Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39971591›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2025

Broadening the definition of patient-safety events: lessons from a multicentre learning health system collaborative.

Jeanne M Huddleston, Daniel Whitford, Alexandra K Yaszemski, Matthew P Schrieber, Edward Pollak

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jeanne M HuddlestonMayo Clinic, Red Wing, Minnesota, USA.
Daniel WhitfordHB Healthcare Safety, SBC, Red Wing, Minnesota, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-6930-1636
Alexandra K YaszemskiHB Healthcare Safety, SBC, Red Wing, Minnesota, USA yaszemski@hbhealthcaresafety.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0856-0254
Matthew P SchrieberMedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Edward PollakHenry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving safety in healthcare has been paramount for decades, yet despite major attention and investment, improvement has remained incremental. Patient safety is a major concern in US healthcare, leading to significant harm and economic losses annually. Accurately identifying safety events remains difficult due to methodological discrepancies and lack of standardisation. This study evaluated the feasibility of implementing a standardised case-review methodology and safety-event taxonomy across diverse hospital settings to assess opportunities for improvement (OFIs) and compare findings with traditional definitions.

methodsThis multicentre retrospective cohort study reports data from 103 hospitals across the USA and Canada between 2016 and 2023. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to test case reviews for differences in the presence of one or more OFIs across several hospital types (bed size, academic status, urban setting, trauma level and Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services overall star rating) and patient characteristics (age, gender, length of stay, admission and discharge code status and mortality).

results19 181 cases were reviewed across the Learning Health System Collaborative, with a median of 107 reviews per hospital. Mortality was the most common cohort selection, studied by 91 hospitals (88%). At least one OFI was identified in 12 714 cases (66.3%). The logistic regression analysis found that all hospital characteristics and patient age, length of stay, code status and discharge disposition were significantly associated with at least one OFI. Of the 46 444 OFIs identified, 41 439 (89%) were from categories focused on omissions of care. The categories of end-of-life, documentation and treatment/care alone accounted for 25 980 OFIs (56%).

conclusionThe highest volumes of safety-related OFIs were associated with omissions of care, as opposed to the traditional definition of patient safety, which primarily includes outcomes from acts of commission.

Indexed as

Learning Health SystemMedical ErrorsPatient SafetyAdultAgedCanadaCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesAdverse events, epidemiology and detectionChart review methodologiesHealthcare quality improvementIncident reportingPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID39971591
PMCPMC11843007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.