The Effects of “To Err Is Human” in Nursing Practice

The Effects of “To Err Is Human” in Nursing Practice Order Description The Effects of “To Err Is Human” in Nursing Practice The 1999 landmark study titled “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System” highlighted the unacceptably high incidence of U.S. medical errors and put forth recommendations to improve patient safety. Since its publication, the recommendations in “To Err Is Human’” have guided significant changes in nursing practice in the United States. In this Discussion, you will review these recommendations and consider the role of health information technology in helping address concerns presented in the report. To prepare: • Review the summary of “To Err Is Human” presented in the Plawecki and Amrhein article found in this week’s Learning Resources. • Consider the following statement: ”The most significant barrier to improving patient safety identified in “To Err Is Human”is a “lack of awareness of the extent to which errors occur daily in all health care settings and organizations (Wakefield, 2008).” • Review “The Quality Chasm Series: Implications for Nursing” focusing on Table 3: “Simple Rules for the 21st Century Health Care System.” Consider your current organization or one with which you are familiar. Reflect on one of the rules where the “current rule” is still in operation in the organization and consider another instance in which the organization has effectively transitioned to the new rule. Post on or before Day 3 your thoughts on how the development of information technology has helped address the concerns about patient safety raised in the “To Err Is Human” report. Summarize, in one page, how informatics has assisted in improving health care safety in your organization and areas where growth is still needed. References (mandatory) PLAWECKI, L; AMRHEIN, D. Clearing the err. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 35, 11, 26-29, Nov. 2009. ISSN: 0098-9134. Wakefield, M. K. (2008). The Quality Chasm series: Implications for nursing. In R. G. Hughes (Ed.), Patient safety and quality: An evidence-based handbook for nurses (Vol. 1, pp. 47–66). Rockville, MD: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Legal Issues “I’ve made a mistake.” This simple statement, or its mere thought, is enough to strike fear within the most experienced and knowledgeable of health care professionals. No matter how many times a procedure has been done or a medication administered, there is always the likelihood of preventable error. Each year, the public is reminded of the potential for mistakes as the media report medical horror stories where, for example, unknowing patients have surgery performed on the wrong body part, a wrong medication administered, or a foreign object errantly left inside their bodies. These reports highlight the biggest fear of health care workers—their own fallibility. Through carelessness, assumption, overt act, or omission, the health care professional can easily err and cause harm to the patient. In addition to the pain caused to the patient, health care providers also understand the devastating impact that such errors can wreak on their own personal and professional lives. The purpose of this article is to About the Authors Mr. Plawecki is Registered Nurse, Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana, Indianapolis, and Dr. Amrhein is Resident Physician, Family Practice Medicine, Ball Memorial Hospital, Muncie, Indiana. The authors disclose that they have no significant financial interests in any product or class of products discussed directly or indirectly in this activity, including research support. Address correspondence to Lawrence H. Plawecki, RN, JD, LLM, Registered Nurse, Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana, 4141 Shore Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46254; e-mail: Lawrence.plawecki@ gmail.com. doi:10.3928/00989134-20091016-01 Clearing the Err Reporting Serious Adverse Events and “Never Events” in Today’s Health Care System Lawrence H. Plawecki, RN, JD, LLM; and David W. Amrhein, MD Abstract Absent an infinitesimal percentage, most Americans seek health care services due to a legitimate health issue. Fundamental within this relationship is the understanding that health care professionals will do everything within their power and expertise to alleviate the suffering of each patient they treat. Unfortunately, preventable medical errors do occur, and the innocent patient is left to suffer. