CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Quality and ManagementClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient safety in intensive care medicine: the Declaration of Vienna

Open access
Moreno, Rui P., Rhodes, Andrew, Donchin, Yoel·2009·Intensive Care Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s00134-009-1621-2PMC PMC2749175
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Improving the outcome of critically ill patients remains an ideal that every practicing Intensivist strives to achieve. Every year there are many hundreds of research papers published that help us to better understand the physiology and pathophysiology of our patients and also how our treatment strategies interact and eventually alter a patient’s course. Many of these papers focus on discrete parts of the therapeutic regimes that we are able to deliver; however, few have had a significant impact on overall outcome measures that are relevant to patients themselves. One area of medicine that is often overlooked, but can impact significantly on relevant patient outcomes, is the process of care. The way we practice, the culture we work in, the climate that our professional demeanor creates can all dramatically impact on outcome measures. Unfortunately, these topics are often not easy to explain, difficult to study and do not attract research funding that stimulates scientific minds to address the problem. This paper describes how the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) aims to raise patient safety to the top of the scientific agenda with the hope of ultimately increasing the quality of care delivered to our patients and improving their outcomes. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) published in 1999 their seminal report entitled ‘To err is human: building a safer health system’ [1]. This paper described quality as the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge. Safety was defined as the absence of clinical error, either by commission (unintentionally doing the wrong thing) or omission (unintentionally not doing the right thing) [2], and error as the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim. The accumulation of errors results in accidents. The authors delineated just how common failure to provide quality care is, with between 44,000 and 98,000 patients dying each year in the USA as a result of a clinical error. This makes medical error the eighth leading cause of death, more frequent than motor vehicle accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,458) and AIDS (16,516). Despite the awareness of patient safety and quality of care issues increasing in both patient and political arenas, this has not translated through to groundbreaking research studies that have ignited the topic with significant outcome benefits [3, 4]. To improve the profile of these subjects, the ESICM in 2009 has launched a major initiative that will bring together the representatives of Critical Care Societies from around the world (national and international) with the aim of pledging their efforts and resources towards improving the care of our patients. Together with the societies signing this Declaration of Vienna (Appendix 1) will be senior representatives from the political world, our partners in industry and of course patient representatives themselves. The meeting will assess problems and solutions from around the world irrespective of geographical, political or economic factors. This unique partnership will allow collaborations to be fostered and for partnerships to develop. We hope to be able to use this group to raise the profile of the patient safety agenda and therefore change the way we practice everyday with resultant benefits for all.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00134-009-1621-2

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Moreno, R. P., Rhodes, A., & Donchin, Y.
Affiliations
  • Hospital Santo António dos Capuchos (PT)
  • St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
Corresponding author
Moreno, Rui P.
ORCID
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-08-21
Volume
35
Issue
10
Pages
1667-1672
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
DOI
10.1007/s00134-009-1621-2
PMC
PMC2749175
OpenAlex
W1972286866
Cited by
101
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 13
FWCI
15.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Intensive Care Society
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
patient safety, intensive care, quality of care, medical errors, process of care, patient outcomes, To Err Is Human, patient safety education, patient safety monitoring
MeSH terms
Critical Care, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Safety, Codes of Ethics

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