Evaluation of two methods for quality improvement in intensive care

Facilitated incident monitoring and retrospective medical chart review

Ursula Beckmann, Christian Bohringer, Ruth Carless, Donna M. Gillies, William B. Runciman, Albert W Wu, Peter Pronovost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Quality assurance techniques applied within the healthcare industry have been widely used and are intended to improve patient outcomes. Two methods that have been utilized are incident reporting and medical chart review (MCR). The objectives for this study were to evaluate facilitated incident monitoring (FIM) and MCR in the intensive care setting. Design: Cross-sectional comparison of prospective FIM and retrospective MCR. Setting: Tertiary, 12-bed, closed intensive care unit (ICU) in Australia providing adult and pediatric intensive care to surgical, medical, trauma, and retrieval patients. Patients: Patients present or admitted to the ICU during the 2-month study period. Measurement and Main Results: During the study period, there were 176 admissions involving 164 patients. A total of 100 FIM reports, of which 70 related to care provided by the ICU team, identified 221 incidents. There were 30 FIM reports that described adverse events, of which only one related to ICU team care. Potential of harm was estimated to be minimal in 49% and significant in 51%; 84% of incidents were considered preventable. Important contextual information was provided, including evidence for the importance of system factors. MCR identified 132 adverse events involving 48% of charts, and 47 related to ICU team care. Common adverse events included nosocomial infections, aspiration, neurologic compromise, respiratory arrest, delayed diagnosis, and treatment. Twenty percent of adverse events were considered preventable, and in 41%, there was evidence of system causation. Conclusion: FIM provided more contextual information about incidents and identified a larger number and higher proportion of preventable problems than MCR, but FIM identified few iatrogenic infections, problems with pain management, or problems leading to ICU admission. FIM is easily incorporated into the clinical routine. This study suggests that incident monitoring may be more useful for identifying quality problems, and it could be supplemented by selective audits and focused MCR to detect problems not reported well by FIM.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1006-1011
Number of pages6
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume31
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2003

Fingerprint

Critical Care
Quality Improvement
Intensive Care Units
Medical Audit
Health Care Sector
Delayed Diagnosis
Risk Management
Pain Management
Cross Infection
Causality
Nervous System
Pediatrics
Wounds and Injuries
Infection

Keywords

  • Adverse events
  • Chart review
  • Comparative study
  • Incident monitoring
  • Intensive care
  • Patient safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Evaluation of two methods for quality improvement in intensive care : Facilitated incident monitoring and retrospective medical chart review. / Beckmann, Ursula; Bohringer, Christian; Carless, Ruth; Gillies, Donna M.; Runciman, William B.; Wu, Albert W; Pronovost, Peter.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 31, No. 4, 01.04.2003, p. 1006-1011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Beckmann, Ursula ; Bohringer, Christian ; Carless, Ruth ; Gillies, Donna M. ; Runciman, William B. ; Wu, Albert W ; Pronovost, Peter. / Evaluation of two methods for quality improvement in intensive care : Facilitated incident monitoring and retrospective medical chart review. In: Critical Care Medicine. 2003 ; Vol. 31, No. 4. pp. 1006-1011.
@article{4ede81790aa24f5390fe64e5cda72d56,
title = "Evaluation of two methods for quality improvement in intensive care: Facilitated incident monitoring and retrospective medical chart review",
abstract = "Objective: Quality assurance techniques applied within the healthcare industry have been widely used and are intended to improve patient outcomes. Two methods that have been utilized are incident reporting and medical chart review (MCR). The objectives for this study were to evaluate facilitated incident monitoring (FIM) and MCR in the intensive care setting. Design: Cross-sectional comparison of prospective FIM and retrospective MCR. Setting: Tertiary, 12-bed, closed intensive care unit (ICU) in Australia providing adult and pediatric intensive care to surgical, medical, trauma, and retrieval patients. Patients: Patients present or admitted to the ICU during the 2-month study period. Measurement and Main Results: During the study period, there were 176 admissions involving 164 patients. A total of 100 FIM reports, of which 70 related to care provided by the ICU team, identified 221 incidents. There were 30 FIM reports that described adverse events, of which only one related to ICU team care. Potential of harm was estimated to be minimal in 49{\%} and significant in 51{\%}; 84{\%} of incidents were considered preventable. Important contextual information was provided, including evidence for the importance of system factors. MCR identified 132 adverse events involving 48{\%} of charts, and 47 related to ICU team care. Common adverse events included nosocomial infections, aspiration, neurologic compromise, respiratory arrest, delayed diagnosis, and treatment. Twenty percent of adverse events were considered preventable, and in 41{\%}, there was evidence of system causation. Conclusion: FIM provided more contextual information about incidents and identified a larger number and higher proportion of preventable problems than MCR, but FIM identified few iatrogenic infections, problems with pain management, or problems leading to ICU admission. FIM is easily incorporated into the clinical routine. This study suggests that incident monitoring may be more useful for identifying quality problems, and it could be supplemented by selective audits and focused MCR to detect problems not reported well by FIM.",
keywords = "Adverse events, Chart review, Comparative study, Incident monitoring, Intensive care, Patient safety",
author = "Ursula Beckmann and Christian Bohringer and Ruth Carless and Gillies, {Donna M.} and Runciman, {William B.} and Wu, {Albert W} and Peter Pronovost",
year = "2003",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.CCM.0000060016.21525.3C",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "1006--1011",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of two methods for quality improvement in intensive care

