An International Perspective on Definitions and Terminology Used to Describe Serious Reportable Patient Safety Incidents: A Systematic Review.
Journal
Journal of patient safety
ISSN: 1549-8425
Titre abrégé: J Patient Saf
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101233393
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2021
01 12 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
10
4
2020
medline:
19
2
2022
entrez:
10
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients are unintentionally, yet frequently, harmed in situations that are deemed preventable. Incident reporting systems help prevent harm, yet there is considerable variability in how patient safety incidents are reported. This may lead to inconsistent or unnecessary patterns of incident reporting and failures to identify serious patient safety incidents. This systematic review aims to describe international approaches in relation to defining serious reportable patient safety incidents. Multiple electronic and gray literature databases were searched for articles published between 2009 and 2019. Empirical studies, reviews, national reports, and policies were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted because of study heterogeneity. A total of 50 articles were included. There was wide variation in the terminology used to represent serious reportable patient safety incidents. Several countries defined a specific subset of incidents, which are considered sufficiently serious, yet preventable if appropriate safety measures are taken. Terms such as "never events," "serious reportable events," or "always review and report" were used. The following dimensions were identified to define a serious reportable patient safety incident: (1) incidents being largely preventable; (2) having the potential for significant learning; (3) causing serious harm or have the potential to cause serious harm; (4) being identifiable, measurable, and feasible for inclusion in an incident reporting system; and (5) running the risk of recurrence. Variations in terminology and reporting systems between countries might contribute to missed opportunities for learning. International standardized definitions and blame-free reporting systems would enable comparison and international learning to enhance patient safety.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32271529
pii: 01209203-202112000-00080
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000700
pmc: PMC8612884
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1247-e1254Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors disclose no conflict of interest.
Références
World Health Organisation. Patient safety. Global action on patient safety. Report by the Director-General. 2018. Available at: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB144/B144_29-en.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Makeham M, Dovey S, Runciman W, et al. Methods and measures used in primary care patient safety research. 2008. Available at: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/research/methods_measures/makeham_dovey_full.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Panesar SS, deSilva D, Carson-Stevens A, et al. How safe is primary care? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf . 2016;25:544–553.
European Commission. Key findings and recommendations on reporting and learning systems for patient safety incidents across Europe. 2014. Available at: http://buonepratiche.agenas.it/documents/More/8.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Macrae C. The problem with incident reporting. BMJ Qual Saf . 2016;25:71–75.
Runciman W, Hibbert P, Thomson R, et al. Towards an international classification for patient safety: key concepts and terms. International J Qual Health Care . 2009;21:18–26.
Centre for Systematic Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. 2009. Available at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0. 2019. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med . 2009;6:e1000097.
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res . 2012;22:1435–1443.
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN 50: a guideline developer’s handbook. 2015. Available at: https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign50_2015.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Australian sentinel events list. 2018. Available at: http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/indicators/australian-sentinel-events-list/ . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Canadian incident analysis framework. 2012. Available at: http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/en/toolsResources/IncidentAnalysis/Documents/Canadian%20Incident%20Analysis%20Framework.PDF . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Never events for hospital care in Canada: safer care for patients. 2015. Available at: http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/en/toolsResources/NeverEvents/Documents/Never%20Events%20for%20Hospital%20Care%20in%20Canada.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Rasmussen LL. Act on patient safety in the Danish health care system. 2003. Available at: http://www.arkiv.patientsikkerhed.dk/media/566771/act_on_patient_safety.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
NHS England. Serious incident framework: supporting learning to prevent recurrence. 2015. Available at: http://www.improvement.nhs.uk/resources/serious-incident-framework/ . Accessed January 15, 2020.
NHS Improvement. Never events policy and framework. 2018. Available at: http://www.improvement.nhs.uk/documents/2265/Revised_Never_Events_policy_and_framework_FINAL.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Leistikow I, Mulder S, Vesseur J, et al. Learning from incidents in healthcare: the journey, not the arrival, matters. BMJ Qualit Saf . 2017;26:252–256.
Health Quality & Safety Commission New Zealand. National adverse events reporting policy. 2007. Available at: http://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/Reportable-Events/Publications/National_Adverse_Events_Policy_2017/National_Adverse_Events_Policy_2017_WEB_FINAL.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Health Quality & Safety Commission New Zealand. Always report and review list 2018–2019. 2018. Available at: http://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/Reportable-Events/Publications/National_Adverse_Events_Policy_2017/Always-report-and-review-list-2018-19-Final.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Health and Social Care Board Northern Ireland. Procedure for the reporting and follow up of serious adverse incidents. 2016. Available at: http://www.hscboard.hscni.net/download/PUBLICATIONS/policies-protocols-and-guidelines/Procedure-for-the-reporting-and-follow-up-of-SAIs-2016.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Health Service Executive. Serious reportable events (SREs) HSE implementation guidance document. 2015. Available at: http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/performancereports/srejan15.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Learning from adverse events through reporting and review: a national framework for Scotland. 2018. Available at: http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/governance_and_assurance/management_of_adverse_events/national_framework.aspx . Accessed January 15, 2020.
The Swedish Parliament. Swedish patient safety act. 2010. Available at: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/patientsakerhetslag-2010659_sfs-2010-659 . Accessed January 15, 2020.
National Quality Forum. Serious reportable events in healthcare – 2011 update: a consensus report. 2011. Available at: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/2900/NQF2011Update.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
The Joint Commission. Sentinel event policy. 1996. https://www.jointcommission.org/en/resources/patient-safety-topics/sentinel-event/sentinel-event-policy-and-procedures/ Accessed January 13, 2020.
