Jacobson Nancy, Miller Abigail, Mackman Sean A, Bhatnagar Anshul, Aranda Jamie, Chinn Matthew, Otero Ronny
Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.
Emergency Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA.
Cureus. 2023 Sep 18;15(9):e45472. doi: 10.7759/cureus.45472. eCollection 2023 Sep.
Background Patient mortality reviews identify care, system, and process deficiencies. Patient deaths undergo quarterly review in our academic emergency department (ED), whereas in other departments, mortality reviews are requested by the pronouncing physician within 24 hours. In the ED, individual physicians encounter barriers to 24-hour reviews, including feasibility, the perception of futility, re-exposure to traumatic events, and a high frequency of pre-hospital and non-preventable deaths. This quality review aimed to determine the preventable death rate, contributing factors to ED patient mortality, cases requiring further review, and the capture rate of individual case submissions into the patient safety reporting system. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed on all patient deaths occurring in our ED from July 2019 to February 2020. All patients 18 years or older who were pronounced dead in the ED during our data collection period were included. Patients declared deceased pre-hospital, on an inpatient floor, or in the operating room were excluded. Deaths were assessed for characteristics such as sex, presence of a pulse upon arrival, diagnostics and interventions performed, and whether the cause of death was traumatic or medical. Deaths were categorized on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "not preventable" to "likely preventable." The presence or absence of contributing factors and the need for further review were recorded. Results Of the 166 reviewed cases, 87% (n=144) were non-preventable due to a terminal condition upon arrival, 12% (n=20) were non-preventable despite maximal efforts, 0.6% (n=1) were non-preventable despite a medical or systems error, and 0.6% (n=1) were possibly preventable due to a medical or systems error. No cases were definitively preventable. Only 1.2% (n=2) of cases required further safety review. In 55% (n=91) of cases, the patient arrived without a pulse. Medical deaths (60%, n=100) outnumbered traumatic deaths (39%, n=64). The most utilized diagnostic test was ultrasound (67%, n=111), and the most utilized intervention was advanced cardiac life support (59%, n=98). Conclusion There is a high prevalence of unpreventable deaths in the ED (99%, n=164). Only two cases (1.2%) were identified for further patient safety review. Standard safety event reporting practices correctly identified all possibly preventable ED deaths.
背景 患者死亡率审查可识别医疗、系统和流程中的缺陷。在我们的学术急诊科(ED),患者死亡情况每季度进行一次审查,而在其他科室,由宣布患者死亡的医生在24小时内要求进行死亡率审查。在急诊科,个别医生在24小时内进行审查时遇到障碍,包括可行性、认为徒劳无益、再次接触创伤性事件以及院前和不可预防死亡的高发生率。本次质量审查旨在确定可预防死亡率、导致急诊科患者死亡的因素、需要进一步审查的病例以及个别病例提交到患者安全报告系统的捕获率。方法 对2019年7月至2020年2月在我们急诊科发生的所有患者死亡病例进行回顾性病历审查。纳入在我们数据收集期间在急诊科被宣布死亡的所有18岁及以上患者。排除在院前、住院病房或手术室被宣布死亡的患者。对死亡病例评估性别、到达时是否有脉搏、进行的诊断和干预措施以及死亡原因是创伤性还是医疗性等特征。死亡病例按从“不可预防”到“可能可预防”的5级李克特量表进行分类。记录是否存在促成因素以及是否需要进一步审查。结果 在166例审查病例中,87%(n = 144)因到达时处于终末期而不可预防,12%(n = 20)尽管尽了最大努力仍不可预防,0.6%(n = 1)尽管存在医疗或系统错误仍不可预防,0.6%(n = 1)因医疗或系统错误可能可预防。没有病例是肯定可预防的。只有仅有的1.2%(n = 2)病例需要进一步的安全审查。在55%(n = 91)的病例中,患者到达时无脉搏。医疗死亡(60%,n = 100)多于创伤性死亡(39%,n = 64)。最常用的诊断检查是超声(67%,n = 111),最常用的干预措施是高级心脏生命支持(59%,n = 98)。结论 急诊科不可预防死亡的发生率很高(99%,n = 164)。仅确定两例(1.2%)病例进行进一步的患者安全审查。标准的安全事件报告做法正确识别了所有可能可预防的急诊科死亡病例。