Harris Carolyn B, Krauss Melissa J, Coopersmith Craig M, Avidan Michael, Nast Patricia A, Kollef Marin H, Dunagan W Claiborne, Fraser Victoria J
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2007 Apr;35(4):1068-76. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000259384.76515.83.
To increase patient safety event reporting in three intensive care units (ICUs) using a new voluntary card-based event reporting system and to compare and evaluate observed differences in reporting among healthcare workers across ICUs.
Prospective, single-center, interventional study.
A medical ICU (19 beds), surgical ICU (24 beds), and cardiothoracic ICU (17 beds) at a 1,371-bed urban teaching hospital.
Adult patients admitted to these three study ICUs.
Use of a new, internally designed, card-based reporting program to solicit voluntary anonymous reporting of medical errors and patient safety concerns.
During a 14-month period, 714 patient safety events were reported using a new card-based reporting system, reflecting a significant increase in reporting compared with pre-intervention Web-based reporting (20.4 reported events/1,000 patient days pre-intervention to 41.7 reported events/1,000 patient days postintervention; rate ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.79-2.34). Nurses submitted the majority of reports (nurses, 67.1%; physicians, 23.1%; other reporters, 9.5%); however, physicians experienced the greatest increase in reporting among their group (physicians, 43-fold; nurses, 1.7-fold; other reporters, 4.3-fold) relative to pre-intervention rates. There were significant differences in the reporting of harm by job description: 31.1% of reports from nurses, 36.2% from other staff, and 17.0% from physicians described events that did not reach/affect the patient (p = .001); and 33.9% of reports from physicians, 27.2% from nurses, and 13.0% from other staff described events that caused harm (p = .005). Overall reported patient safety events per 1,000 patient days differed by ICU (medical ICU = 55.5, cardiothoracic ICU = 25.3, surgical ICU = 40.2; p < .001).
This card-based reporting system increased reporting significantly compared with pre-intervention Web-based reporting and revealed significant differences in reporting by healthcare worker and ICU. These differences may reveal important preferences and priorities for reporting medical errors and patient safety events.
使用一种新的基于卡片的自愿事件报告系统,提高三个重症监护病房(ICU)的患者安全事件报告率,并比较和评估各ICU医护人员在报告方面观察到的差异。
前瞻性、单中心干预性研究。
一家拥有1371张床位的城市教学医院的内科ICU(19张床位)、外科ICU(24张床位)和心胸外科ICU(17张床位)。
入住这三个研究ICU的成年患者。
使用一种新的、内部设计的基于卡片的报告程序,以征集对医疗差错和患者安全问题的自愿匿名报告。
在14个月的时间里,使用新的基于卡片的报告系统报告了714起患者安全事件,与干预前基于网络的报告相比,报告率显著增加(干预前每1000个患者日报告20.4起事件,干预后为41.7起事件/1000个患者日;率比为2.05;95%置信区间为1.79 - 2.34)。护士提交的报告占大多数(护士占67.1%;医生占23.1%;其他报告者占9.5%);然而,相对于干预前的比率,医生组的报告增加幅度最大(医生增加了43倍;护士增加了1.7倍;其他报告者增加了4.3倍)。根据工作描述,在危害报告方面存在显著差异:护士报告的事件中有31.1%、其他工作人员报告的有36.2%、医生报告的有17.0%描述的事件未涉及/影响患者(p = 0.001);医生报告的事件中有33.9%、护士报告的有27.2%、其他工作人员报告的有13.0%描述的事件造成了伤害(p = 0.005)。每1000个患者日报告的总体患者安全事件因ICU而异(内科ICU = 55.5,心胸外科ICU = 25.3,外科ICU = 40.2;p < 0.001)。
与干预前基于网络的报告相比,这种基于卡片的报告系统显著提高了报告率,并揭示了医护人员和ICU在报告方面的显著差异。这些差异可能揭示了报告医疗差错和患者安全事件的重要偏好和优先事项。