Dataset Information

Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched.

Review methods

Observational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I² statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.

Results

Of the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337?025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10).

Conclusions

Around one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.

SUBMITTER: Panagioti M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6939648 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Panagioti Maria M Khan Kanza K Keers Richard N RN Abuzour Aseel A Phipps Denham D Kontopantelis Evangelos E Bower Peter P Campbell Stephen S Haneef Razaan R Avery Anthony J AJ Ashcroft Darren M DM

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20190717

<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched.<h4>Review methods</h4>Observational studies reporting prevent ...[more]

PMID: 31315828

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority. But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that derive this harm remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the prevalence, severity and type of preventable medication harm across medical care settings.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare the prevalence of preventable medication harm. Searches were carried out in Medline, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO from 2000 to 27 January 2020. Data extraction and critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta-regression. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.ProsperoCRD42020164156.ResultsOf the 7780 articles, 81 studies involving 285,687 patients were included. The pooled prevalence for preventable medication harm was 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 4%, I2 = 99%) and for overall medication harm was 9% (95% CI 7 to 11%, I2 = 99.5%) of all patient incidence records. The highest rates of preventable medication harm were seen in elderly patient care settings (11%, 95% 7 to 15%, n = 7), intensive care (7%, 4 to 12%, n = 6), highly specialised or surgical care (6%, 3 to 11%, n = 13) and emergency medicine (5%, 2 to 12%, n = 12). The proportion of mild preventable medication harm was 39% (28 to 51%, n = 20, I2 = 96.4%), moderate preventable harm 40% (31 to 49%, n = 22, I2 = 93.6%) and clinically severe or life-threatening preventable harm 26% (15 to 37%, n = 28, I2 = 97%). The source of the highest prevalence rates of preventable harm were at the prescribing (58%, 42 to 73%, n = 9, I2 = 94%) and monitoring (47%, 21 to 73%, n = 8, I2 = 99%) stages of medication use. Preventable harm was greatest in medicines affecting the 'central nervous system' and 'cardiovascular system'.ConclusionsThis is the largest meta-analysis to assess preventable medication harm. We conclude that around one in 30 patients are exposed to preventable medication harm in medical care, and more than a quarter of this harm is considered severe or life-threatening. Our results support the World Health Organisation's push for the detection and mitigation of medication-related harm as being a top priority, whilst highlighting other key potential targets for remedial intervention that should be a priority focus for future research.

Project description:IntroductionChildren admitted to paediatric and neonatal intensive care units may be at high risk from medication errors and preventable adverse drug events.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to review empirical studies examining the prevalence and nature of medication errors and preventable adverse drug events in paediatric and neonatal intensive care units.Data sourcesSeven electronic databases were searched between January 2000 and March 2019.Study selectionQuantitative studies that examined medication errors/preventable adverse drug events using direct observation, medication chart review, or a mixture of methods in children ≤ 18 years of age admitted to paediatric or neonatal intensive care units were included.Data extractionData on study design, detection method used, rates and types of medication errors/preventable adverse drug events, and medication classes involved were extracted.ResultsThirty-five unique studies were identified for inclusion. In paediatric intensive care units, the median rate of medication errors was 14.6 per 100 medication orders (interquartile range 5.7-48.8%, n = 3) and between 6.4 and 9.1 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2). In neonatal intensive care units, medication error rates ranged from 4 to 35.1 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2) and from 5.5 to 77.9 per 100 medication orders (n = 2). In both settings, prescribing and medication administration errors were found to be the most common medication errors, with dosing errors the most frequently reported error subtype. Preventable adverse drug event rates were reported in three paediatric intensive care unit studies as 2.3 per 100 patients (n = 1) and 21-29 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2). In neonatal intensive care units, preventable adverse drug event rates from three studies were 0.86 per 1000 doses (n = 1) and 0.47-14.38 per 1000 patient-days (n = 2). Anti-infective agents were commonly involved with medication errors/preventable adverse drug events in both settings.ConclusionsMedication errors occur frequently in critically ill children admitted to paediatric and neonatal intensive care units and may lead to patient harm. Important targets such as dosing errors and anti-infective medications were identified to guide the development of remedial interventions.

Project description:ObjectivesApproximately 14% of Medicare beneficiaries are readmitted to a hospital within 30 days of home health care admission. Individuals with dementia account for 30% of all home health care admissions and are at high risk for readmission. Our primary objective was to determine the association between dementia severity at admission to home health care and 30-day potentially preventable readmissions (PPR) during home health care. A secondary objective was to develop a dementia severity scale from Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) items based on the Functional Assessment Staging Tool (FAST).DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting and participantsHome health care; 126,292 Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health care (July 1, 2013-June 1, 2015) diagnosed with dementia (ICD-9 codes).Measures30-day PPR during home health care. Dementia severity categorized into 6 levels (nonaffected to severe).ResultsThe overall rate of 30-day PPR was 7.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.4, 7.7] but varied by patient and health care utilization characteristics. After adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the odds ratio (OR) for dementia severity category 6 was 1.37 (95% CI 1.29, 1.46) and the OR for category 7 was 1.94 (95% CI 1.64, 2.31) as compared to dementia severity category 1/2.Conclusions and implicationsDementia severity in the later stages is associated with increased risk for potentially preventable readmissions. Our findings suggest that individuals admitted to home health during the later stages of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias may require greater supports and specialized care to minimize negative outcomes such as readmissions. Development of a dementia severity scale based on OASIS items and the FAST is feasible. Future research is needed to determine effective strategies for decreasing potentially preventable readmissions of individuals with severe dementia who receive home health care. Future research is also needed to validate the proposed dementia severity categories used in this study.

Dataset Information

Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Review methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets