Risk management in dermatology: an analysis of data available from several British-based reporting systems.

BACKGROUND

The elimination or reduction of risk is a prime requirement of all healthcare workers. The matter has come to the fore in dermatological practice recently with the widespread use of effective drugs that have significant side-effects (e.g. retinoids, cytotoxic drugs, biologics), the increase in skin surgery, especially for skin cancer, and the extensive use of phototherapies.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the available database from different agencies to which adverse events may be reported over at least a 5-year time frame, categorize the risks, look forward to where as yet unidentified risks might exist, and draw conclusions to improve the safety of dermatological practice. This work came about through a request from the National Patient Safety Agency [to the Joint Specialty Committee of the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) and Royal College of Physicians] for information on risks to patients receiving treatment or investigation for skin disease.

METHODS

Organizations in the U.K. that receive information about adverse events, whether caused by drugs or procedures in dermatological treatments, were approached for information about reported events over a 5-year (or, in one case, 10-year) time frame up to 2009. Data were received from the National Patient Safety Agency, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the National Health Service Litigation Authority, the Medical Protection Society and the Medical Defence Union. In addition, the results of a survey conducted in 2010 by the BAD of its members concerning potential critical incident reporting were included. The received information was analysed according to category of event and conclusions drawn about how best to manage the risks that were identified.

RESULTS

Adverse events were divided into the following categories, listed in order of the number of reports received: drug side-effects (biologics and retinoids), phototherapy dosage, drug monitoring (including initial screening), pregnancy prevention programmes, skin cancer follow-up (including acting on reports), dermatopathological reporting and conduct of dermatological surgery (including management of complications, equipment problems, use of lasers, cosmetic procedures and cryotherapy). Critical incidents reported by BAD members often concerned follow-up failures, e.g. of patients receiving systemic drugs or of those with skin cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Several of the reported adverse events concern systemic failures. Recommendations for risk reduction include the following points: better systems for drug monitoring (including regularity of attendance, provision of sufficient follow-up appointments, acting on results and adequacy of pregnancy prevention programmes); staff training and record keeping for phototherapy; acting on skin cancer multidisciplinary team meeting outcomes (including provision of sufficient follow-up appointments); and adequate training of staff in dermatological surgery including cryotherapy. Regular monitoring of the occurrence of such reports is needed to ensure safe practice and to identify early areas of new risk.