Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BMJ

NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.

Published: July 2019

Objective: To systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources: Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched.

Review Methods: Observational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.

Results: Of the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337 025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10).

Conclusions: Around one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6939648PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4185DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

patient harm
48
preventable patient
44
medical care
16
95% confidence
16
preventable
13
patient
13
harm
13
prevalence severity
12
harm medical
12
confidence interval
12

Similar Publications

Content validation of drug problem-oriented clinical record.

Res Social Adm Pharm

January 2025

Laboratory of Teaching and Research in Social Pharmacy (LEPFS), Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Sergipe, Cidade Universitária "Prof. José Aloísio Campos", Jardim Rosa Elze, São Cristóvão, SE, CEP: 49100- 000, Brazil. Electronic address:

Background: Worldwide, hospitals are responsible for restoring health. However, poorly executed processes in these institutions can lead to risks and harm to patients, especially in identifying drug related problems. This fact justifies the proposal of tools to support the diagnosis, management and resolution of these problems.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: It was our impression that safety outcome trials were getting more frequent, raising ethical issues mainly related to patient autonomy. We and others had also proposed this autonomy would be best served if wording of the informed consents would be in the public domain.

Methods: Initially two observers and an arbiter tabulated the main aims of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 1990-1991 vs.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background And Objectives: Gingivitis and periodontitis are common periodontal diseases that can significantly harm overall oral health, affecting the teeth and their supporting tissues, along with the surrounding anatomical structures, and if left untreated, leading to the total destruction of the alveolar bone and the connective tissues, tooth loss, and other more serious systemic health issues. Numerous studies have shown that propolis can help reduce gum inflammation, inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria, and promote tissue regeneration, but with varying degrees of success reported. For this reason, this comprehensive systematic review aims at finding out the truth concerning the efficacy of propolis mouthwashes in treating gingivitis and periodontitis, as its main objective.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: The benefit of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella (Abiomed, Inc, Danvers, MA) for patients undergoing non-emergent, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) is unclear and currently the subject of a large randomized clinical trial (RCT), PROTECT IV. While contemporary registry data from PROTECT III demonstrated improvement of outcomes with Impella when compared with historical data (PROTECT II), there is lack of direct comparison to the HR-PCI cohort that did not receive Impella support.

Methods: We retrospectively identified patients from our institution meeting PROTECT III inclusion criteria (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <35% with unprotected left main or last remaining vessel or LVEF <30% undergoing multivessel PCI), and compared this group (NonIMP) to the published outcomes data from the PROTECT III registry (IMP).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Medical devices significantly enhance healthcare by integrating advanced technology to improve patient outcomes. Ensuring their safety and reliability requires a delicate balance between innovation and rigorous oversight, managed through the collaborative efforts of standards development organizations, standards accrediting organizations, and regulatory agencies such as the U.S.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!