Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if an integrated clinical risk management program that detects adverse patient events in a hospital, analyses their risk and takes action can alter the rate of adverse events. DESIGN: Longitudinal survey of adverse patient events over eight years of progressive implementation of the risk management program. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 49,834 inpatients (July 1991 to September 1999) and 20,050 emergency department patients (October 1997 to September 1999) at a rural base hospital in the Wimmera region of Victoria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of adverse events detected by medical record review and clinical incident and general practitioner reporting. RESULTS: The annual rate of inpatient adverse events decreased between the first and eighth years of the study from 1.35% of all patient discharges (69 events) to 0.74% (49 events) (P<0.001). Absolute risk reduction was 0.61% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.99%), and relative risk reduction was 44.9% (95% CI, 16.9%-72.9%). The quarterly rate of emergency department adverse events decreased between the first and eighth quarters of monitoring from 3.26% of all attendances (84 events) to 0.48% (12 events) (P< 0.001). Absolute risk reduction was 2.78% (95% CI, 2.04%-3.52%), and relative risk reduction was 85.3% (95% CI, 62.7%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse patient events can be detected, and their frequency reduced, using multiple detection methods and clinical improvement strategies as part of an integrated clinical risk management program.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolff et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: