Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-zpzq9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-22T19:54:56.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adverse events among patients registered in high-acuity areas of the emergency department: a prospective cohort study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Lisa Anne Calder ,
Alan Forster ,
Melanie Nelson ,
Jason Leclair ,
Jeffrey Perry ,
Christian Vaillancourt ,
Guy Hebert ,
A. Adam Cwinn ,
George Wells  and
Ian Stiell
Lisa Anne Calder*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Alan Forster
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Melanie Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Jason Leclair
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Jeffrey Perry
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Christian Vaillancourt
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Guy Hebert
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
A. Adam Cwinn
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
George Wells
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Ian Stiell
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
*
The Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, Rm. F654, 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa ON K1Y 4E9; lcalder@ohri.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

To enhance patient safety, it is important to understand the frequency and causes of adverse events (defined as unintended injuries related to health care management). We performed this study to describe the types and risk of adverse events in high-acuity areas of the emergency department (ED).

Methods:

This prospective cohort study examined the outcomes of consecutive patients who received treatment at 2 tertiary care EDs. For discharged patients, we conducted a structured telephone interview 14 days after their initial visit; for admitted patients, we reviewed the inpatient charts. Three emergency physicians independently adjudicated flagged outcomes (e.g., death, return visits to the ED) to determine whether an adverse event had occurred.

Results:

We enrolled 503 patients; one-half (n = 254) were female and the median age was 57 (range 18–98) years. The majority of patients (n = 369, 73.3%) were discharged home. The most common presenting complaints were chest pain, generalized weakness and abdominal pain. Of the 107 patients with flagged outcomes, 43 (8.5%, 95% confidence interval 8.1%–8.9%) were considered to have had an adverse event through our peer review process, and over half of these (24, 55.8%) were considered preventable. The most common types of adverse events were as follows: management issues (n = 18, 41.9%), procedural complications (n = 13, 30.2%) and diagnostic issues (n = 10, 23.3%). The clinical consequences of these adverse events ranged from minor (urinary tract infection) to serious (delayed diagnosis of aortic dissection).

Conclusion:

We detected a higher proportion of preventable adverse events compared with previous inpatient studies and suggest confirmation of these results is warranted among a wider selection of EDs.

Keywords

adverse eventspatient safetyemergency medicine
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , September 2010 , pp. 421 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2010

References

REFERENCES

1.Kohn, LT, Corrigan, JM, Donaldson, MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington (DC): Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press; 1999.Google Scholar
2.Brennan, TA, Leape, LL, Laird, NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practices Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Forster, AJ, Rose, N, van Walraven, C, et al. Adverse events identified following an emergency department visit. Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:17–22.Google Scholar
4.Bullard, MJ, Unger, B, Spence, J, et al. Revisions to the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) adult guidelines. CJEM 2008;10:136–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Baker, GR, Norton, PG, Flintoft, V, et al. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004;170:1678–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Wolff, AM, Bourke, J, Campbell, IA, et al. Detecting and reducing hospital adverse events: outcomes of the Wimmera clinical risk management program. Med J Aust 2001;174:621–5.Google Scholar
7.Forster, AJ, Clark, HD, Menard, A, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ 2004;170:345–9.Google Scholar
8.Forster, AJ, Murff, HJ, Peterson, JF, et al. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:161–7.Google Scholar
9.Forster, AJ, Asmis, TR, Clark, HD, et al. Ottawa hospital patient safety study: incidence and timing of adverse events in patients admitted to a Canadian teaching hospital. CMAJ 2004;170:1235–40.Google Scholar
10.Thomas, EJ, Studdert, DM, Burstin, HR, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000;38:261–71.Google Scholar
11.Vincent, C, Neale, G, Woloshynowych, M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001;322:517–9.Google Scholar
12.Wilson, RM, Runciman, WB, Gibberd, RW, et al. The quality in Australian health care study. Med J Aust 1995;163:458–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Davis, P, Lay-Yee, R, Briant, R, et al. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals I: occurrence and impact. N Z Med J 2002;115:U271.Google Scholar
14.Forster, AJ, O’Rourke, K, Shojania, KG, et al. Combining ratings from multiple physician reviewers helped to overcome the uncertainty associated with adverse event classification. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:892–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Scheaffer, RL, Mendenhall, W, Ott, L. Selecting the sample size and allocating the sample to estimate proportions. Stratified random sampling: elementary survey sampling. North Scituate (MA): Duxbury Press; 1979. p. 78–84.Google Scholar
16.Chern, CH, How, CK, Wang, LM, et al. Decreasing clinically significant adverse events using feedback to emergency physicians of telephone follow-up outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:15–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Kachalia, A, Gandhi, TK, Puopolo, AL, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the emergency department: a study of closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49:196–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Croskerry, P, Sinclair, D. Emergency medicine: A practice prone to error? CJEM 2001;3:271–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Famularo, G, Salvini, P, Terranova, A, et al. Clinical errors in emergency medicine: experience at the emergency department of an Italian teaching hospital. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:1278–81.Google Scholar
20.Reason, J. Human error: models and management. BMJ 2000;320:768–70.Google Scholar
21.Reason, J. Understanding adverse events: the human factor. In: Vincent, C, editor. Clinical risk management. London (UK): BMJ Books; 2001. p. 9–30.Google Scholar
22.Adams, JG, Bohan, JS. System contributions to error. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:1189–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Callahan, CD. The systems approach to error reduction in the emergency department. Emergency Medicine Specialty Reports 2004;S04180:1–8.Google Scholar
24.Henriksen, K, Kaplan, H. Hindsight bias, outcome knowledge and adaptive learning. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12(Suppl 2):ii1146–50.Google Scholar