Identifying medical errors: Developing consensus on classifications and consequences

Cherri Hobgood, Jennifer Eaton, Bryan J. Weiner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To develop consensus among clinical experts on the classification and severity of medical errors in the Emergency Department setting. Methods: A 20-member multidisciplinary panel participated in a 3-round modified-Delphi process designed to classify medical errors common to emergency medicine practice. Panelists used a 9-part Likert scale to score 19 case vignettes in 3 categories: (1) degree case represents medication error, (2) degree case represents cognitive error, and (3) outcome severity. Frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were calculated for each item. Results: Nineteen panelists (95%) completed all rounds. Consensus on both class and severity was achieved in 9/19 (47%) cases. Consensus for both error classes was achieved for 11/19 (58%) cases. Of these, a single error class was identified in 8/19 (42%) cases, and 3/19 (16%) cases were identified as both medication and cognitive. No case was identified as a non-error. On average, to achieve consensus, cognitive cases required 1.6 rounds, medication cases required 2.66 rounds, and cases identified as both medication and cognitive required 3 rounds. In 8/19 cases where class consensus in both categories was not achieved, the no-consensus category was always cognitive. In 16/19 (84%) cases, panelists achieved consensus on severity. In only 1 case (5%) did panelists agree on error class and not severity. Conclusions: There is increasing evidence that cognitive errors in medical decision making can be difficult to identify. This study suggests that error classification may challenge expert panel groups as well as individual providers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)138-144
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Patient Safety
Volume1
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 13 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Medical Errors
Medication Errors
Emergency Medicine
Hospital Emergency Service
Clinical Decision-Making

Keywords

  • Medical decision-making
  • Medical error
  • Patient safety
  • Systems improvement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Identifying medical errors : Developing consensus on classifications and consequences. / Hobgood, Cherri; Eaton, Jennifer; Weiner, Bryan J.

In: Journal of Patient Safety, Vol. 1, No. 3, 13.11.2016, p. 138-144.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4a7226fbb6ab4254bd85d2786b6c3b06,
title = "Identifying medical errors: Developing consensus on classifications and consequences",
abstract = "Objective: To develop consensus among clinical experts on the classification and severity of medical errors in the Emergency Department setting. Methods: A 20-member multidisciplinary panel participated in a 3-round modified-Delphi process designed to classify medical errors common to emergency medicine practice. Panelists used a 9-part Likert scale to score 19 case vignettes in 3 categories: (1) degree case represents medication error, (2) degree case represents cognitive error, and (3) outcome severity. Frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were calculated for each item. Results: Nineteen panelists (95{\%}) completed all rounds. Consensus on both class and severity was achieved in 9/19 (47{\%}) cases. Consensus for both error classes was achieved for 11/19 (58{\%}) cases. Of these, a single error class was identified in 8/19 (42{\%}) cases, and 3/19 (16{\%}) cases were identified as both medication and cognitive. No case was identified as a non-error. On average, to achieve consensus, cognitive cases required 1.6 rounds, medication cases required 2.66 rounds, and cases identified as both medication and cognitive required 3 rounds. In 8/19 cases where class consensus in both categories was not achieved, the no-consensus category was always cognitive. In 16/19 (84{\%}) cases, panelists achieved consensus on severity. In only 1 case (5{\%}) did panelists agree on error class and not severity. Conclusions: There is increasing evidence that cognitive errors in medical decision making can be difficult to identify. This study suggests that error classification may challenge expert panel groups as well as individual providers.",
keywords = "Medical decision-making, Medical error, Patient safety, Systems improvement",
author = "Cherri Hobgood and Jennifer Eaton and Weiner, {Bryan J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1097/01.jps.0000174735.11349.2e",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "138--144",
journal = "Journal of Patient Safety",
issn = "1549-8417",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identifying medical errors

T2 - Developing consensus on classifications and consequences

AU - Hobgood, Cherri

AU - Eaton, Jennifer

AU - Weiner, Bryan J.

PY - 2016/11/13

Y1 - 2016/11/13

N2 - Objective: To develop consensus among clinical experts on the classification and severity of medical errors in the Emergency Department setting. Methods: A 20-member multidisciplinary panel participated in a 3-round modified-Delphi process designed to classify medical errors common to emergency medicine practice. Panelists used a 9-part Likert scale to score 19 case vignettes in 3 categories: (1) degree case represents medication error, (2) degree case represents cognitive error, and (3) outcome severity. Frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were calculated for each item. Results: Nineteen panelists (95%) completed all rounds. Consensus on both class and severity was achieved in 9/19 (47%) cases. Consensus for both error classes was achieved for 11/19 (58%) cases. Of these, a single error class was identified in 8/19 (42%) cases, and 3/19 (16%) cases were identified as both medication and cognitive. No case was identified as a non-error. On average, to achieve consensus, cognitive cases required 1.6 rounds, medication cases required 2.66 rounds, and cases identified as both medication and cognitive required 3 rounds. In 8/19 cases where class consensus in both categories was not achieved, the no-consensus category was always cognitive. In 16/19 (84%) cases, panelists achieved consensus on severity. In only 1 case (5%) did panelists agree on error class and not severity. Conclusions: There is increasing evidence that cognitive errors in medical decision making can be difficult to identify. This study suggests that error classification may challenge expert panel groups as well as individual providers.

AB - Objective: To develop consensus among clinical experts on the classification and severity of medical errors in the Emergency Department setting. Methods: A 20-member multidisciplinary panel participated in a 3-round modified-Delphi process designed to classify medical errors common to emergency medicine practice. Panelists used a 9-part Likert scale to score 19 case vignettes in 3 categories: (1) degree case represents medication error, (2) degree case represents cognitive error, and (3) outcome severity. Frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were calculated for each item. Results: Nineteen panelists (95%) completed all rounds. Consensus on both class and severity was achieved in 9/19 (47%) cases. Consensus for both error classes was achieved for 11/19 (58%) cases. Of these, a single error class was identified in 8/19 (42%) cases, and 3/19 (16%) cases were identified as both medication and cognitive. No case was identified as a non-error. On average, to achieve consensus, cognitive cases required 1.6 rounds, medication cases required 2.66 rounds, and cases identified as both medication and cognitive required 3 rounds. In 8/19 cases where class consensus in both categories was not achieved, the no-consensus category was always cognitive. In 16/19 (84%) cases, panelists achieved consensus on severity. In only 1 case (5%) did panelists agree on error class and not severity. Conclusions: There is increasing evidence that cognitive errors in medical decision making can be difficult to identify. This study suggests that error classification may challenge expert panel groups as well as individual providers.

KW - Medical decision-making

KW - Medical error

KW - Patient safety

KW - Systems improvement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84997047891&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84997047891&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.jps.0000174735.11349.2e

DO - 10.1097/01.jps.0000174735.11349.2e

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84997047891

VL - 1

SP - 138

EP - 144

JO - Journal of Patient Safety

JF - Journal of Patient Safety

SN - 1549-8417

IS - 3

ER -