BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patients can report a variety of adverse events (AEs) not captured by traditional methods such as a chart review. Little is known, however, about whether patient reports are useful for measuring patient safety. OBJECTIVES: To examine the degree to which physician reviewers agreed that patient reports of "negative effects" constituted AEs, and to identify questionnaire items that affected reviewers' judgments. METHODS: We surveyed patients discharged from Massachusetts hospitals in 2003 to elicit information about negative effects associated with hospitalization. Physician reviewers judged whether patient-reported negative effects represented AEs, and classified the severity of the event. Likelihood ratios were calculated to assess whether patient responses to questionnaire items affected reviewers' judgments. RESULTS: Of the 2582 patients surveyed, 753 patients reported 1170 negative effects, and 71.2% of these effects were classified as AEs by physician reviewers. Negative effects most likely to be classified as AEs involved newly prescribed medications and changes to previously prescribed medications. Additional information elicited from follow-up survey questions modestly affected reviewers' classification of serious AEs. Negative effects reported by women, younger patients, those reporting better health status, and those not admitted through the emergency department were more likely to be classified as AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients were able to identify care-related AEs. Patient responses to questions about the sequelae of the events provided limited additional information for physicians to use in gauging the presence and severity of the event. Patient reports complement other incident-detection methods by providing information that is credible and unavailable from other sources.
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patients can report a variety of adverse events (AEs) not captured by traditional methods such as a chart review. Little is known, however, about whether patient reports are useful for measuring patient safety. OBJECTIVES: To examine the degree to which physician reviewers agreed that patient reports of "negative effects" constituted AEs, and to identify questionnaire items that affected reviewers' judgments. METHODS: We surveyed patients discharged from Massachusetts hospitals in 2003 to elicit information about negative effects associated with hospitalization. Physician reviewers judged whether patient-reported negative effects represented AEs, and classified the severity of the event. Likelihood ratios were calculated to assess whether patient responses to questionnaire items affected reviewers' judgments. RESULTS: Of the 2582 patients surveyed, 753 patients reported 1170 negative effects, and 71.2% of these effects were classified as AEs by physician reviewers. Negative effects most likely to be classified as AEs involved newly prescribed medications and changes to previously prescribed medications. Additional information elicited from follow-up survey questions modestly affected reviewers' classification of serious AEs. Negative effects reported by women, younger patients, those reporting better health status, and those not admitted through the emergency department were more likely to be classified as AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients were able to identify care-related AEs. Patient responses to questions about the sequelae of the events provided limited additional information for physicians to use in gauging the presence and severity of the event. Patient reports complement other incident-detection methods by providing information that is credible and unavailable from other sources.
Authors: Traber D Giardina; Kathryn E Royse; Arushi Khanna; Helen Haskell; Julia Hallisy; Frederick Southwick; Hardeep Singh Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2020-02-21
Authors: Alisa Khan; Stephannie L Furtak; Patrice Melvin; Jayne E Rogers; Mark A Schuster; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Preeti Mehrotra; Lindsay Croft; Hannah R Day; Eli N Perencevich; Lisa Pineles; Anthony D Harris; Saul N Weingart; Daniel J Morgan Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Jessica M Benjamin; Elizabeth D Cox; Philip J Trapskin; Victoria P Rajamanickam; Roderick C Jorgenson; Holly L Weber; Rachel E Pearson; Pascale Carayon; Nikki L Lubcke Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jennifer L Hay; Thomas M Atkinson; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Tito R Mendoza; Gordon Willis; Lori M Minasian; Steven B Clauser; Andrea Denicoff; Ann O'Mara; Alice Chen; Antonia V Bennett; Diane B Paul; Joshua Gagne; Lauren Rogak; Laura Sit; Vish Viswanath; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-07-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Fabienne C Bourgeois; Alan Fossa; Macda Gerard; Marion E Davis; Yhenneko J Taylor; Crystal D Connor; Tracela Vaden; Andrew McWilliams; Melanie D Spencer; Patricia Folcarelli; Sigall K Bell Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jason M Etchegaray; Madelene J Ottosen; Aitebureme Aigbe; Emily Sedlock; William M Sage; Sigall K Bell; Thomas H Gallagher; Eric J Thomas Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Hanna Gyllensten; Clas Rehnberg; Anna K Jönsson; Max Petzold; Anders Carlsten; Karolina Andersson Sundell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alicia I Arbaje; Nicole E Werner; Eileen M Kasda; Albert W Wu; Charles F S Locke; Hanan Aboumatar; Lori A Paine; Bruce Leff; Richard O Davis; Romsai Boonyasai Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 2.243