HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kilbridge, P M Articles by Classen, D C Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kilbridge, P M Articles by Classen, D C

Automated surveillance for adverse events in hospitalized patients: back to the future

¹ Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA
² University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; dclassen@fcg.com

Correspondence to:
Dr D C Classen
University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT 84103, USA; dclassen@fcg.com

Keywords: adverse events; automated surveillance; electronic triggers

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The goal of patient safety efforts is to reduce the harm we do to our patients while providing them with the care they need, and recognizing the true nature and sources of harm is critical to this endeavor. The paper by Szekendi et al¹ in this issue of QSHC describes a return to automated methods for detecting adverse events, and provides an opportunity to review the evolution of adverse event detection as well as the challenges associated with different models.

First, however, we must emphasize why some form of surveillance for detection of harm to patients is indispensable to modern patient safety practices: it allows us to overcome the serious defects associated with dependence upon spontaneous reporting as a method for detecting adverse events. While such reporting can play an important role in supporting a culture of safety—for example, encouraging the candid discussion of errors—it . . . [Full text of this article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. M. Kilbridge and D. C. Classen The Informatics Opportunities at the Intersection of Patient Safety and Clinical Informatics J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2008; 15(4): 397 - 407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Ferranti, M. M. Horvath, H. Cozart, J. Whitehurst, and J. Eckstrand Reevaluating the Safety Profile of Pediatrics: A Comparison of Computerized Adverse Drug Event Surveillance and Voluntary Reporting in the Pediatric Environment Pediatrics, May 1, 2008; 121(5): e1201 - e1207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. N Cantor, H. J Feldman, and M. M Triola Using trigger phrases to detect adverse drug reactions in ambulatory care notes Qual. Saf. Health Care, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 132 - 134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. B.-A. Sari, T. A Sheldon, A. Cracknell, and A. Turnbull Sensitivity of routine system for reporting patient safety incidents in an NHS hospital: retrospective patient case note review BMJ, January 13, 2007; 334(7584): 79 - 79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]