Setting priorities for patient safety

W. B. Runciman, M. J. Edmonds, M. Pradhan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Current "flags" for adverse events (AEs) are biased towards those with serious outcomes, potentially leading to failure to address mundane common problems. Aim: To provide a basis for setting priorities to improve patient safety by ranking adverse events by resource consumption as well as by outcome. This was done by classifying a set of AEs, according to how they may be prevented, into "Principal Natural Categories" (PNCs). Setting: AEs associated with a representative sample of admissions to Australian acute care hospitals. Design: AEs were classified into PNCs which were ranked by overall frequency, an index of resource consumption (a function of mean extended hospital stay and the number of cases in each PNC), and severity of outcome. Results: The 1712 AEs analysed fell into 581 PNCs; only 28% had more than two cases. Most resource use (60%) was by AEs which led to minor disabilities, 36% was by those which led to major disabilities, and 4% by those associated with death. Most of the events with serious outcomes fell into fewer than 50 PNCs; only seven of these PNCs had more than six cases resulting in serious outcomes. Conclusions: If interventions for AEs are triggered only by serious outcomes by, for example, using recommended risk scoring methods, most problems would not be addressed, particularly the large number of mundane problems which consume the majority of resources. Both serious and mundane problems should be addressed. Most types of events occur too infrequently to be characterised at a hospital level and require large scale (preferably national) collections of incidents and events.

LanguageEnglish
Pages224-229
Number of pages6
JournalQuality and Safety in Health Care
Volume11
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2002
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Runciman, W. B., Edmonds, M. J., & Pradhan, M. (2002). Setting priorities for patient safety. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 11(3), 224-229.
Runciman, W. B. ; Edmonds, M. J. ; Pradhan, M. / Setting priorities for patient safety. In: Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2002 ; Vol. 11, No. 3. pp. 224-229.
@article{b51400787279454f9a0047af8c68e11f,
title = "Setting priorities for patient safety",
abstract = "Background: Current {"}flags{"} for adverse events (AEs) are biased towards those with serious outcomes, potentially leading to failure to address mundane common problems. Aim: To provide a basis for setting priorities to improve patient safety by ranking adverse events by resource consumption as well as by outcome. This was done by classifying a set of AEs, according to how they may be prevented, into {"}Principal Natural Categories{"} (PNCs). Setting: AEs associated with a representative sample of admissions to Australian acute care hospitals. Design: AEs were classified into PNCs which were ranked by overall frequency, an index of resource consumption (a function of mean extended hospital stay and the number of cases in each PNC), and severity of outcome. Results: The 1712 AEs analysed fell into 581 PNCs; only 28{\%} had more than two cases. Most resource use (60{\%}) was by AEs which led to minor disabilities, 36{\%} was by those which led to major disabilities, and 4{\%} by those associated with death. Most of the events with serious outcomes fell into fewer than 50 PNCs; only seven of these PNCs had more than six cases resulting in serious outcomes. Conclusions: If interventions for AEs are triggered only by serious outcomes by, for example, using recommended risk scoring methods, most problems would not be addressed, particularly the large number of mundane problems which consume the majority of resources. Both serious and mundane problems should be addressed. Most types of events occur too infrequently to be characterised at a hospital level and require large scale (preferably national) collections of incidents and events.",
author = "Runciman, {W. B.} and Edmonds, {M. J.} and M. Pradhan",
year = "2002",
month = "9",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "224--229",
journal = "Quality and Safety in Health Care",
issn = "0963-8172",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "3",

}

Runciman, WB, Edmonds, MJ & Pradhan, M 2002, 'Setting priorities for patient safety', Quality and Safety in Health Care, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 224-229.

Setting priorities for patient safety. / Runciman, W. B.; Edmonds, M. J.; Pradhan, M.

In: Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 11, No. 3, 09.2002, p. 224-229.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Setting priorities for patient safety

AU - Runciman, W. B.

AU - Edmonds, M. J.

AU - Pradhan, M.

PY - 2002/9

Y1 - 2002/9

N2 - Background: Current "flags" for adverse events (AEs) are biased towards those with serious outcomes, potentially leading to failure to address mundane common problems. Aim: To provide a basis for setting priorities to improve patient safety by ranking adverse events by resource consumption as well as by outcome. This was done by classifying a set of AEs, according to how they may be prevented, into "Principal Natural Categories" (PNCs). Setting: AEs associated with a representative sample of admissions to Australian acute care hospitals. Design: AEs were classified into PNCs which were ranked by overall frequency, an index of resource consumption (a function of mean extended hospital stay and the number of cases in each PNC), and severity of outcome. Results: The 1712 AEs analysed fell into 581 PNCs; only 28% had more than two cases. Most resource use (60%) was by AEs which led to minor disabilities, 36% was by those which led to major disabilities, and 4% by those associated with death. Most of the events with serious outcomes fell into fewer than 50 PNCs; only seven of these PNCs had more than six cases resulting in serious outcomes. Conclusions: If interventions for AEs are triggered only by serious outcomes by, for example, using recommended risk scoring methods, most problems would not be addressed, particularly the large number of mundane problems which consume the majority of resources. Both serious and mundane problems should be addressed. Most types of events occur too infrequently to be characterised at a hospital level and require large scale (preferably national) collections of incidents and events.

AB - Background: Current "flags" for adverse events (AEs) are biased towards those with serious outcomes, potentially leading to failure to address mundane common problems. Aim: To provide a basis for setting priorities to improve patient safety by ranking adverse events by resource consumption as well as by outcome. This was done by classifying a set of AEs, according to how they may be prevented, into "Principal Natural Categories" (PNCs). Setting: AEs associated with a representative sample of admissions to Australian acute care hospitals. Design: AEs were classified into PNCs which were ranked by overall frequency, an index of resource consumption (a function of mean extended hospital stay and the number of cases in each PNC), and severity of outcome. Results: The 1712 AEs analysed fell into 581 PNCs; only 28% had more than two cases. Most resource use (60%) was by AEs which led to minor disabilities, 36% was by those which led to major disabilities, and 4% by those associated with death. Most of the events with serious outcomes fell into fewer than 50 PNCs; only seven of these PNCs had more than six cases resulting in serious outcomes. Conclusions: If interventions for AEs are triggered only by serious outcomes by, for example, using recommended risk scoring methods, most problems would not be addressed, particularly the large number of mundane problems which consume the majority of resources. Both serious and mundane problems should be addressed. Most types of events occur too infrequently to be characterised at a hospital level and require large scale (preferably national) collections of incidents and events.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036752182&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 224

EP - 229

JO - Quality and Safety in Health Care

T2 - Quality and Safety in Health Care

JF - Quality and Safety in Health Care

SN - 0963-8172

IS - 3

ER -