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine released To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System, the first mainstream publication calling for a change in the culture of health care and the eradication of preventable medical errors. In the 10 years since its publication, federal and state governments and agencies have been proactive in attempting to meet the recommendations originally proposed in To Err Is Human. This article will review what has been accomplished in this time frame. © iStockphoto.com/ Ireneusz Skorupa 26 JOGNonline.com discuss the trend in today’s health care systems toward the reporting of serious adverse events or “never events,” as well as the impact—both impending and current—on the role of geriatric nurses. Refocusing and Rebuil ding a Sa fe Heal th Ca re System In November 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a profound call to action for everyone involved in the health care community. This statement, entitled To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System, began with a grim statistic, estimating that between 44,000 and 98,000 people died per year from preventable medical errors as hospital patients. The IOM (1999) report defined medical error as the use of a wrong plan of action to achieve an aim or the planned action’s failure to be completed as intended. In economic terms, these errors were estimated to cost between $17 billion and $29 billion per year across the country (IOM, 1999). These financial estimates include the costs of lost income, lost household productivity, and the cost of the additional health care necessitated by the errors (IOM, 1999). The more specific recommendations posited by the IOM (1999) for the prevention of medical errors are discussed below. The IOM (1999) report recommended a four-tiered approach to achieve a better safety record: l Establishing a national focus to create leadership, research, tools, and protocols to enhance the knowledge base about safety. l Identifying and learning from errors by developing a nationwide public mandatory reporting system and by encouraging health care organizations and practitioners to develop and participate in voluntary reporting systems. l Raising performance standards and expectations for improvements in safety through the actions of oversight organizations, professional groups, and purchasers of health care. l Implementing safety systems in health care organizations to ensure safe practices at the delivery level. As a result of these broad recommendations, state and federal governments, agencies, and health care institutions were given notice about the increased focus on the prevention of medical errors and, consequently, the improved safety of the patient receiving treatment. During the 5 years following the IOM (1999) report, progress began to be made. In 2001, the U.S. Congress appropriated an annual budget of $50 million for patient safety research (Leape & Berwick, 2005). From this appropriation, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was codified as the federal agency to oversee patient safety and its improvement (Leape & Berwick, 2005). AHRQ became an important player in the new patient safety movement by evaluating health care practices to determine effectiveness, educating health care institutions about how to best report errors and adverse events, and creating a roadmap of evidence-based best practices (Leape & Berwick, 2005). Using the roadmap created by AHRQ, the National Quality Forum (NQF) (2007) created a list of 27 serious reportable events, also referred to as never events, which were offered as the basis for a potential national reporting system chronicling patient safety. The serious reportable events may be divided into six separate categories, including surgical events, product or device events, patient protection events, care management events, environmental events, and criminal events (NQF, 2007). For the purposes of this article, however, the individual events will not be discussed, as the focus is to remain on the implementation and evolution of patient safety standards. In 2005, the American Medical Association (AMA) released a report by Leape and Berwick detailing the effects of the original IOM publication. The AMA report, while admitting there had been little measurable effect after the release of the IOM report and that no comprehensive nationwide system for monitoring had been put into existence, discussed how the focus of patient care had shifted from fixing blame to implementing a culture of safety (Leape & Berwick, 2005). This alone can be considered an impressive feat in today’s increasingly litigious society. Furthermore, Leape and Berwick (2005) identified the four areas the health care system needed to advance in the following 5 years to facilitate the transition to a patient safety focus. First, Leape and Berwick (2005) recommended the implementation of electronic medical records. It is argued that this implementation, although a substantial initial cost, will save the facility and pay for itself due to the decrease in charges of adverse events and increase in efficien- Journal of Gerontological Nursing • Vol. 35, No. 11, 2009 27 cy of staff. Second, as more methods are implemented, newer and safer practices will be proven. The final two advancements named in the IOM (1999) recommendations can be met as newly learned information is disseminated through the health care system and, ultimately, training of health care workers continues to evolve and improve. Last, health care professionals should then be able to admit mistakes, apologize, and improve communication with patients, as it has been found that full disclosure of a mistake does not increase the risk of a lawsuit being filed (Leape & Berwick, 2005). Where are we now? As the tenth year following To Err is Human (IOM, 1999) is