rss
Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:434-439 doi:10.1136/qshc.2006.021154
  • Error management

Extent, nature and consequences of adverse events: results of a retrospective casenote review in a large NHS hospital

  1. Ali Baba-Akbari Sari1,
  2. Trevor A Sheldon2,
  3. Alison Cracknell3,
  4. Alastair Turnbull4,
  5. Yvonne Dobson2,
  6. Celia Grant2,
  7. William Gray5,
  8. Aileen Richardson2
  1. 1
    Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  2. 2
    Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, England
  3. 3
    Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, England
  4. 4
    York Hospital, York, England
  5. 5
    Royal College of Nursing Institute, London, England
  1. Professor Trevor A Sheldon, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Seebohm Rowntree Building, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, England; tas5{at}york.ac.uk
  • Accepted 20 May 2007

Abstract

Objectives: To estimate the extent, nature and consequences of adverse events in a large National Health Service (NHS) hospital, and to evaluate the reliability of a two-stage casenote review method in identifying adverse events.

Design: A two-stage structured retrospective patient casenote review.

Setting: A large NHS hospital in England.

Population: A random sample of 1006 hospital admissions between January and May 2004: surgery (n = 311), general medicine (n = 251), elderly (n = 184), orthopaedics (n = 131), urology (n = 61) and three other specialties (n = 68).

Main outcome measures: Proportion of admissions with adverse events, the proportion of preventable adverse events, and the types and consequences of adverse events.

Results: 8.7% (n = 87) of the 1006 admissions had at least one adverse event (95% CI 7.0% to 10.4%), of which 31% (n = 27) were preventable. 15% of adverse events led to impairment or disability which lasted more than 6 months and another 10% contributed to patient death. Adverse events led to a mean increased length of stay of 8 days (95% CI 6.5 to 9). The sensitivity of the screening criteria in identifying adverse events was 92% (95% CI 87% to 96%) and the specificity was 62% (95% CI 53% to 71%). Inter-rater reliability for determination of adverse events was good (κ = 0.64), but for the assessment of preventability it was only moderate (κ = 0.44).

Conclusion: This study confirms that adverse events are common, serious and potentially preventable source of harm to patients in NHS hospitals. The accuracy and reliability of a structured two-stage casenote review in identifying adverse events in the UK was confirmed.

Footnotes

  • Ethics approval: reference number: 04/Q1108/7.

  • Funding: ABS was supported by a scholarship from the Iranian Ministry of Health and carried out this work while a studying for a PhD at the University of York.

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.