Despite considerable emphasis on delivering safe care, substantial patient harm occurs. Although most care occurs in the outpatient setting, knowledge of outpatient adverse events (AEs) remains limited.

BACKGROUND:Despite considerable emphasis on delivering safe care, substantial patient harm occurs. Although most care occurs in the outpatient setting, knowledge of outpatient adverse events (AEs) remains limited. OBJECTIVE:To measure AEs in the outpatient setting. DESIGN:Retrospective review of the electronic health record (EHR). SETTING:11 outpatient sites in Massachusetts in 2018. PATIENTS:3103 patients who received outpatient care. MEASUREMENTS:Using a trigger method, nurse reviewers identified possible AEs and physicians adjudicated them, ranked severity, and assessed preventability. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association of having at least 1 AE with age, sex, race, and primary insurance. Variation in AE rates was analyzed across sites. RESULTS:The 3103 patients (mean age, 52 years) were more often female (59.8%), White (75.1%), English speakers (90.8%), and privately insured (70.4%) and had a mean of 4 outpatient encounters in 2018. Overall, 7.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 9.3%) of patients had at least 1 AE (8.6 events per 100 patients annually). Adverse drug events were the most common AE (63.8%), followed by health care-associated infections (14.8%) and surgical or procedural events (14.2%). Severity was serious in 17.4% of AEs, life-threatening in 2.1%, and never fatal. Overall, 23.2% of AEs were preventable. Having at least 1 AE was less often associated with ages 18 to 44 years than with ages 65 to 84 years (standardized risk difference, -0.05 [CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) and more often associated with Black race than with Asian race (standardized risk difference, 0.09 [CI, 0.01 to 0.17]). Across study sites, 1.8% to 23.6% of patients had at least 1 AE and clinical category of AEs varied substantially. LIMITATION:Retrospective EHR review may miss AEs. CONCLUSION:Outpatient harm was relatively common and often serious. Adverse drug events were most frequent. Rates were higher among older adults. Interventions to curtail outpatient harm are urgently needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.

BACKGROUNDAdverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted.METHODSWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events.RESULTSIn a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%).CONCLUSIONSAdverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).

BACKGROUND:Evidence-based point-of-care information (POCI) tools can facilitate patient safety and care by helping clinicians to answer disease state and drug information questions in less time and with less effort. However, these tools may also be visually challenging to navigate or lack the comprehensiveness needed to sufficiently address a medical issue. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to collect clinicians' feedback and directly observe their use of the combined POCI tool DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson, now known as DynaMedex. EBSCO partnered with IBM Watson Health, now known as Merative, to develop the combined tool as a resource for clinicians. We aimed to identify areas for refinement based on participant feedback and examine participant perceptions to inform further development. METHODS:Participants (N=43) within varying clinical roles and specialties were recruited from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, between August 10, 2021, and December 16, 2021, to take part in usability sessions aimed at evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of, as well as satisfaction with, the DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson tool. Usability testing methods, including think aloud and observations of user behavior, were used to identify challenges regarding the combined tool. Data collection included measurements of time on task; task ease; satisfaction with the answer; posttest feedback on likes, dislikes, and perceived reliability of the tool; and interest in recommending the tool to a colleague. RESULTS:On a 7-point Likert scale, pharmacists rated ease (mean 5.98, SD 1.38) and satisfaction (mean 6.31, SD 1.34) with the combined POCI tool higher than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (ease: mean 5.57, SD 1.64, and satisfaction: mean 5.82, SD 1.60). Pharmacists spent longer (mean 2 minutes, 26 seconds, SD 1 minute, 41 seconds) on average finding an answer to their question than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (mean 1 minute, 40 seconds, SD 1 minute, 23 seconds). CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the tool performed well, but this usability evaluation identified multiple opportunities for improvement that would help inexperienced users.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/43960.].

Adverse drug events (ADEs) represent one of the most prevalent types of health-care-related harm, and there is substantial room for improvement in the way that they are currently predicted and detected. We conducted a scoping review to identify key use cases in which artificial intelligence (AI) could be leveraged to reduce the frequency of ADEs. We focused on modern machine learning techniques and natural language processing. 78 articles were included in the scoping review. Studies were heterogeneous and applied various AI techniques covering a wide range of medications and ADEs. We identified several key use cases in which AI could contribute to reducing the frequency and consequences of ADEs, through prediction to prevent ADEs and early detection to mitigate the effects. Most studies (73 [94%] of 78) assessed technical algorithm performance, and few studies evaluated the use of AI in clinical settings. Most articles (58 [74%] of 78) were published within the past 5 years, highlighting an emerging area of study. Availability of new types of data, such as genetic information, and access to unstructured clinical notes might further advance the field.

We defined tolerance range as the distance of observing similar disease conditions or functional status from the upper to the lower boundaries of a specified time interval. A tolerance range was identified for linear regression and support vector machines to optimize the improvement rate (defined as IR) on accuracy in predicting mortality risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using clinical notes. The corpus includes pulmonary, cardiology, and radiology reports of 15,500 patients who died between 2011 and 2017. Their performance was compared against a long short-term memory recurrent neural network. The results demonstrate an overall improvement by those basic machine learning approaches after considering an optimal tolerance range: the average IR of linear regression was 90.1% and the maximum IR of support vector machines was 66.2%. There was a similitude between the time segments produced by our tolerance algorithms and those produced by the long short-term memory.

The objective of this study is to review and compare patient safety dashboards used by hospitals and identify similarities and differences in their design, format, and scope. We reviewed design features of electronic copies of patient safety dashboards from a representative sample of 10 hospitals. The results show great heterogeneity in the format, presentation, and scope of patient safety dashboards. Hospitals varied in their use of performance indicators (targets, trends, and benchmarks), style of color coding, and timeframe for the displayed metrics. The average number of metrics per dashboard display was 28, with a wide range from 7 to 84. Given the large variation in dashboard design, there is a need for future work to assess which approaches are associated with the best outcomes, and how specific elements contribute to usability, to help customize dashboards to meet the needs of different clinical, and operational stakeholders.

BACKGROUND:Twenty-five years after the seminal work of the Harvard Medical Practice Study, the numbers and specific types of health care measures of harm have evolved and expanded. Using the World Café method to derive expert consensus, we sought to generate a contemporary list of triggers and adverse event measures that could be used for chart review to determine the current incidence of inpatient and outpatient adverse events.METHODS:We held a modified World Café event in March 2018, during which content experts were divided into 10 tables by clinical domain. After a focused discussion of a prepopulated list of literature-based triggers and measures relevant to that domain, they were asked to rate each measure on clinical importance and suitability for chart review and electronic extraction (very low, low, medium, high, very high).RESULTS:Seventy-one experts from 9 diverse institutions attended (primary acceptance rate, 72%). Of 525 total triggers and measures, 67% of 391 measures and 46% of 134 triggers were deemed to have high or very high clinical importance. For those triggers and measures with high or very high clinical importance, 218 overall were deemed to be highly amenable to chart review and 198 overall were deemed to be suitable for electronic surveillance.CONCLUSIONS:The World Café method effectively prioritized measures/triggers of high clinical importance including those that can be used in chart review, which is considered the gold standard. A future goal is to validate these measures using electronic surveillance mechanisms to decrease the need for chart review.