scholarly journals Variation between hospitals and reviewers in detection of adverse events identified through medical record review in Korea

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 495-501
Author(s):  
Sukyeong Kim ◽  
Ho Gyun Shin ◽  
A E Jeong Jo ◽  
Ari Min ◽  
Minsu Ock ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives This study utilized the method of medical record review to determine characteristics of adverse events that occurred in the inpatient units of hospitals in Korea as well as the variations in adverse events between institutions. Design A two-stage retrospective medical record review was conducted. The first stage was a nurse review, where two nurses reviewed medical records of discharged patients to determine if screening criteria had been met. In the second stage, two physicians independently reviewed medical records of patients identified in the first stage, to determine whether an adverse event had occurred. Setting Inpatient units of six hospitals. Participants Medical records of 2 596 patients randomly selected were reviewed in the first stage review. Intervention(s) N/A. Main Outcome Measure(s) Adverse events. Results A total of 277 patients (10.7%) were confirmed to have had one or more adverse event(s), and a total of 336 adverse events were identified. Physician reviewers agreed about whether an adverse event had occurred for 141 patients (5.4%). The incidence rate of adverse events was at least 1.3% and a maximum of 19.4% for each hospital. Most preventability scores were less than four points (non-preventable), and there were large variations between reviewers and institutions. Conclusions Given the level of variation in the identified adverse events, further studies that include more medical institutions in their investigations are needed, and a third-party committee should be involved to address the reliability issues regarding the occurrence and characteristics of the adverse events.

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e000564
Author(s):  
Dorthe O Klein ◽  
Roger Rennenberg ◽  
Rijk Gans ◽  
Roelien Enting ◽  
Richard Koopmans ◽  
...  

BackgroundMedical record review (MRR) is used to assess the quality and safety in hospitals. It is increasingly used to compare institutions. Therefore, the external reproducibility should be high. In the current study, we evaluated this external reproducibility for the assessment of an adverse event (AE) in a sample of records from two university medical centres in the Netherlands, using the same review method.MethodsFrom both hospitals, 40 medical records were randomly chosen from patient files of deceased patients that had been evaluated in the preceding years by the internal review committees. After reviewing by the external committees, we assessed the overall and kappa agreement by comparing the results of both review rounds (once by the own internal committee and once by the external committee). This was calculated for the presence of an AE, preventability and contribution to death.ResultsKappa for the presence of AEs was moderate (k=0.47). For preventability, the agreement was fair (k=0.39) and poor for contribution to death (k=−0.109).ConclusionWe still believe that MRR is suitable for the detection of general issues concerning patient safety. However, based on the outcomes of this study, we would advise to be careful when using MRR for benchmarking.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirthe J Klein Haneveld ◽  
Caro H C Lemmen ◽  
Tammo E Brunekreef ◽  
Marc Bijl ◽  
A J Gerard Jansen ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives The aims were to gain insight into the care provided to patients with APS in The Netherlands and to identify areas for improvement from the perspective of both patients and medical specialists. Methods APS care was evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods. Perspectives on APS care were explored using semi-structured interviews with medical specialists, patient focus groups and a cross-sectional, online patient survey. In order to assess current practice, medical records were reviewed retrospectively to collect data on clinical and laboratory manifestations and pharmacological treatment in six Dutch hospitals. Results Fourteen medical specialists were interviewed, 14 patients participated in the focus groups and 79 patients completed the survey. Medical records of 237 patients were reviewed. Medical record review showed that only one-third of patients were diagnosed with APS within 3 months after entering specialist care. The diagnostic approach and management varied between centres and specialists. Almost 10% of all patients and 7% of triple-positive patients with thrombotic APS were not receiving any anticoagulant treatment at the time of medical record review. Correspondingly, poor recognition and fragmentation of care were reported as the main problems by medical specialists. Additionally, patients reported the lack of accessible, reliable patient education, psychosocial support and trust in physicians as important points for improvement. Conclusion Delayed diagnosis, variability in management strategies and fragmentation of care were important limitations of APS care identified in this study. A remarkable 10% of patients did not receive any anticoagulant treatment.


