Feasibility and reliability of PRISMA-Medical for specialty-based incident analysis

VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdamo, North Holland, Netherlands
Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 12/2009; 18(6):486-91. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2008.028068
Source: PubMed


In this study, the feasibility and reliability of the Prevention Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis (PRISMA)-Medical method for systematic, specialty-based analysis and classification of incidents in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) were determined.
After the introduction of a Neonatology System for Analysis and Feedback on Medical Events (NEOSAFE) in eight tertiary care NICUs and one paediatric surgical ICU, PRISMA-Medical was started to be used to identify root causes of voluntary reported incidents by multidisciplinary unit patient safety committees. Committee members were PRISMA-trained and familiar with the department and its processes. In this study, the results of PRISMA-analysis of incidents reported during the first year are described. At t = 3 months and t = 12 months after introduction, test cases were performed to measure agreement at three levels of root cause classification using PRISMA-Medical. Inter-rater reliability was determined by calculating generalised kappa values for each level of classification.
During the study period, 981 out of 1786 eligible incidents (55%) were analysed for underlying root causes. In total, 2313 root causes were identified and classified, giving an average of 2.4 root causes for every incident. Although substantial agreement (kappa 0.70-0.81) was reached at the main level of root cause classification of the test cases (discrimination between technical, organisational and human failure) and agreement among the committees at the second level (discrimination between skill-based, rule-based and knowledge-based errors) was acceptable (kappa 0.53-0.59), discrimination between rule-based errors (the third level of classification) was more difficult to assess (kappa 0.40-0.47).
With some restraints, PRISMA-Medical proves to be both feasible and acceptably reliable to identify and classify multiple causes of medical events in the NICU.

Download full-text


Available from: Richard A van Lingen,
  • Source
    • "Furthermore, the voluntary self-selection of participating practices probably could have led to selection bias, i.e. an under-estimation of the prevalence of AEs. The reliability of the AE determination, based on the applied definitions and methods [11] [12], could have been affected by the sub-optimal quality of record keeping as well as the lack of professional standards to reliably analyze the potential AEs. On the other hand, the percentage of agreement between assessors in this study was high. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Little is known about patient safety in primary oral healthcare. The aim of this study was to describe and analyze patient safety incidents in primary oral health care. Materials and methods: A random sample of 1000 patient records from 20 dental practices was reviewed retrospectively over 60 months. All adverse events (AEs) were noted: unintended events happening during treatment that resulted or could have resulted in harm to the patient. Results: A total of 46 (95% CI = 33-59) AEs was identified, of which 18 (95% CI = 10-26) were considered preventable. From these, 15 related to treatment, 10 to diagnostics and one to communication. Conclusions: The low incidence of AEs and absence of major harm to patients suggests that primary oral care is safe for patients. However, the low quality of record keeping may imply underestimation.
    Acta odontologica Scandinavica 04/2013; 71(6). DOI:10.3109/00016357.2013.777471 · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Incident data were collected and then systematically analysed using the Prevention and Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis (PRISMA) - Medical method over a 12-month period before and after the intervention [16]. The PRISMA method is based on the so-called system approach to the problem of human error and therefore concentrates on the conditions under which individuals work. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient safety is one of the greatest challenges in healthcare. In the operating room errors are frequent and often consequential. This article describes an approach to a successful implementation of a patient safety program in the operating room, focussing on latent risk factors that influence patient safety. We performed an intervention to improve these latent risk factors (LRFs) and increase awareness of patient safety issues amongst OR staff. Latent risk factors were studied using a validated questionnaire applied to the OR staff before and after an intervention. A pre-test/post-test control group design with repeated measures was used to evaluate the effects of the interventions. The staff from one operating room of an university hospital acted as the intervention group. Controls consisted of the staff of the operating room in another university hospital. The outcomes were the changes in LRF scores, perceived incident rate, and changes in incident reports between pre- and post-intervention. Based on pre-test scores and participants' key concerns about organizational factors affecting patient safety in their department the intervention focused on the following LRFs: Material Resources, Training and Staffing Recourses. After the intervention, the intervention operating room - compared to the control operating room - reported significantly fewer problems on Material Resources and Staffing Resources and a significantly lower score on perceived incident rate. The contribution of technical factors to incident causation decreased significantly in the intervention group after the intervention. The change of state of latent risk factors can be measured using a patient safety questionnaire aimed at these factors. The change of the relevant risk factors (Material and Staffing resources) concurred with a decrease in perceived and reported incident rates in the relevant categories. We conclude that interventions aimed at unfavourable latent risk factors detected by a questionnaire focussed at these factors may contribute to the improvement of patient safety in the OR.
    BMC Surgery 06/2012; 12(1):10. DOI:10.1186/1471-2482-12-10 · 1.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The ECM divides underlying causes in technical, organisational, human, and other factors. This has been found to produce a reliable classification of the underlying causes of patient safety incidents [17,19]. The Eindhoven Classification Model has also been accepted by the World Alliance for Patient Safety from the World Health Organisation [20,21]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient safety can be at stake in both hospital and general practice settings. While severe patient safety incidents have been described, quantitative studies in large samples of patients in general practice are rare. This study aimed to assess patient safety in general practice, and to show areas where potential improvements could be implemented. We conducted a retrospective review of patient records in Dutch general practice. A random sample of 1,000 patients from 20 general practices was obtained. The number of patient safety incidents that occurred in a one-year period, their perceived underlying causes, and impact on patients' health were recorded. We identified 211 patient safety incidents across a period of one year (95% CI: 185 until 241). A variety of types of incidents, perceived causes and consequences were found. A total of 58 patient safety incidents affected patients; seven were associated with hospital admission; none resulted in permanent disability or death. Although this large audit of medical records in general practices identified many patient safety incidents, only a few had a major impact on patients' health. Improving patient safety in this low-risk environment poses specific challenges, given the high numbers of patients and contacts in general practice.
    Implementation Science 04/2011; 6(1):37. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-6-37 · 4.12 Impact Factor
Show more