PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15638340

Reducing medical errors through better documentation.

Marie Edwards·Jackie Moczygemba
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Preventable medical errors occur with alarming frequency in US hospitals. Questions to address include what is a medical error, what errors occur most often, and what solutions can health information technologies offer with better documentation. Preventable injuries caused by mismanagement of treatment happen in all areas of care. Some result from human fallibility and some from system failures. Most errors stem from a combination of the two. Examples of combination errors include wrong-site surgeries, scrambled laboratory results, medication mishaps, misidentification of patients, and equipment failures. Unavailable patient information and illegible handwriting lead to diagnosing and ordering errors. Recent technology offers viable solutions to many of these medical errors. Computer-based medical records, integration with the pharmacy, decision support software, Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems, and bar coding all offer ways to avoid tragic treatment outcomes. Persuading and training hospital staff to use the technology poses a problem, as does budgeting for the new equipment. However, the technology would prove its worth in time. The Institute of Medicine and coalition groups such as Leapfrog Group have recognized the problem that permeates the health care industry, manifests in many ways, and requires the many solutions that information technology offer.

Explore related subjects

Decision Support TechniquesDocumentationHumansMedical ErrorsMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedRisk ManagementSoftwareUnited StatesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marie Edwards, Jackie Moczygemba. Reducing medical errors through better documentation.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00126450-200410000-00007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Setting priorities: global patterns of disaster risk.

Natural disasters are caused by the exposure and vulnerabilities to natural hazards of people, infrastructure and economic activities. Analysis of these factors has permitted identification of countries and areas within them where disaster-related mortality and economic losses are likely in the future. These high-risk areas are candidates for increased attention to, and investment in, disaster risk identification, reduction and transfer. Plans are underway to further identify disaster risk levels and factors on national and subnational scales in high-risk countries to create evidence for improved risk management decision-making. In this paper, I review selected recent global and regional risk analyses to highlight findings, areas for improvement and next steps in the overall process of using disaster risk information for more effective risk management and cost-effective reduction of losses.

Decision Support Techniques↗
PubMed2006

Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). DESIGN AND SETTING: Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. RESULTS: 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). CONCLUSIONS: Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.

Decision Support Techniques↗
PubMed2006

Management of recalled pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a decision analysis model.

CONTEXT: Limited information exists to direct clinical management after an implantable device has been put under advisory. A better understanding of the risks and benefits of device replacement compared with continued clinical follow-up would be helpful to clinicians. OBJECTIVE: Using the tools of decision analysis, to determine the best management approach (immediate device replacement vs continued monitoring) in the setting of a device advisory. DESIGN: A decision model was constructed to evaluate the risks and benefits associated with immediate device replacement compared with continued monitoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Variables considered included indications for device implantation, anticipated course following device failure, device failure rates from the advisory ranging from 0.0001% to 1.0% per year, and device replacement mortality rates ranging from 0.10% to 1.00% per procedure. Device replacement was preferred to continued follow-up when replacement led to greater patient survival. RESULTS: The decision to replace a recalled device depends primarily on the advisory's estimated device failure rate and the likely effects of device failure on mortality. Procedural mortality is an important secondary factor, while patient age and remaining generator life have the least influence on the decision. For pacemaker-dependent patients, advisory device failure rates exceeding 0.3% warrant device replacement in most situations. In patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for primary or secondary prevention, a failure rate associated with an advisory of 3.0% is needed to favor replacement in most cases, decreasing to close to 1.0% as procedural mortality rates decrease to 0.1% or risk of fatal arrhythmias increase to near 20% per year. In cases of pacemaker implantation for non-life-threatening situations (eg, carotid sinus hypersensitivity), most device advisories do not warrant device replacement. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to replace a device under advisory is determined primarily by the incidence of device malfunction and the likely effects of device failure. This analysis provides a framework for managing recalled devices in the context of device, patient, and institutional characteristics.

Decision Support Techniques↗