Maria Panagioti1, Kanza Khan2, Richard N Keers3, Aseel Abuzour3, Denham Phipps3, Evangelos Kontopantelis2, Peter Bower2, Stephen Campbell2, Razaan Haneef4, Anthony J Avery5, Darren M Ashcroft2. 1. 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 maria.panagioti@manchester.ac.uk. 2. 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. 3. Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 4. Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 5. Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
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 I2 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. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
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 I2 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. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Dawn Dowding; David Russell; Margaret V McDonald; Marygrace Trifilio; Jiyoun Song; Carlin Brickner; Jingjing Shang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 4.497
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: Dawn Dowding; David Russell; Marygrace Trifilio; Margaret V McDonald; Jingjing Shang Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Alexandra Urquhart; Sarah Yardley; Elin Thomas; Liam Donaldson; Andrew Carson-Stevens Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ghadah H Alshehri; Darren M Ashcroft; Joanne Nguyen; Mark Hann; Richard Jones; Kristof Seaton; Graham Newton; Richard N Keers Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 5.606