PURPOSE: To identify the frequency and type of iatrogenic medical events requiring admission to an intensive care unit. To assess the consequences of iatrogenic medical events for patients and institutions. To assess the prevalence of disclosure of iatrogenic medical events to patients, surrogates, and institutions. METHODS: The project on Care Improvement for the Critically Ill enrolled 5727 patients to 8 intensive care units at 4 Boston teaching hospitals. To determine the nature, consequences, and disclosure of iatrogenic medical events, we did a retrospective chart review on all patients whose admission to an intensive care unit was precipitated by an iatrogenic event. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (1.2 %) were identified by an intensive care unit's clinical team as having an iatrogenic medical event as the primary reason for admission to the unit. The majority (29, or 45%) of iatrogenic medical events were secondary to technical error, but a high percentage (21, or 33%) was due to iatrogenic drug events. Twenty-two (34%) cases were assessed by the investigators to have been preventable. In 60 (94%) cases there was no documentation in the patient's chart of communication to the patient regarding the reason for admission to the intensive care unit. In 11 (17%) cases there was documentation of a discussion with the surrogate about the reason for admission to the unit. In only 3 (5%) cases was there documentation that the patient or surrogate was informed that an iatrogenic medical event was the reason for admission to the intensive care unit. Incident reports or malpractice claims were filed in only 4 (6 %) cases. CONCLUSION: The frequency of iatrogenic medical events resulting in admission to intensive care units is lower than previous studies have reported. Iatrogenic drug events continue to be an important source of error. A considerable percentage of iatrogenic events may be preventable. Health care professionals rarely document disclosure of iatrogenic events to patients and surrogates.
PURPOSE: To identify the frequency and type of iatrogenic medical events requiring admission to an intensive care unit. To assess the consequences of iatrogenic medical events for patients and institutions. To assess the prevalence of disclosure of iatrogenic medical events to patients, surrogates, and institutions. METHODS: The project on Care Improvement for the Critically Ill enrolled 5727 patients to 8 intensive care units at 4 Boston teaching hospitals. To determine the nature, consequences, and disclosure of iatrogenic medical events, we did a retrospective chart review on all patients whose admission to an intensive care unit was precipitated by an iatrogenic event. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (1.2 %) were identified by an intensive care unit's clinical team as having an iatrogenic medical event as the primary reason for admission to the unit. The majority (29, or 45%) of iatrogenic medical events were secondary to technical error, but a high percentage (21, or 33%) was due to iatrogenic drug events. Twenty-two (34%) cases were assessed by the investigators to have been preventable. In 60 (94%) cases there was no documentation in the patient's chart of communication to the patient regarding the reason for admission to the intensive care unit. In 11 (17%) cases there was documentation of a discussion with the surrogate about the reason for admission to the unit. In only 3 (5%) cases was there documentation that the patient or surrogate was informed that an iatrogenic medical event was the reason for admission to the intensive care unit. Incident reports or malpractice claims were filed in only 4 (6 %) cases. CONCLUSION: The frequency of iatrogenic medical events resulting in admission to intensive care units is lower than previous studies have reported. Iatrogenic drug events continue to be an important source of error. A considerable percentage of iatrogenic events may be preventable. Health care professionals rarely document disclosure of iatrogenic events to patients and surrogates.
Entities:
Keywords:
Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship
Authors: Emmanuelle Mercier; Bruno Giraudeau; Guy Giniès; Dominique Perrotin; Pierre-François Dequin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Stephanie P Fein; Lee H Hilborne; Eugene M Spiritus; Gregory B Seymann; Craig R Keenan; Kaveh G Shojania; Marjorie Kagawa-Singer; Neil S Wenger Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Andrew A White; Sigall K Bell; Melissa J Krauss; Jane Garbutt; W Claiborne Dunagan; Victoria J Fraser; Wendy Levinson; Eric B Larson; Thomas H Gallagher Journal: Med Educ Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Adil H Ahmed; John M Litell; Michael Malinchoc; Rahul Kashyap; Henry J Schiller; Sonal R Pannu; Balwinder Singh; Guangxi Li; Ognjen Gajic Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Marieke Grenouillet-Delacre; Hélène Verdoux; Nicholas Moore; Françoise Haramburu; Ghada Miremont-Salamé; Gabriel Etienne; Philip Robinson; Didier Gruson; Gilles Hilbert; Claude Gabinski; Bernard Bégaud; Mathieu Molimard Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-07-25 Impact factor: 17.440