Larizgoitia I, Bouesseau M-C, Kelley E. WHO efforts to promote reporting of adverse events and global learning. J Public Health Res . 2013;2:e29.
Wahid NNA, Moppett SH, Moppett IK. Quality of quality accounts: transparency of public reporting of never events in England. A semi-quantitative and qualitative review. J R Soc Med . 2016;109:190–199.
Doupi P. National reporting systems for patient safety incidents: a review of the situation in Europe. Available at: https://thl.fi/documents/10531/104907/Report%202009%2013.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Carson-Stevens A, Hibbert P, Williams H, et al. Characterising the nature of primary care patient safety incident reports in the England and Wales national reporting and learning system: a mixed-methods agenda-setting study for general practice. Health Serv Deliv Res . 2016;4. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385186/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK385186.pdf . Accessed March 21, 2020.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Common formats. 2016. Available at: https://pso.ahrq.gov/common . Accessed January 15, 2020.
A national survey of medical error reporting laws. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics . 2009. Winter;9:201–286.
Elkin PL, Johnson HC, Callahan MR, et al. Improving patient safety reporting with the common formats: common data representation for patient safety organizations. J Biomed Inform . 2016;64:116–121.
Tsang C, Palmer W, Bottle A, et al. A review of patient safety measures based on routinely collected hospital data. Am J Med Qual . 2012;27:154–169.
Health Foundation Inspiring Movement. The measurement and monitoring of safety. 2013. Available at: https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/TheMeasurementAndMonitoringOfSafety_fullversion.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
Doran DM, Baker GR, Szabo C, et al. Identification of serious and reportable events in home care: a Delphi survey to develop consensus. International J Qual Health Care . 2014;26:136–143.
Cooper J, Williams H, Hibbert P, et al. Classification of patient-safety incidents in primary care. Bull World Health Organ . 2018;96:498–505.
Howell AM, Burns EM, Hull L, et al. International recommendations for national patient safety incident reporting systems: an expert Delphi consensus-building process. BMJ Qual Saf . 2017;26:150–163.
Yarmohammadian MH, Rezaei F, Ferdosi M, et al. Healthcare incident reporting system in several countries: concepts, infrastructure and features. Int J Health Syst Disaster Manag . 2013;1:143–149.
Reed S, Arnal D, Frank O, et al. National critical incident reporting systems relevant to anaesthesia: a European survey. Br J Anaesth . 2014;112:546–555.
Pettker CM. Systematic approaches to adverse events in obstetrics, part I: event identification and classification. Semin Perinatol . 2017;41:151–155.
Health Quality Ontario. Patient safety learning systems: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser . 2017;17:1–23.
Hohenstein C, Hempel D, Schultheis K, et al. Critical incident reporting in emergency medicine: results of the prehospital reports. Emerg Med J . 2014;3:415–418.
Donnelly P. Improving reporting of critical incidents through education and involvement. BMJ Qual Improv Rep . 2015;4:u206996. w3776.
Zwart DLM, de Bont AA. Introducing incident reporting in primary care: a translation from safety science into medical practice. Health Risk Soc . 2013;15:265–278.
Health Service Executive. Incident management framework. 2018. Available at: https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/qavd/incident-management/hse-2018-incident-management-framework-guidance-stories.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2020.
de Wet C, O’Donnell C, Bowie P. Developing a preliminary ‘never event’ list for general practice using consensus-building methods. Br J Gen Pract . 2014;64:e159–e167.
Sujan M. An organisation without a memory: a qualitative study of hospital staff perceptions on reporting and organisational learning for patient safety. Reliab Eng Syst Safe . 2015;144:45–52.
Braithwaite J, Westbrook MT, Travaglia JF, et al. Cultural and associated enablers of, and barriers to, adverse incident reporting. Qual Saf Health Care . 2010;19:229–233.
Pasquini A, Pozzi S, Save L, et al. Requisites for successful incident reporting in resilient organisations. In: Hollnagel E, Paries J, Woods DD, et al, eds. Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook . Farnham: Ashgate; 2011:237–254.
Sujan MA, Pozzi S, Valbonesi C. Reporting and learning: from extraordinary to ordinary. In: Braithwaite J, Wears R, Hollnagel E, eds. Resilient Health Care III: Reconciling Work-as-Imagined With Work-as-Done . Farnham: Ashgate; 2016:103–110.
Ahmed M, Arora S, Tiew S, et al. Building a safer foundation: the lessons learnt patient safety training programme. BMJ Qual Saf . 2014;23:78–86.
Mitchell I, Schuster A, Smith KM, et al. Patient safety incident reporting: a qualitative study of thoughts and perceptions of experts 15 years after ‘To Err is Human’. BMJ Qual Saf . 2015;25:71–75.
Classen DC, Resar R, Griffin F, et al. ’Global trigger tool’ shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff (Millwood) . 2011;30:581–589.
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. IHI global trigger tool for measuring adverse events. 2020. Available at: http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/IHIGlobalTriggerToolforMeasuringAEs.aspx . Accessed January 15, 2020.
James JT. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. Patient Saf . 2013;9:122–128.
Stavropoulou C, Doherty C, Tosey P. How effective are incident-reporting systems for improving patient safety? A systematic literature review. Milbank Q . 2015;93:826–866.
Hegarty J, Flaherty SJ, Saab MM, et al. The collection, collation and reporting of data pertaining to serious patient safety incidents: an international perspective. Unpublished Report for the Department of Health, Dublin, Ireland; 2019.