Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Health Services Research and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports?

Ingrid Christiaans-Dingelhoff1*, Marleen Smits2, Laura Zwaan1, Sanne Lubberding2, Gerrit van der Wal1 and Cordula Wagner12

Author Affiliations

1 EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care research, Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2 NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, The Netherlands

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Health Services Research 2011, 11:49  doi:10.1186/1472-6963-11-49

Published: 28 February 2011

Abstract

Background

Patient record review is believed to be the most useful method for estimating the rate of adverse events among hospitalised patients. However, the method has some practical and financial disadvantages. Some of these disadvantages might be overcome by using existing reporting systems in which patient safety issues are already reported, such as incidents reported by healthcare professionals and complaints and medico-legal claims filled by patients or their relatives. The aim of the study is to examine to what extent the hospital reporting systems cover the adverse events identified by patient record review.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study using a database from a record review study of 5375 patient records in 14 hospitals in the Netherlands. Trained nurses and physicians using a method based on the protocol of The Harvard Medical Practice Study previously reviewed the records. Four reporting systems were linked with the database of reviewed records: 1) informal and 2) formal complaints by patients/relatives, 3) medico-legal claims by patients/relatives and 4) incident reports by healthcare professionals. For each adverse event identified in patient records the equivalent was sought in these reporting systems by comparing dates and descriptions of the events. The study focussed on the number of adverse event matches, overlap of adverse events detected by different sources, preventability and severity of consequences of reported and non-reported events and sensitivity and specificity of reports.

Results

In the sample of 5375 patient records, 498 adverse events were identified. Only 18 of the 498 (3.6%) adverse events identified by record review were found in one or more of the four reporting systems. There was some overlap: one adverse event had an equivalent in both a complaint and incident report and in three cases a patient/relative used two or three systems to complain about an adverse event. Healthcare professionals reported relatively more preventable adverse events than patients.

Reports are not sensitive for adverse events nor do reports have a positive predictive value.

Conclusions

In order to detect the same adverse events as identified by patient record review, one cannot rely on the existing reporting systems within hospitals.