drawing to a close, health care professionals can readily see and appreciate the changes being made to improve patient safety and their own practice. An inexhaustive list comparing several states, their attempts to improve patient safety, and new federal guidelines are discussed below. Minnesota In 2003, Minnesota became the first state to adopt a never events law (Minnesota Department of Health, 2008). Initially, this law required Minnesota’s hospitals, regional treatment centers, and freestanding outpatient surgical centers to report these never events to the Minnesota Department of Health (2009). These events were then reported to the public by the Minnesota Department of Health (2008) on an annual basis. In 2005, however, an amended law took effect, requiring Minnesota hospitals to report the occurrence of a never event publicly, to the Minnesota Hospital Association’s web-based Patient Safety Registry (Dotseth, 2004). In addition, Minnesota Statutes §144.7065 (2005) requires applicable facilities to investigate each reported event, report the underlying cause of each event, and take corrective action to prevent the recurrence of such an event. Lastly, an annual report required by Minnesota Statutes §144.7069 (2005) is published by the Minnesota Department of Health, thereby providing a forum for hospitals to share information and learn from each other’s errors. New Jersey In 2004, the State of New Jersey put into effect The Patient Safety Act, requiring every health care facility licensed by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (2008) to report serious preventable adverse events. Specifically, the law required hospitals to report these events to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (Patterson, 2009). Interestingly, the law keeps hospital- specific information confidential after its release, leaving consumers uninformed about where the never events actually occurred; however, unlike other states, the law requires immediate disclosure of medical errors to patients who were harmed by them (Patterson, 2009). Connecticut Also in 2004, the State of Connecticut adopted into law Public Act No. 04-164: An Act Concerning the Quality of Health Care, a combination of NQF and state-specific reportable events. Originally, Connecticut only required facilities to report injuries associated with or caused by medical management that resulted in measurable disability or death, thereby allowing nonlethal and less catastrophic errors to remain confidential from the public; however, after review, the law was amended to require the disclosure of the never events as proposed by NQF (Public Act No. 04-164, 2004). Both hospitals and outpatient surgical facilities are required to report such events to the state Department of Public Health; however, the disclosure of the reports is restricted (Public Act No. 04-164, 2004). Illinois On January 1, 2008, Illinois became the fourth state to require the public reporting of never events with the implementation of the Illinois Adverse Health Care Events Reporting Law of 2005. Initially, this mandatory reporting law, the Hospital Assessment Act of 2005, required ambulatory surgical centers and hospitals to report these events to the Illinois Department of Public Health (Illinois Hospital Association, 2008). In addition, it should be noted that only the published annual report is available publicly. Further, any findings, corrective action plans, and records are unavailable to the public and are not discoverable or admissible at law (Illinois Hospital Association, 2008). California The State of California began the implementation of a law, effective in 2007, mandating that general acute care hospitals, special hospitals, and acute psychiatric hospitals report the occurrence of one of their statutorily defined adverse events to the California Department of Public Health (California Health and Safety Code §1279.1 et seq., 2008). Interestingly, California has two unique provisions to its medical error reporting system. First, reporting is required of an event or series of events that causes the serious disability or death or a patient, visitor, or personnel (California Health and Safety Code §1279.1 et seq., 2008). This requirement is an expansion of whom to include within the definition of adverse event. Second, the requirements call for the patient to be notified within 24 hours of the discovery of the error (California Health and Safety Code §1279.1 et seq., 2008). This second feature creates several potential and currently unresolved issues, including how the patient should be informed of the error, who should inform the patient of such an error, and how 28 JOGNonline.com this information will be communicated and later analyzed by the California Department of Public Health. Geriatric Patient Populations Of specific interest to professional nurses practicing with geriatric patients in skilled nursing, long-term care, extended care, assisted living, or other facilities recognized by the individual state, is the current incantation of the state’s existing law. For example, in the NQF (2007) update, only New Jersey, Oregon, and Wyoming appear to have laws in place that specifically