Is health care getting safer?
نویسندگان
چکیده
1205 ANALYSIS Patient safety has been high on the national and international agenda in health care for almost a decade. In the United Kingdom, reviews of case records have shown that over 10% of patients experience an adverse event while in hospital, 1 2 a figure reflected in similar studies around the world. 3 Considerable efforts have been made to improve safety, and it is natural to ask whether these efforts have been well directed. Are patients any safer? The answer to this simple question is curiously elusive. Although some aspects of safety are difficult to measure for technical reasons (defining preventability for instance), the main problem is that measurement and evaluation have not been high on the agenda. We believe that the lack of reliable information on safety and quality of care is hindering improvement in safety across the world. The principal approach to patient safety in the UK, United States, and many other countries has been to establish local and national reporting systems; these systems invite voluntary reporting of unspecified safety incidents with the aim of learning lessons and feeding back the findings into the system. However, these reporting systems do not effectively detect adverse events. In the most recent comparison, reporting systems detected only about 6% of adverse events found by systematic review of records. 2 Reporting systems are a valuable component of a safety system, but they are essentially systems for warning and communication inside an organisation and, if large scale, of detecting rare events not easily detectable by other means. They cannot and never will act as a measurement system for safety. Here, we use the example of the UK National Health Service to determine whether it is possible to assess change in several core areas that reflect the safety of health care and, if so, what changes are apparent. We focus on measures of outcome, in the sense of defin-able events that happen to patients (infections, morbidity, mortality) and on key measures of process (such as drug errors). We have not considered concepts such as culture or resilience that are held to reflect safety but are not proved indices of clinical process or outcome. Defining safety is itself a challenge, and we do not pretend that the indicators can provide more than a crude measure of overall levels of safety. The indicators we have chosen are, however, all important to patients. In-hospital mortality Hospital …
منابع مشابه
A call for change: the 2011 Commonwealth Fund Survey of Public Views of the U.S. Health System.
More than seven of 10 adults believe the U.S. health system needs fundamental change or complete rebuilding. Most adults surveyed reported difficulties accessing care, poor care coordination, and struggles with the costs and administrative hassles of health insurance. In addition, the survey finds substantial evidence of inefficient and wasteful delivery of health services. When looking toward ...
متن کاملGetting moving on patient safety--harnessing electronic data for safer care.
n engl j med 365;19 nejm.org november 10, 2011 1756 newed sense of collegiality, and return to the type of medicine that patients and families want. For patients, coordinated care means more “quality time” with their physician and care team (a patient’s advocate in an increasingly complex medical system) and more collaboration in leading a healthy life. And for Medicare, coordinated care repres...
متن کاملTradeoff Negotiation: The Importance of Getting in the Game; Comment on “Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage”
Swiss-CHAT’s playful approach to public rationing can be considered in terms of deliberative process design as well as in terms of health policy. The process’ forced negotiation of trade-offs exposed unexamined driving questions, and challenged prevalent presumptions about health care demand and about conditions of public reasoning that enable transparent rationing. While the experiment provide...
متن کاملMedicaid Highlights: 2003 Medicaid Versus Commercial Beneficiary Experience with Care
CAHPS® is a widely used survey instrument measuring consumer experiences with health care. The National CAHPS® Benchmarking Database (NCBD) project, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, has compiled CAHPS® survey results from a variety of sponsors into a single national database, the NCBD, that enables participants to compare their results to relevant benchmarks such as nat...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- BMJ
دوره 337 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2008