Retrospective cohort study of wrong-patient imaging order errors: how many reach the patient?
- PMID: 38071526
- PMCID: PMC10872565
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016162
Retrospective cohort study of wrong-patient imaging order errors: how many reach the patient?
Abstract
Studying near-miss errors is essential to preventing errors from reaching patients. When an error is committed, it may be intercepted (near-miss) or it will reach the patient; estimates of the proportion that reach the patient vary widely. To better understand this relationship, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using two objective measures to identify wrong-patient imaging order errors involving radiation, estimating the proportion of errors that are intercepted and those that reach the patient. This study was conducted at a large integrated healthcare system using data from 1 January to 31 December 2019. The study used two outcome measures of wrong-patient orders: (1) wrong-patient orders that led to misadministration of radiation reported to the New York Patient Occurrence Reporting and Tracking System (NYPORTS) (misadministration events); and (2) wrong-patient orders identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) measure, a measure identifying orders placed for a patient, retracted and rapidly reordered by the same clinician on a different patient (near-miss events). All imaging orders that involved radiation were extracted retrospectively from the healthcare system data warehouse. Among 293 039 total eligible orders, 151 were wrong-patient orders (3 misadministration events, 148 near-miss events), for an overall rate of 51.5 per 100 000 imaging orders involving radiation placed on the wrong patient. Of all wrong-patient imaging order errors, 2% reached the patient, translating to 50 near-miss events for every 1 error that reached the patient. This proportion provides a more accurate and reliable estimate and reinforces the utility of systematic measure of near-miss errors as an outcome for preventative interventions.
Keywords: Adverse events, epidemiology and detection; Medical error, measurement/epidemiology; Near miss.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
References
-
- Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, & Donaldson MS (Eds.). Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, (2000). To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academies Press; (US: ). - PubMed
-
- World Health Organization. (2005). World alliance for patient safety: WHO draft guidelines for adverse event reporting and learning systems: from information to action. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/69797 (Accessed March 23rd, 2022).
-
- Aspden P, Corrigan JM, Wolcott J, & Erickson SM (Eds.). Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Data Standards for Patient Safety. (2004). Patient safety: achieving a new standard for care. National Academies Press (US). - PubMed
-
- Van der Schaaf TW 1992. Near miss reporting in the chemical process industry. Eindhoven, Netherlands: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
-
- Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Small SD, Servi D, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1995;274(1):29–34. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources