Is there a ‘best measure’ of patient safety?

A. Borzecki, A. Rosen
{"title":"Is there a ‘best measure’ of patient safety?","authors":"A. Borzecki, A. Rosen","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite consensus that preventing patient safety events is important, measurement of safety events remains challenging. This is, in part, because they occur relatively infrequently and are not always preventable. There is also no consensus on the ‘best way‘ or the ‘best measure’ of patient safety. The purpose of all safety measures is to improve care and prevent safety events; this can be achieved by different means. If the overall goal of measuring patient safety is to capture the universe of safety events that occur, then broader measures encompassing large populations, such as those based on administrative data, may be preferable. Acknowledging the trade-off between comprehensiveness and accuracy, such measures may be better suited for surveillance and quality improvement (QI), rather than public reporting/reimbursement. Conversely, using measures for public reporting and pay-for-performance requires more narrowly focused measures that favour accuracy over comprehensiveness, such as those with restricted denominators or those based on medical record review.\n\nThere are at least two well-established patient safety measurement systems available for use in the inpatient setting, namely the administrative data-based Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) and the medical record-based National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme (NSQIP) measures.1–3 The AHRQ PSIs, publicly released in 2003, are evidence-based measures designed to screen for potentially preventable medical and surgical complications that occur in the acute care setting. Since they use administrative data, they were originally designed as tools for use in case finding for local QI efforts and surveillance, as well as for internal hospital comparisons. They were developed using a rigorous process beginning with a thorough review of the literature for existing administrative data-based indicators, review by clinical expert panels, consultation with coding experts and empirical analyses to assess the statistical properties of the measures, such as reliability and predictive and …","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"29 1","pages":"185 - 188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009730","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009730","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Despite consensus that preventing patient safety events is important, measurement of safety events remains challenging. This is, in part, because they occur relatively infrequently and are not always preventable. There is also no consensus on the ‘best way‘ or the ‘best measure’ of patient safety. The purpose of all safety measures is to improve care and prevent safety events; this can be achieved by different means. If the overall goal of measuring patient safety is to capture the universe of safety events that occur, then broader measures encompassing large populations, such as those based on administrative data, may be preferable. Acknowledging the trade-off between comprehensiveness and accuracy, such measures may be better suited for surveillance and quality improvement (QI), rather than public reporting/reimbursement. Conversely, using measures for public reporting and pay-for-performance requires more narrowly focused measures that favour accuracy over comprehensiveness, such as those with restricted denominators or those based on medical record review. There are at least two well-established patient safety measurement systems available for use in the inpatient setting, namely the administrative data-based Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) and the medical record-based National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme (NSQIP) measures.1–3 The AHRQ PSIs, publicly released in 2003, are evidence-based measures designed to screen for potentially preventable medical and surgical complications that occur in the acute care setting. Since they use administrative data, they were originally designed as tools for use in case finding for local QI efforts and surveillance, as well as for internal hospital comparisons. They were developed using a rigorous process beginning with a thorough review of the literature for existing administrative data-based indicators, review by clinical expert panels, consultation with coding experts and empirical analyses to assess the statistical properties of the measures, such as reliability and predictive and …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
是否存在患者安全的“最佳措施”?
尽管人们一致认为预防患者安全事件很重要,但安全事件的测量仍然具有挑战性。这在一定程度上是因为它们发生的相对较少,而且并不总是可以预防的。对于患者安全的“最佳方式”或“最佳措施”也没有达成共识。所有安全措施的目的是改善护理和预防安全事件;这可以通过不同的方式实现。如果测量患者安全性的总体目标是捕获发生的安全事件的范围,那么包括大量人口的更广泛的测量,例如基于管理数据的测量,可能是可取的。考虑到全面性和准确性之间的权衡,这些措施可能更适合于监督和质量改进(QI),而不是公开报告/报销。相反,使用公共报告和绩效工资的衡量标准需要更侧重于准确性而不是全面性的更狭隘的衡量标准,例如那些限制分母的衡量标准或基于医疗记录审查的衡量标准。至少有两种完善的患者安全测量系统可用于住院环境,即基于行政数据的医疗保健研究和质量机构(AHRQ)患者安全指标(psi)和基于医疗记录的国家外科质量改进计划(NSQIP)措施。1-3 2003年公开发布的AHRQ psi是基于证据的措施,旨在筛查在急性护理环境中发生的潜在可预防的医疗和手术并发症。由于它们使用的是管理数据,因此它们最初被设计为工具,用于地方卫生质量工作和监测的病例查找以及医院内部比较。它们是通过严格的过程开发的,首先是对现有基于行政数据的指标的文献进行彻底审查,由临床专家小组审查,与编码专家协商,并进行实证分析,以评估这些措施的统计特性,如可靠性、预测性和…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1