Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2004 Jan 24;328(7433):199.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7433.199.

Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals

Philippe Michel  1 , Jean Luc Quenon, Anne Marie de Sarasqueta, Olivier Scemama
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals

Philippe Michel et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness, reliability, and acceptability of estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events using three methods: cross sectional (data gathered in one day), prospective (data gathered during hospital stay), and retrospective (review of medical records).

Design: Independent assessment of three methods applied to one sample.

Setting: 37 wards in seven hospitals (three public, four private) in southwestern France.

Participants: 778 patients: medical (n = 278), surgical (n = 263), and obstetric (n = 237).

Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were the proportion of cases (patients with at least one adverse event) identified by each method compared with a reference list of cases confirmed by ward staff and the proportion of preventable cases (patients with at least one preventable adverse event). Secondary outcome measures were inter-rater reliability of screening and identification, perceived workload, and face validity of results.

Results: The prospective and retrospective methods identified similar numbers of medical and surgical cases (70% and 66% of the total, respectively) but the prospective method identified more preventable cases (64% and 40%, respectively), had good reliability for identification (kappa = 0.83), represented an acceptable workload, and had higher face validity. The cross sectional method showed a large number of false positives and identified none of the most serious adverse events. None of the methods was appropriate for obstetrics.

Conclusion: The prospective method of data collection may be more appropriate for epidemiological studies that aim to convince clinical teams that their errors contribute significantly to adverse events, to study organisational and human factors, and to assess the impact of risk reduction programmes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Method and timing of data collection
Fig 2
Fig 2
Venn diagrams showing number of cases identified by three methods of data collection. Cases in brackets not identified by cross sectional method as they were identified after first day of data collection
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B. Epidemiology of medical error. BMJ 2000;320: 774-7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrisson BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The quality in Australian Health-Care Study. Med J Aust 1995;163: 458-71. - PubMed
    1. Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, Orav EJ, Zeena T, Williams EJ, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000;38: 261-71. - PubMed
    1. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG. Incidence of adverse events and negligence care in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324: 370-6. - PubMed
    1. Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001;322: 517-9. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms