Preventable in-hospital medical injury under the “no fault” system in New Zealand
- 1Department of Public Health and General Practice, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
- 2School of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- 3Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Correspondence to: Professor P Davis, Department of Public Health and General Practice, Christchurch School of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand; peter.davis{at}chmeds.ac.nz
- Accepted 29 May 2003
Abstract
Objectives: To describe the pattern of preventable in-hospital medical injury under the “no fault” system and to assess the level of serious preventable patient harm.
Design: Cross sectional survey using a two stage retrospective assessment of medical records conducted by structured implicit review.
Setting: General hospitals with over 100 beds providing acute care in New Zealand.
Participants: A sample of 6579 patients admitted in 1998 to 13 hospitals selected by stratified systematic list sample.
Main outcome measures: Occurrence, preventability, and impact of adverse events.
Results: Over 5% of admissions were associated with a preventable in-hospital event, of which nearly half had an element of systems failure. The elderly, ethnic minority groups, and particular clinical areas were at higher risk. The chances of a patient experiencing a serious preventable adverse event subsequent to hospital admission were just under 1%, a figure close to published results from comparable studies under tort. On average, these events required an additional 4 weeks in hospital. System related issues of protocol use and development, communication, and organisation, as well as requirements for consultation and education, were pre-eminent.
Conclusions: The risk of serious preventable in-hospital medical injury for patients in New Zealand, a well established “no fault” jurisdiction, is within the range reported in comparable investigations under tort.
Footnotes
-
See editorial, pp 240–1
-
Funding: Health Research Council of New Zealand.
-
Conflict of interest: none.







