University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):581-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0190.
Identification and measurement of adverse medical events is central to patient safety, forming a foundation for accountability, prioritizing problems to work on, generating ideas for safer care, and testing which interventions work. We compared three methods to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients, using the same patient sample set from three leading hospitals. We found that the adverse event detection methods commonly used to track patient safety in the United States today-voluntary reporting and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Indicators-fared very poorly compared to other methods and missed 90 percent of the adverse events. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool found at least ten times more confirmed, serious events than these other methods. Overall, adverse events occurred in one-third of hospital admissions. Reliance on voluntary reporting and the Patient Safety Indicators could produce misleading conclusions about the current safety of care in the US health care system and misdirect efforts to improve patient safety.
识别和衡量医疗不良事件是患者安全的核心,为问责制奠定了基础,有助于确定需要优先解决的问题、提出更安全的医疗方案,并检验干预措施的效果。我们使用来自三家领先医院的相同患者样本集,比较了三种检测住院患者不良事件的方法。结果发现,目前美国用于跟踪患者安全的不良事件检测方法——自愿报告和医疗保健研究与质量局的患者安全指标——与其他方法相比效果非常差,漏报了 90%的不良事件。而医疗改进研究所的全球触发工具则至少发现了比这些方法多十倍的确认的严重事件。总体而言,三分之一的住院患者发生了不良事件。仅仅依靠自愿报告和患者安全指标可能会对美国医疗体系当前的护理安全性产生误导性结论,并误导改善患者安全的努力。