Cited by 142Healthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

Surveillance of Medical Device–Related Hazards and Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients

Samore, Matthew H.·2004·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Although adverse drug events have been extensively evaluated by computer-based surveillance, medical device errors have no comparable surveillance techniques. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether computer-based surveillance can reliably identify medical device-related hazards (no known harm to patient) and adverse medical device events (AMDEs; patient experienced harm) and to compare alternative methods of detection of device-related problems. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This descriptive study was conducted from January through September 2000 at a 520-bed tertiary teaching institution in the United States with experience in using computer tools to detect and prevent adverse drug events. All 20 441 regular and short-stay patients (excluding obstetric and newborn patients) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical device events as detected by computer-based flags, telemetry problem checklists, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) discharge code (which could include AMDEs present at admission), clinical engineering work logs, and patient survey results were compared with each other and with routine voluntary incident reports to determine frequencies, proportions, positive predictive values, and incidence rates by each technique. RESULTS: Of the 7059 flags triggered, 552 (7.8%) indicate a device-related hazard or AMDE. The estimated 9-month incidence rates (number per 1000 admissions [95% confidence intervals]) for AMDEs were 1.6 (0.9-2.5) for incident reports, 27.7 (24.9-30.7) for computer flags, and 64.6 (60.4-69.1) for ICD-9 discharge codes. Few of these events were detected by more than 1 surveillance method, giving an overall incidence of AMDE detected by at least 1 of these methods of 83.7 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 78.8-88.6) admissions. The positive predictive value of computer flags for detecting device-related hazards and AMDEs ranged from 0% to 38%. CONCLUSIONS: More intensive surveillance methods yielded higher rates of medical device problems than found with traditional voluntary reporting, with little overlap between methods. Several detection methods had low efficiency in detecting AMDEs. The high rate of AMDEs suggests that AMDEs are an important patient safety issue, but additional research is necessary to identify optimal AMDE detection strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.291.3.325

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Samore, M. H.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Samore, Matthew H.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2004-01-21
Volume
291
Issue
3
Pages
325
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2125794271
Cited by
142
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
10.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (223-99-6101)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
medical device errors, hospital patient safety, incident reporting, positive predictive value, hospitalized patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Computing Methodologies, Equipment and Supplies, Equipment Failure, Female, Hospital Records, Hospitalization, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Product Surveillance, Postmarketing, United States, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Medical Errors, International Classification of Diseases

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