The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Preventable Deaths: Who, How Often, and Why?
Abstract
If the quality of care provided by a hospital affects its death rate, then some deaths must be preventable. We have developed a new method to investigate this issue and have reviewed 182 deaths from 12 hospitals (6 high outliers and 6 low outliers for death rate) for three conditions (cerebrovascular accident, pneumonia, or myocardial infarction). The investigators prepared a dictated summary of each patient's hospital course. Then, at least three physicians reviewed each summary and independently judged whether the death could have been prevented. Using a majority rules criterion (at least two of three physicians agreed), we found that 27% of the deaths might have been prevented. Using a unanimity criterion (all three physicians independently agreed), we found a 14% rate of probably preventable deaths. Patients whose deaths were probably preventable were younger (74.7 compared with 78.6 years, P less than 0.05), less often demented (12% compared with 26%, P less than 0.05), and less severely ill (mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, 15.6 compared with 21.2; P less than 0.001) than patients whose deaths were nonpreventable. The physicians also listed causes for each probably preventable death; nine reasons encompassed almost all of them. For myocardial infarction, preventable deaths reflected errors in management. For cerebrovascular accident, however, deaths primarily reflected errors in diagnosis. The severity of illness can help a hospital retrospectively identify probably preventable deaths. In the group of patients who died, 42% of those with a low severity of illness had probably preventable deaths as compared to 11% admitted with a high severity of illness. We found that a significant number of hospital deaths might have been prevented. Our findings were based on a new method that needs further testing to substantiate its validity. These findings also need replication before they can be generalized to other hospitals.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Bates, D. W. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1311 · Cited by 2,107
Relationship between medication errors and adverse drug events
Bates, D. W., Boyle, D. L., Vliet, M. B. V., Schneider, J., & Leape, L. (1995) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02600255 · Cited by 981
Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events in nursing homes
Gurwitz, J. H., Field, T. S., Avorn, J., McCormick, D., Jain, S., Eckler, M., Benser, M., Edmondson, A. C., & Bates, D. W. (2000) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(00)00451-4 · Cited by 640
Do House Officers Learn From Their Mistakes?
Wu, A. W. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03460160067031 · Cited by 565
Leape, L. L., Lawthers, A. G., Brennan, T. A., & Johnson, W. G. (1993) · QRB - Quality Review Bulletin · doi:10.1016/s0097-5990(16)30608-x · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Authors
- Dubois, R. W., & Brook, R. H.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 1988-10-01
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 582-589
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2027606685
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Preventable Deaths: Who, How Often, and Why? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-109-7-582
- The paper
- Dubois, R. W., & Brook, R. H. (1988). Preventable Deaths: Who, How Often, and Why? Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-109-7-582
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.