2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemie Vlayen ◽  
Kristel Marquet ◽  
Ward Schrooten ◽  
Arthur Vleugels ◽  
Johan Hellings ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e018576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marije A van Melle ◽  
Dorien L M Zwart ◽  
Judith M Poldervaart ◽  
Otto Jan Verkerk ◽  
Maaike Langelaan ◽  
...  

ObjectiveInadequate information transfer during transitions in healthcare is a major patient safety issue. Aim of this study was to pilot a review of medical records to identify transitional safety incidents (TSIs) for use in a large intervention study and assess its reliability and validity.DesignA retrospective medical record review study.Settings and participantsCombined primary and secondary care medical records of 301 patients who had visited their general practitioner and the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, in 2013 were randomly selected. Six trained reviewers assessed these medical records for presence of TSIs.OutcomesTo assess inter-rater reliability, 10% of medical records were independently reviewed twice. To assess validity, the identified TSIs were compared with a reference standard of three objectively identifiable TSIs.ResultsThe reviewers identified TSIs in 52 (17.3%) of all transitional medical records. Variation between reviewers was high (range: 3–28 per 50 medical records). Positive agreement for finding a TSI between reviewers was 0%, negative agreement 80% and the Cohen’s kappa −0.15. The reviewers identified 43 (22%) of 194 objectively identifiable TSIs.ConclusionThe reliability of our measurement tool for identifying TSIs in transitional medical record performed by clinicians was low. Although the TSIs that were identified by clinicians were valid, they missed 80% of them. Restructuring the record review procedure is necessary.


1996 ◽  
Vol 165 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-176
Author(s):  
Pauline Branley ◽  
Noel E Cranswick ◽  
Anne‐Marie Pellizzer ◽  
M Kent Garrett ◽  
Graeme M Vernon ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. e007750-e007750 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. D. Hibbert ◽  
A. R. Hallahan ◽  
S. E. Muething ◽  
P. Lachman ◽  
T. D. Hooper ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. e0208087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorthe O. Klein ◽  
Roger J. M. W. Rennenberg ◽  
Richard P. Koopmans ◽  
Martin H. Prins

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Lipitz-Snyderman ◽  
Saul N. Weingart ◽  
Christopher Anderson ◽  
Andrew S. Epstein ◽  
Aileen Killen ◽  
...  

QUESTION ASKED: Although medical record–based measurement of adverse events (AEs) associated with cancer care is desirable, condition-specific triggers in oncology care are needed. We sought to develop a screening tool to facilitate efficient detection of AEs across settings of cancer care via medical record review. We hope to use this tool to understand the frequency, spectrum, and preventability of AEs with the goal of helping improve the quality and safety of cancer care. SUMMARY ANSWER: We developed a cancer-specific screening tool to help identify candidate preventable AEs that occur during cancer care from patients’ medical records. Our oncology screening tool consists of 76 triggers—readily identifiable findings to screen for possible AEs that occur during cancer care ( Table 1 ). METHODS: We sought to develop a screening tool to facilitate the detection of AEs across settings of cancer care via medical record review. We obtained structured and unstructured input from clinical experts to develop our tool, using a modified Delphi process. BIAS, CONFOUNDING FACTOR(S), DRAWBACKS: Our oncology tool requires further evaluation in order to understand its usefulness for population-based assessments of AEs in oncology and quality improvement. REAL-LIFE IMPLICATIONS: Information obtained from structured record reviews using an oncology trigger tool could help to prioritize quality improvement activities, identify high-risk groups, and generate cancer-focused quality measures. Ultimately, the goals of this work are to prevent AEs and allow timely, automated identification of these events so that clinicians can intervene promptly to improve patient outcomes. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document