl 5.0 to 5.9). We judged 37% of the adverse events, and all of the near misses, to be preventable (errors); 33% of the near misses were intercepted. In multivariable models, better ED safety climate was not associated with fewer preventable adverse events (incidence rate ratio per 0.2-point increase in ED safety score 0.82; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.16) but was associated with more intercepted near misses (incidence rate ratio 1.79; 95% CI 1.06 to 3.03). We found no association between safety climate and violations of national treatment guidelines. Conclusion: Among the 3 ED conditions studied, medical errors are relatively common, and one third of adverse events are preventable. Improved ED safety climate may increase the likelihood that near misses are intercepted. [Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:555-563.]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available