'Global trigger tool' shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured.

Identification and measurement of adverse medical events is central to patient safety, forming a foundation for accountability, prioritizing problems to work on, generating ideas for safer care, and testing which interventions work. We compared three methods to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients, using the same patient sample set from three leading hospitals. We found that the adverse event detection methods commonly used to track patient safety in the United States today-voluntary reporting and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Indicators-fared very poorly compared to other methods and missed 90 percent of the adverse events.

Implementing a hospitalwide patient safety program for cultural change.

Background: After focus groups revealed that staff perceived a punitive culture, Missouri Baptist Medical Center (MBMC) embarked on a comprehensive patient safety program, which was initially directed at creating a just culture of patient safety.

Interventions: A series of structures, processes, and initiatives were introduced to change the attitudes of management and staff toward human error, to communicate broadly with staff and the community, and to provide feedback on leadership's responses to specific events. All events reported were tracked continuously and recorded each month on a spreadsheet.

Validation of automated event triggers using laboratory values related to two problem-prone drugs.

We used computerized alerts to identify patients with laboratory values that could be related to medication errors associated with digoxin and warfarin. Over a six-week period at two inpatient facilities, we generated 62 laboratory-based alerts for warfarin, and 66 for digoxin. The positive predictive value for these alerts representing a preventable event was 71% and 57% for warfarin and digoxin, respectively.