skip to main content
10.1145/967900.967961acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Potential prevention of medical errors in casualty surgery by using information technology

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 March 2004Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent studies on adverse events in medicine have shown that errors in medicine are not rare and may cause severe harm. Quality problems in discharge letters may be a source of medical error. We have analyzed 150 discharge letters of an outpaitient clinic for casualty surgery in order to identify and to classify typical mistakes. A Failure Mode and Effect Analysis has been initiated in order to estimate the risk associated with different failure types. Possible IT solutions to prevent the identified problems have been assessed, focusing on expected effects and on feasibility. Our analyses have shown that there is a need to improve the quality of discharge letters, and that IT support based on the frequency and severity of certain error types has a good potential. We plan to introduce both pre-structured discharge letters and reminders in order to prevent the observed errors. They could improve both documentation quality and, if used during the patient visit, quality of treatment. Moreover, they could produce training effects on less experienced physicians. To be able to rapidly integrate such an adapted IT support into a comprehensive Healthcare Information System (HIS), it is important to establish a responsive IT infrastructure.

References

  1. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). E1460-92 Specification for Defining and Sharing Modular Health Knowledge Bases Arden Syntax for Medical Logic Modules. ASTM, Philadelphia, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. G. Anderson. Clearing the way for physicians' use of clinical information systems. Communications of the ACM, 40(8):83--90, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. D. W. Bates, M. Cohen, L. L. Leape, J. M. Overhage, M. M. Shabot, and T. Sheridan. Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 8(4):299--308, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. D. W. Bates, G. J. Kuperman, E. Rittenberg, J. M. Teich, J. Fiskio, N. Ma'luf, A. Onderdonk, D. Wybenga, J. Winkelman, T. A. Brennan, A. L. Komaroff, and M. Tanasijevic. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med, 106(2):144--150, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. D. W. Bates, A. C. O'Neil, D. Boyle, J. Teich, G. M. Chertow, A. L. Komaroff, and T. A. Brennan. Potential identifiability and preventability of adverse events using information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 1(5):404--411, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. D. S. Bell and R. A. Greenes. Evaluation of UltraSTAR: performance of a collaborative structured data entry system. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care, pages 216--222, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Burgmeier. Failure mode and effect analysis: an application in reducing risk in blood transfusion. Jt Comm J Qual Improve, 28(6):331--339, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. A. Gouveia-Oliveira, V. D. Raposo, N. C. Salgado, I. Almeida, C. Nobre-Leitao, and F. G. de Melo. Longitudinal comparative study on the influence of computers on reporting of clinical data. Endoscopy, 23(6):334--337, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. P. J. Haug, R. M. Gardner, K. E. Tate, R. S. Evans, T. D. East, G. Kuperman, T. A. Pryor, S. M. Huff, and H. R. Warner. Decision support in medicine: examples from the HELP system. Comput Biomed Res, 27(5):396--418, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. H. Korner, K. Sondenaa, J. A. Soreide, E. Andersen, A. Nysted, and T. H. Lende. Structured data collection improves the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Br J Surg, 85(3):341--344, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. K. Kuhn, W. Gaus, J. G. Wechsler, P. Janowitz, J. Tudyka, W. Kratzer, W. Swobodnik, and H. Ditschuneit. Structured reporting of medical findings: evaluation of a system in gastroenterology. Methods Inf Med, 31(4):268--274, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. K. A. Kuhn, R. Lenz, T. Elstner, H. Siegele, and R. Moll. Experiences with a generator tool for building clinical application modules. Methods Inf Med, 42(1):37--44, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. L. L. Leape, T. A. Brennan, N. Laird, A. G. Lawthers, A. R. Localio, B. A. Barnes, L. Hebert, J. P. Newhouse, P. C. Weiler, and H. Hiatt. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med, 324(6):377--384, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. R. Lenz, T. Elstner, H. Siegele, and K. A. Kuhn. A practical approach to process support in health information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 9(6):571--585, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. R. Lenz and Kuhn K.A. Towards a Continuous Evolution and Adaptation of Information Systems in Healthcare. Int J Med Inf. In press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. R. Lenz and K. A. Kuhn. A strategic approach for business-IT alignment in health information systems. Proc Eleventh International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 2003), 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. C. J. McDonald. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectability of man. N Engl J Med, 295(24):1351--1355, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. C. J. McDonald. The Barriers to Electronic Medical Record Systems and How to Overcome Them. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4(3):213--221, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. R. D. Melles, T. Cooper III, and G. Peredy. User interface preferences in a point-of-care data system. Proc AMIA Symp, pages 86--90, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. J. M. Overhage, W. M. Tierney, X. H. Zhou, and C. J. McDonald. A randomized trial of "corollary orders" to prevent errors of omission. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 4(5):364--375, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. S. Shea, W. DuMouchel, and L. Bahamonde. A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 3(6):399--409, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. P. L. Spath. Using failure mode and effects analysis to improve patient safety. AORN J, 78(1):16--37, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. E. J. Thomas, D. M. Studdert, H. R. Burstin, E. J. Orav, T. Zeena, E. J. Williams, K. M. Howard, P. C. Weiler, and T. A. Brennan. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care, 38(3):261--271, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. C. van Walraven, S. M. Duke, A. L. Weinberg, and P. S. Wells. Standardized or narrative discharge summaries. Which do family physicians prefer? Can Fam Physician, 44:62--69, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. C. van Walraven, E. Rokosh. What is necessary for high-quality discharge summaries? Am J Med Qual, 14(4):160--169, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. C. van Walraven, R. Seth, and A. Laupacis. Dissemination of discharge summaries. Not reaching follow-up physicians. Can Fam Physician, 48:737--742, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C. van Walraven, A. L. Weinberg. Quality assessment of a discharge summary system. CMAJ, 152(9):1437--1442, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. R. M. Wilson, W. B. Runciman, R. W. Gibberd, B. T. Harrison, L. Newby, and J. D. Hamilton. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust, 163(9):458--471, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. S. Wilson, W. Ruscoe, M. Chapman, and R. Miller. General practitioner-hospital communications: a review of discharge summaries. J Qual Clin Pract, 21(4):104--108, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Potential prevention of medical errors in casualty surgery by using information technology

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SAC '04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing
        March 2004
        1733 pages
        ISBN:1581138121
        DOI:10.1145/967900

        Copyright © 2004 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 March 2004

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader