Hensleymedeiros1267

Impacts of errors included emotional distress, adverse health outcomes, and impaired activities of daily living. CONCLUSIONS This study uses the recent IOM definition of diagnostic error to provide insights into diagnostic error from the patient perspective. We found that diagnostic errors were commonly reported by hospitalized adults and have a profound impact on patients' well-being. Patients' insights regarding potential causes and prevention strategies may help identify opportunities to reduce diagnostic errors.BACKGROUND Cancer care is complex, involving highly toxic drugs, critically ill patients, and various different care providers. Because it is important for clinicians to have the latest and complete information about the patient available, this study focused on patient safety issues in information management developing from health information technology (HIT) use in oncology ambulatory infusion centers. OBJECTIVE The aim was to exploratively and prospectively assess patient safety risks from an expert perspective instead of retrospectively analyzing safety events, we assessed the information management hazards inherent to the daily work processes; instead of asking healthcare workers at the front line, we used them as information sources to construct our patient safety expert view on the hazards. METHODS The work processes of clinicians in three ambulatory infusion centers were assessed and evaluated based on interviews and observations with a nurse and a physician of each unit. The 125 identified patient safety issues were described and sorted into thematic groups. RESULTS A broad range of patient safety issues was identified, such as data fragmentation, or information islands, meaning that patient data are stored across different cases or software and that different professional groups do not use the same set of information. CONCLUSIONS The current design and implementation of HIT systems do not support adequate information management clinicians needed to play very close attention and improvise to avoid errors in using HIT and treat cancer patients safely. It is important to take the clinical front-end practice into account when evaluating or planning further HIT improvements.OBJECTIVE In-hospital falls (IHFs) are a significant burden to the healthcare industry and patients seeking inpatient care. Many falls lead to injuries that could be considered a hospital-acquired condition (HAC). We demonstrated how administrative data can be used to quantify how many IHFs occur and identify what conditions increase the risk for these falls. METHODS Iowa State Inpatient Database records from 2008 to 2014 for adults older than 50 years were used to quantify IHFs, falls resulting in an HAC (HAC IHFs), and fractures during in-hospital treatment. The medical conditions used in the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index were evaluated for the risk of the separate fall-related outcomes using Poisson regression. RESULTS There were 1770 records that had an IHF for an IHF rate of 0.26 per 1000 patient days. Psychoses (rate ratio = 1.95, 95% confidence interval = 1.63-2.34) and alcohol abuse (rate ratio = 1.77, 95% confidence interval = 1.40-2.24) showed the greatest increase in IHF risk. These conditions also increased the risk of HAC IHFs and in-hospital fractures. Fluid and electrolyte disorders, deficiency anemias, and chronic pulmonary disease increased the risk for IHFs/HAC IHFs but did not increase the risk of in-hospital fractures. CONCLUSIONS Administrative data can be used to track various fall-related outcomes occurring during inpatient treatment. Several conditions of the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index were identified as increasing the risk of fall-related outcomes and should be considered when evaluating a patient's risk of falling.OBJECTIVES Despite widespread use of medical devices and their increasing complexity, their contribution to unintended injury caused by healthcare (adverse events, AEs) remains relatively understudied. The aim of this study was to gain insight in the incidence and types of AEs involving medical devices (AMDEs). METHODS Data from two patient record studies for the identification of AEs were used. Identification of AMDEs was part of these studies. Patient records of 6894 admissions of a random sample of 20 hospitals in 2011/2012 and 19 hospitals in 2015/2016 were reviewed for AMDEs by trained nurses and physicians. RESULTS In 98.7% of the admissions, a medical device was used. Adverse events involving medical devices were present in 2.8% of the admissions, with 24% of the AMDEs being potentially preventable. Of all AEs, in 40%, medical devices were involved. Of all potentially preventable AEs, in 44%, medical devices were involved. Implants were most often involved in potentially preventable AMDEs. PF6463922 CONCLUSIONS Medical devices are substantially involved in potentially preventable AEs in hospitals. Research into AMDEs is of great importance because of the increasing use and complexity of medical devices. Based on patient records, most improvements could be made for placement of implants and prevention of infections related to medical devices. Safety and safe use of medical devices should be a subject of attention and further research.OBJECTIVES The aims of the study were to describe medication administration incidents reported in England and Wales between 2007 and 2016, to identify which factors (reporting year, type of incident, patients' age) are most strongly related to reported severity of medication administration incidents, and to assess the extent to which relevant information was underreported or indeterminate. METHODS Medication administration incidents reported to the National Reporting & Learning System between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2016 were obtained. Characteristics of the data were described using frequencies, and relationships between variables were explored using cross-tabulation. RESULTS A total of 517,384 incident reports were analyzed. Of these, 97.1% (n = 502,379) occurred in acute/general hospitals, mostly on wards (69.1%, n = 357,463), with medicine the most common specialty area (44.5%, n = 230,205). Medication errors were most commonly omitted doses (25.8%, n = 133,397). The majority did not cause patient harm (83.