Selected medical errors in the intensive care unit: Results of the IATROREF study: Parts I and II

122Citations
Citations of this article
155Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Rationale: Although intensive care units (ICUs) were created for patients with life-threatening illnesses, the ICU environment generates a high risk of iatrogenic events. Identifying medical errors (MEs) that serve as indicators for iatrogenic risk is crucial for purposes of reporting and prevention. Objectives: We describe the selection of indicator MEs, the incidence of such MEs, and their relationship with mortality. Methods: We selected indicator MEs using Delphi techniques. An observational prospective multicenter cohort study of these MEs was conducted from March 27 to April 3, 2006, in 70 ICUs; 16 (23%) centers were audited. Harm from MEs was collected using specific scales. Measurements and Main Results: Fourteen types of MEs were selected as indicators; 1,192 MEs were reported for 1,369 patients, and 367 (26.8%) patients experienced at least 1 ME (2.1/1,000 patient-days). The most common MEs were insulin administration errors (185.9/1,000 d of insulin treatment). Of the 1,192 medical errors, 183 (15.4%) in 128 (9.3%) patients were adverse events that were followed by one or more clinical consequences (n = 163) or that required one or more procedures or treatments (n = 58). By multivariable analysis, having two or more adverse events was an independent risk factor for ICU mortality (odds ratio, 3.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-7.36; P = 0.039). Conclusions: The impact of medical errors on mortality indicates an urgent need to develop prevention programs. We have planned a study to assess a program based on our results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Garrouste-Orgeas, M., Timsit, J. F., Vesin, A., Schwebel, C., Arnodo, P., Lefrant, J. Y., … Soufir, L. (2010). Selected medical errors in the intensive care unit: Results of the IATROREF study: Parts I and II. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 181(2), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200812-1820OC

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free