BACKGROUND: We wanted to describe errors and preventable adverse events identified by family physicians during the office-based clinical encounter and to determine the physicians' perception of patient harm resulting from these events. METHOD: We sampled Cincinnati area family physicians representing different practice locations and demographics. After each clinical encounter, physicians completed a form identifying process errors and preventable adverse events. Brief interviews were held with physicians to ascertain their perceptions of harm or potential harm to the patient. RESULTS: Fifteen physicians in 7 practices completed forms for 351 outpatient visits. Errors and preventable adverse events were identified in 24% of these visits. There was wide variation in how often individual physicians identified errors (3% to 60% of visits). Office administration errors were most frequently noted. Harm was believe to have occurred as a result of 24% of the errors, and was a potential in another 70%. Although most harm was believed to be minor, there was disagreement as to whether to include emotional discomfort and wasted time as patient harm. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians identify errors and preventable adverse events frequently during patient visits, but there is variation in how some error categories are interpreted and how harm is defined.
BACKGROUND: We wanted to describe errors and preventable adverse events identified by family physicians during the office-based clinical encounter and to determine the physicians' perception of patient harm resulting from these events. METHOD: We sampled Cincinnati area family physicians representing different practice locations and demographics. After each clinical encounter, physicians completed a form identifying process errors and preventable adverse events. Brief interviews were held with physicians to ascertain their perceptions of harm or potential harm to the patient. RESULTS: Fifteen physicians in 7 practices completed forms for 351 outpatient visits. Errors and preventable adverse events were identified in 24% of these visits. There was wide variation in how often individual physicians identified errors (3% to 60% of visits). Office administration errors were most frequently noted. Harm was believe to have occurred as a result of 24% of the errors, and was a potential in another 70%. Although most harm was believed to be minor, there was disagreement as to whether to include emotional discomfort and wasted time as patient harm. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians identify errors and preventable adverse events frequently during patient visits, but there is variation in how some error categories are interpreted and how harm is defined.
Authors: Linda N Meurer; Hongyan Yang; Clare E Guse; Carla Russo; Karen J Brasel; Peter M Layde Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Wei-Qi Wei; Cynthia L Leibson; Jeanine E Ransom; Abel N Kho; Pedro J Caraballo; High Seng Chai; Barbara P Yawn; Jennifer A Pacheco; Christopher G Chute Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: William L Galanter; Andrew Applebaum; Viveka Boddipalli; Abel Kho; Michael Lin; David Meltzer; Anna Roberts; Bill Trick; Surrey M Walton; Bruce L Lambert Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Lisa M Schilling; Lori A Crane; Allison Kempe; Deborah S Main; Marion R Sills; Arthur J Davidson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 2.342