How to measure harm

Amongst the many challenges we face in trying to improve safety of care is the paucity of knowledge we possess about the rate and types of harm occurring to our patients. The traditional approach has been to identify sentinel cases, either because they are obvious or they are reported via traditional risk reporting structures. This approach has many limitations. A more recent approach has been to systematically review charts looking for evidence of adverse events, which allows one to both measure the rate of harm, identify areas of greatest risk and then one can determine whether changes made are having any meaningful effect in reducing rates of harm.
A paper just published (free here) describes an alternative approach in which a trained observer directly measures rates and type of harm occurring. The authors found almost 14% of patients suffered at least one adverse event, and 6% of all patients suffered a preventable adverse event. Overall 33% of adverse events were judged to be preventable. The rate of harm varied widely by specialty with <2% of obstetric patients being harmed to 11% of medical and ICU patients being harmed. The severity of harm also varied, with almost 5% of cardiac ICU patients dying or being permanently disabled due to an AE.

Harm

Great discussion by Bob Wachter on his blog about harm, preventable harm, errors and trigger tools amongst other things. He makes the point that we should focus on eliminating preventable harm, at least in the first instance. Beth Israel Deaconess publishes on its public website details on its progress towards eliminating preventable harm.

Game changing move for patient safety in US

Bob Wachter on THCB has a piece on what he calls a game changing safety initiative. Berwick and Kathleen Sibelius announced yesterday the "Partnership for Patients". This is a very ambitious well funded widely supported program. Its stated goals are to reduce preventable harm in US hospitals by 40% and preventable readmissions by 20% by 2013! It's nice to see Berwick has not lost his taste for aiming high. To quote Wachter:

• "For the first time, it establishes safety goals and programs as a private/public partnership, with early buy in from large insurers and employers. A broad tableau of leaders from provider organizations, insurers, federal agencies, businesses, and patient groups shared the stage with Sebelius and Berwick at this morning’s announcement to highlight the partnership theme.
• It provides large amounts of funding and technical assistance – nearly one billion dollars – both through the new CMS Innovation Center and elsewhere, to promote new knowledge and skill building.
• Like the 100K Lives Campaign, it seeks commitments from hospital executives and boards to tackle key safety goals.
• It provides support for collaborative networks designed to promote shared learning.
• It rewards hospitals for achieving certain milestones with both recognition and additional resources; those that do very well will be eligible to receive funding to help other hospitals improve."

The financial stick is that by 2015, 9% of medicare reimbursement will be tied to reaching these goals.
Interestingly, the means of audit to confirm compliance with these aims will be a detailed chart which appears to me to be using the IHI global trigger tool. Exciting times.

It would appear in some ways to be modeled on the 100,000 Lives campaign in that it sets lofty goals, appeals to sentiment, has a short time frame and uses social pressure to ensure others want to join.

Preventable Harm, Redux

A commentary by the authors of the NEJM paper I referred to recently has just been published. Well worth reading.