Cited by 1,144Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsHospital Admissions and OutcomesHealthcare Quality and Management

Temporal Trends in Rates of Patient Harm Resulting from Medical Care

Open access
Landrigan, Christopher P., Parry, Gareth J., Bones, Catherine B., Hackbarth, Andrew D., Goldmann, Donald A., Sharek, Paul J.·2010·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the 10 years since publication of the Institute of Medicine's report To Err Is Human, extensive efforts have been undertaken to improve patient safety. The success of these efforts remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of a stratified random sample of 10 hospitals in North Carolina. A total of 100 admissions per quarter from January 2002 through December 2007 were reviewed in random order by teams of nurse reviewers both within the hospitals (internal reviewers) and outside the hospitals (external reviewers) with the use of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events. Suspected harms that were identified on initial review were evaluated by two independent physician reviewers. We evaluated changes in the rates of harm, using a random-effects Poisson regression model with adjustment for hospital-level clustering, demographic characteristics of patients, hospital service, and high-risk conditions. RESULTS: Among 2341 admissions, internal reviewers identified 588 harms (25.1 harms per 100 admissions; 95% confidence interval [CI], 23.1 to 27.2) [corrected]. Multivariate analyses of harms identified by internal reviewers showed no significant changes in the overall rate of harms per 1000 patient-days (reduction factor, 0.99 per year; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.04; P=0.61) or the rate of preventable harms. There was a reduction in preventable harms identified by external reviewers that did not reach statistical significance (reduction factor, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.00; P=0.06), with no significant change in the overall rate of harms (reduction factor, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.04; P=0.47). CONCLUSIONS: In a study of 10 North Carolina hospitals, we found that harms remain common, with little evidence of widespread improvement. Further efforts are needed to translate effective safety interventions into routine practice and to monitor health care safety over time. (Funded by the Rx Foundation.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmsa1004404

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [20]20. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. A network that works! The 100,000 Lives Campaign nodes. Cambridge, MA: IHI, 2006. (http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Topics/ Improvement/SpreadingChanges/Improve mentStories/ANetworkThatWorks100000 LivesCampaignNodes.htm.)
  2. [23]23. Griffin FA, Resar RK. Global Trigger Tool for measuring adverse events: IHI In- novation Series white paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improve- ment, 2007.
  3. [36]36. Reduction in central line-associated bloodstream infections among patients in intensive care units -Pennsylvania, April 2001-March 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54:1013-6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Landrigan, C. P., Parry, G. J., Bones, C. B., Hackbarth, A. D., Goldmann, D. A., & Sharek, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Institute for Healthcare Improvement (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2010-11-25
Volume
363
Issue
22
Pages
2124-2134
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2124717344
Cited by
1,144
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 104 · 2014: 118 · 2013: 126 · 2012: 101
FWCI
157.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Battelle
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
patient harm, medical errors, patient safety, temporal trends, preventable harm, adverse events, Global Trigger Tool, hospitalization, To Err Is Human, safety interventions, external peer review
MeSH terms
Hospitals, Humans, North Carolina, Retrospective Studies, Multivariate Analysis, Medical Errors, Risk Adjustment

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