Patient safety in Danish cancer care: Results from complementary studies.
216 Background: Cancer care has been a top political priority in Danish health care for the past 12 years, but there has been no specific attention towards patient safety. During the past three years, the Danish Cancer Society has carried out several studies, and in 2011 a National working group with all central stakeholders was established together with the Multidisciplinary Cancer Groups. The aim is to provide an overview of safety hazards during the cancer journey based on four different studies addressing the perspective of the health care professionals as well as the patients, and to outline the challenges in the monitoring safety in cancer based on these. Methods: Data from four studies will be presented: (1) 2,429 cancer related adverse event reports from the national Danish Patient Safety Database; (2) retrospective chart review identifying harm in 572 patient records in five inpatients cancer settings using the Global Trigger Tool; (3) errors experienced by 4,262 patients participating in a nationwide survey addressing needs and experiences with healthcare from first contact until completion of primary treatment; (4) errors experienced by the same group of patients during follow-up and rehabilitation two years after diagnosis. Results: The hazards measured varies from according to the methods used; The cancer specific AE reports were primarily related to medication, clinical, process documentation, and clinical administration. Physical harm using GTT was identified in 28% of admissions related to clinical processes, infections, and medication. 10% of the patient reported errors during contact with GP, 15% during diagnostic at hospital and 25 % during treatment. Delay, insufficient information, medication errors, and logistic errors were the most dominant errors. The results adressing patient experienced errors during follow-up and rehablitation are being analyzed. Conclusions: There are specific and serious safety challenges in cancer care and systematic monitoring is needed. Asking the patients add new knowledge. There is a need for critical evaluation of which methods to use for measuring.