T2 - Facilitated incident monitoring and retrospective medical chart review

AU - Beckmann, Ursula

AU - Bohringer, Christian

AU - Carless, Ruth

AU - Gillies, Donna M.

AU - Runciman, William B.

AU - Wu, Albert W

AU - Pronovost, Peter

PY - 2003/4/1

Y1 - 2003/4/1

N2 - Objective: Quality assurance techniques applied within the healthcare industry have been widely used and are intended to improve patient outcomes. Two methods that have been utilized are incident reporting and medical chart review (MCR). The objectives for this study were to evaluate facilitated incident monitoring (FIM) and MCR in the intensive care setting. Design: Cross-sectional comparison of prospective FIM and retrospective MCR. Setting: Tertiary, 12-bed, closed intensive care unit (ICU) in Australia providing adult and pediatric intensive care to surgical, medical, trauma, and retrieval patients. Patients: Patients present or admitted to the ICU during the 2-month study period. Measurement and Main Results: During the study period, there were 176 admissions involving 164 patients. A total of 100 FIM reports, of which 70 related to care provided by the ICU team, identified 221 incidents. There were 30 FIM reports that described adverse events, of which only one related to ICU team care. Potential of harm was estimated to be minimal in 49% and significant in 51%; 84% of incidents were considered preventable. Important contextual information was provided, including evidence for the importance of system factors. MCR identified 132 adverse events involving 48% of charts, and 47 related to ICU team care. Common adverse events included nosocomial infections, aspiration, neurologic compromise, respiratory arrest, delayed diagnosis, and treatment. Twenty percent of adverse events were considered preventable, and in 41%, there was evidence of system causation. Conclusion: FIM provided more contextual information about incidents and identified a larger number and higher proportion of preventable problems than MCR, but FIM identified few iatrogenic infections, problems with pain management, or problems leading to ICU admission. FIM is easily incorporated into the clinical routine. This study suggests that incident monitoring may be more useful for identifying quality problems, and it could be supplemented by selective audits and focused MCR to detect problems not reported well by FIM.

AB - Objective: Quality assurance techniques applied within the healthcare industry have been widely used and are intended to improve patient outcomes. Two methods that have been utilized are incident reporting and medical chart review (MCR). The objectives for this study were to evaluate facilitated incident monitoring (FIM) and MCR in the intensive care setting. Design: Cross-sectional comparison of prospective FIM and retrospective MCR. Setting: Tertiary, 12-bed, closed intensive care unit (ICU) in Australia providing adult and pediatric intensive care to surgical, medical, trauma, and retrieval patients. Patients: Patients present or admitted to the ICU during the 2-month study period. Measurement and Main Results: During the study period, there were 176 admissions involving 164 patients. A total of 100 FIM reports, of which 70 related to care provided by the ICU team, identified 221 incidents. There were 30 FIM reports that described adverse events, of which only one related to ICU team care. Potential of harm was estimated to be minimal in 49% and significant in 51%; 84% of incidents were considered preventable. Important contextual information was provided, including evidence for the importance of system factors. MCR identified 132 adverse events involving 48% of charts, and 47 related to ICU team care. Common adverse events included nosocomial infections, aspiration, neurologic compromise, respiratory arrest, delayed diagnosis, and treatment. Twenty percent of adverse events were considered preventable, and in 41%, there was evidence of system causation. Conclusion: FIM provided more contextual information about incidents and identified a larger number and higher proportion of preventable problems than MCR, but FIM identified few iatrogenic infections, problems with pain management, or problems leading to ICU admission. FIM is easily incorporated into the clinical routine. This study suggests that incident monitoring may be more useful for identifying quality problems, and it could be supplemented by selective audits and focused MCR to detect problems not reported well by FIM.

KW - Adverse events

KW - Chart review

KW - Comparative study

KW - Incident monitoring

KW - Intensive care

KW - Patient safety

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0345471068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0345471068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.CCM.0000060016.21525.3C

DO - 10.1097/01.CCM.0000060016.21525.3C

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 1006

EP - 1011

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 4

ER -