Article

Characteristics of patient care management problems identified in emergency department morbidity and mortality investigations during 15 years.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Cook County Hospital, Rush Medical School, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Annals of emergency medicine (Impact Factor: 4.33). 04/2008; 51(3):251-61, 261.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.06.483
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We describe cases referred for physician review because of concern about quality of patient care and identify factors that contributed to patient care management problems.
We performed a retrospective review of 636 cases investigated by an emergency department physician review committee at an urban public teaching hospital over a 15-year period. At referral, cases were initially investigated and analyzed, and specific patient care management problems were noted. Two independent physicians subsequently classified problems into 1 or more of 4 major categories according to the phase of work in which each occurred (diagnosis, treatment, disposition, and public health) and identified contributing factors that likely affected outcome (patient factors, triage, clinical tasks, teamwork, and system). Primary outcome measures were death and disability. Secondary outcome measures included specific life-threatening events and adverse events. Patient outcomes were compared with the expected outcome with ideal care and the likely outcome of no care.
Physician reviewers identified multiple problems and contributing factors in the majority of cases (92%). The diagnostic process was the leading phase of work in which problems were observed (71%). Three leading contributing factors were identified: clinical tasks (99%), patient factors (61%), and teamwork (61%). Despite imperfections in care, half of all patients received some benefit from their medical care compared with the likely outcome with no care.
These reviews suggest that physicians would be especially interested in strategies to improve the diagnostic process and clinical tasks, address patient factors, and develop more effective medical teams. Our investigation allowed us to demonstrate the practical application of a framework for case analysis. We discuss the limitations of retrospective cases analyses and recommend future directions in safety research.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
71 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The scope of ambulatory care practice in the United States has steadily increased over the past several decades. Ambulatory care has always involved a highly distributed collection of organizations, whose safety and quality substantially varies. The US Insti-tute of Medicine has in repeated publications impressed the importance of using risk in-formed approaches, which are used in industry, to eliminate, replace, isolate, engineer or administratively contain potential and actual risk and harm to patient care. Combined with sensemaking approaches, this model and supporting assortment of tools provide a robust capability to substantially improve the quality of US ambulatory care. In 2007, the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded over a dozen such initiatives as part of its Risk Informed Intervention program. This paper provides an important over-view of risk informed approaches and how these tools are being used to facilitate quality improvement implementations across the US.
    17th World Congress on Ergonomics; 08/2009
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a structured morbidity and mortality (M&M) rounds model through an innovative educational intervention. Methods The authors engaged the Departments of Emergency Medicine (EM) and Trauma Services at a tertiary care teaching hospital. A needs assessment was performed; the Ottawa M&M rounds model was developed, implemented, and then evaluated as a four-part intervention. This consisted of: 1) physician training on case selection and analysis, 2) engaging interprofessional members, 3) disseminating lessons learned, and 4) creating an administrative pathway for acting on issues identified through the M&M rounds. The measures of intervention feasibility included the proportion of sessions adherent to the new model and M&M rounds attendance. Pre- and postintervention surveys of presenters and attendees were used to determine intervention acceptability. M&M presentation content was reviewed to determine the most frequently adopted components of the model. ResultsNine of 14 (64.3%) sessions were adherent to three of four components of the Ottawa M&M Model. Of those M&M attendees who responded to the survey (796 of 912, 87.2%), improvements were found in M&M rounds attendance as well as perceived effect on clinical practice at both individual and departmental levels. Thirty-seven case presentations were analyzed and improvements postintervention were found in appropriate case selection and recognition of cognitive and system issues. Conclusions The Ottawa M&M Model was a feasible intervention that was perceived to be effective by both presenters and attendees. The authors believe that this could be readily applied to any hospital department seeking to enhance quality of care and patient safety. Resumen ObjetivosEl objetivo de este estudio fue determinar la viabilidad y aceptación de un modelo estructurado de las series de morbilidad y mortalidad (M&M) a través de una novedosa intervención formativa. MetodologíaLos autores involucraron a los Servicios de Medicina de Urgencias y Traumatología de un hospital universitario terciario. Se realizó una valoración de las necesidades, se desarrolló e implementó el modelo en las series de M&M Otawa, y después se evaluó como una intervención en cuatro partes. Ésta consistió de: 1) formación médica en la selección del caso y el análisis; 2) implicación de los miembros de varias profesiones,, 3) trasmisión de las lecciones aprendidas, y 4) creación de una vía administrativa para actuar en los problemas identificados a través de las series de M&M. Las medidas de la viabilidad de la intervención incluyeron la proporción de sesiones adheridas al nuevo modelo y la asistencia a las series de M&M. Se utilizaron encuestas antes y después a los conductores y asistentes para determinar la aceptación de la intervención. El contenido de la presentación M&M se revisó para determinar los componentes del modelo adoptados con mayor frecuencia. ResultadosNueve de las 14 sesiones (64,3%) se adhirieron a tres de los cuatro componentes del modelo M&M Otawa. De aquellos asistentes M&M que respondieron a la encuesta (796 de 912, 87,2%), se encontraron mejoras en la asistencia a las series de M&M así como en el impacto percibido en la práctica clínica tanto individual como del servicio. Se analizaron 37 presentaciones de casos y se encontraron mejoras tras la intervención en la selección y el reconocimiento del caso apropiado y de los problemas del conocimiento y del sistema. ConclusionesEl modelo M&M Otawa fue una intervención viable que se percibió como impactante en los conductores y los asistentes. Se cree que este modelo podría ser realmente aplicado en cualquier servicio de hospital para buscar la mejora de la calidad en la atención y seguridad de paciente.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 03/2014; 21(3). · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • Source

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from