Cited by 1,404Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Systems Analysis of Adverse Drug Events

Leape, Lucian L.·1995·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

Objective. —To identify and evaluate the systems failures that underlie errors causing adverse drug events (ADEs) and potential ADEs. Design. —Systems analysis of events from a prospective cohort study. Participants. —All admissions to 11 medical and surgical units in two tertiary care hospitals over a 6-month period. Main Outcome Measures. —Errors, proximal causes, and systems failures. Methods. —Errors were detected by interviews of those involved. Errors were classified according to proximal cause and underlying systems failure by multidisciplinary teams of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and systems analysts. Results. —During this period, 334 errors were detected as the causes of 264 preventable ADEs and potential ADEs. Sixteen major systems failures were identified as the underlying causes of the errors. The most common systems failure was in the dissemination of drug knowledge, particularly to physicians, accounting for 29% of the 334 errors. Inadequate availability of patient information, such as the results of laboratory tests, was associated with 18% of errors. Seven systems failures accounted for 78% of the errors; all could be improved by better information systems. Conclusions. —Hospital personnel willingly participated in the detection and investigation of drug use errors and were able to identify underlying systems failures. The most common defects were in systems to disseminate knowledge about drugs and to make drug and patient information readily accessible at the time it is needed. Systems changes to improve dissemination and display of drug and patient data should make errors in the use of drugs less likely. (JAMA. 1995;274:35-43)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1995.03530010049034

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patient safety activities place greater emphasis on the system in which practitioners work and less on individual performance.

    “Conversely, patient safety activities place greater emphasis on the system in which practitioners work and less on individual performance.21”

    From Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model (2006) · cites this paper as [21]

  • Errors in the medication administration stage are far less likely to be intercepted and far more likely to reach patients than in any previous stage.

    “Errors in this latter stage of the medication process are far less likely to be intercepted and far more likely to reach patients than in any previous stage.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leape, L. L.
Corresponding author
Leape, Lucian L.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1995-07-05
Volume
274
Issue
1
Pages
35
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4296300888
Cited by
1,404
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 72 · 2012: 77
FWCI
47.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
JAMA (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01-HS07107-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
adverse drug reactions, medication errors, system failure, error prevention, laboratory findings, hospital information systems, patient safety, prospective cohort

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review