Background Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) frequently experience adverse drug events involving intravenous medications (IV-ADEs), which are often preventable. Objectives To determine how frequently preventable IV-ADEs in ICUs match the safety features of a programmable infusion pump with safety software (“smart pump”) and to suggest potential improvements in smart-pump design. Design Using retrospective medical-record review, we examined preventable IV-ADEs in ICUs before and after 2 hospitals replaced conventional pumps with smart pumps. The smart pumps alerted users when programmed to deliver duplicate infusions or continuous-infusion doses outside hospital-defined ranges. Participants 4,604 critically ill adults at 1 academic and 1 nonacademic hospital. Measurements Preventable IV-ADEs matching smart-pump features and errors involved in preventable IV-ADEs. Results Of 100 preventable IV-ADEs identified, 4 involved errors matching smart-pump features. Two occurred before and 2 after smart-pump implementation. Overall, 29% of preventable IV-ADEs involved overdoses; 37%, failures to monitor for potential problems; and 45%, failures to intervene when problems appeared. Error descriptions suggested that expanding smart pumps’ capabilities might enable them to prevent more IV-ADEs. Conclusion The smart pumps we evaluated are unlikely to reduce preventable IV-ADEs in ICUs because they address only 4% of them. Expanding smart-pump capabilities might prevent more IV-ADEs.

The authors compare the appropriateness ratings and mutual influence of panelists from different specialties rating a comprehensive set of indications for six surgical procedures. Nine-member panels rated each procedure: abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery, carotid endarterectomy, cataract surgery, coronary angiography, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (common panel). Panelists individually rated the appropriateness of indications at home and then discussed and re-rated the indications during a 2-day meeting. Subsequently, they rated the necessity of those indications scored by the group as appropriate. There were 45 panelists, including specialists (either performers of the procedure or members of a related specialty) and primary care providers, all drawn from nominations by their respective specialty societies. Main outcome measures included: individual panelists' mean ratings over all indications, mean change and conformity scores between rounds of ratings, and the percentage of audited actual procedures rated appropriate or necessary. Performers had the highest mean ratings, followed by physicians in related specialties, trailed by primary care providers. One fifth of all actual procedures were for indications rated appropriate by performers and less than appropriate by primary care providers. At the panel meetings, primary care providers and related specialists showed no greater tendency to be influenced by other panelists than did performers. Multispecialty panels provide more divergent viewpoints than panels composed entirely of performers. This divergence means that fewer actual procedures are deemed performed for appropriate or necessary indications.

The importance of patient experience dimensions differs substantially and varies by HT. Quality improvement efforts should target those aspects of patient experience that matter most for each HT.

Background: US hospitals have had voluntary incident reporting systems for many years, but the effectiveness of these systems is unknown. To facilitate substantial improvements in patient safety, the systems should capture incidents reflecting the spectrum of adverse events that are known to occur in hospitals. Objective: To characterise the incidents from established voluntary hospital reporting systems. Design: Observational study examining about 1000 reports of hospitalised patients at each of two hospitals. Patients and setting: 16 575 randomly selected patients from an academic and a community hospital in the US in 2001. Main outcome measures: Rates of incidents reported per hospitalised patient and characteristics of reported incidents. Results: 9% of patients had at least one reported incident; 17 incidents were reported per 1000 patient-days in hospital. Nurses filed 89% of reports, physicians 1.9% and other providers 8.9%. The most common types were medication incidents (29%), falls (14%), operative incidents (15%) and miscellaneous incidents (16%); 59% seemed preventable and preventability was not clear for 32%. Among the potentially preventable incidents, 43% involved nurses, 16% physicians and 19% other types of providers. Qualitative examination of reports indicated that very few involved prescribing errors or high-risk procedures. Conclusions: Hospital reporting systems receive many reports, but capture a spectrum of incidents that differs from the adverse events known to occur in hospitals, thereby substantially underdetecting physician incidents, particularly those involving operations, high-risk procedures and prescribing errors. Increasing the reporting of physician incidents will be essential to enhance the effectiveness of hospital reporting systems; therefore, barriers to reporting such incidents must be minimised.