address the locations most often associated with geriatric care. Furthermore, on May 18, 2006, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) spoke for the first time about never events. In this statement, CMS reported it was investigating ways for Medicare to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of these events. CMS provided its plan on April 14, 2008, when it announced that Medicare will cease payment for eight specific kinds of never events. Since releasing these statements, CMS has extended this policy of nonpayment from inpatient hospital services to both service of nonfacility providers, including physicians, and to outpatient services. Frequent updating and research will be required as the focus of today’s health care system changes. Conclusion Nursing is one of the most dynamic and ever-changing professions in health care. In a relatively short time, the focus of nursing has begun shifting from that of assigning blame and determining liability to the promotion of safety and prevention of error. As the focus of the practice of medicine shifts more from diagnosis and treatment to screening and prevention, so too does the practice of nursing. As this continues, nurses must always strive to learn and implement the most current best practices while remaining knowledgeable of their state’s applicable laws and federal guidelines. The changing landscape of nursing and health care presents an especially difficult challenge for those providing care to geriatric patients who are not located in acute care settings. Only by researching the current law and forecasting state and federal trends will nurses be able to provide the best and safest care for their patients while limiting personal risk and liability. Unfortunately, errors will probably never be eradicated, but with education and care, nurses will be able to focus their practice on the most important aspect in health care—the patient. References California Health and Safety Code § 1279.1 et seq. (2008). Retrieved from the California Board of Nursing website: http://www. rn.ca.gov/pdfs/regulations/npr-b-58.pdf Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2006, May 18). Eliminating serious, preventable, and costly medical errors–Never events. Retrieved from http://www. cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release. asp?Counter=1863 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2008, April 14). CMS proposes to expand quality program for hospital inpatient services in FY 2009. Retrieved from http:// www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/ release.asp?Counter=3041 Connecticut Public Act No. 04-164: An act concerning the quality of health care (2004). Retrieved from http://www. cga.ct.gov/2004/act/Pa/2004PA-00164- R00SB-00566-PA.htm Dotseth, M. (2004). The reporting of adverse events in health care: Minnesota’s law. Retrieved from the Minnesota Department of Health website: http://www.health.state. mn.us/patientsafety/ae/lawoverview.pdf Illinois Adverse Health Care Events Reporting Law of 2005, 410 I.L.C.S. § 522. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/ legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2715&C hapAct=410%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A052 2%2F&ChapterID=35&ChapterName= PUB L I C +HE A LTH&A c tName =I l l inoi s+Adve r s e+He a l th+Ca r e+ Events+Reporting+Law+of+2005%2E Illinois Hospital Association. (2008, August). Summary of the Illinois adverse health event reporting law of 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ihatoday.org/issues/safety/ errorrepsumm.pdf Institute of Medicine. (1999). To err is human: Building a safer health system. Retrieved from the National Academies Press website: http://www.nap.edu/catalog. php?record_id=9728 Leape, L.L., & Berwick, D.M. (2005). Five years after To Err is Human: What have we learned? Journal of the American Medical Association, 293, 2384-2390. Minnesota Department of Health. (2008, September 19). Patient safety. Retrieved from http://www.health.state. mn.us/patientsafety/index.html Minnesota Department of Health. (2009, April 20). Background on Minnesota’s Adverse Health Events Reporting Law. Retrieved from http://www.health.state. mn.us/patientsafety/ae/background.html Minnesota Statutes § 144.7065: Facility requirements to report, analyze, and correct (2005). Retrieved from http://ros. leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_ C H A P _ S E C & y e a r = c u r r e n t & section=144.7065&image.x=11&image. y=9&image=Get+Section Minnesota Statutes § 144.7069: Interstate coordination: Reports (2005). http://www. revisor.leg.state.mn.us/data/revisor/ statutes/2005/144/7069.html National Quality Forum. (2007). Serious reportable events in healthcare 2006 update: A consensus report. Retrieved from http:// www.qualityforum.org/WorkArea/linkit. aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=1249 New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services. (2008, March). Mandatory patient safety reporting requirements for licensed health care facilities (revised)–Patient safety initiative. Health care quality assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nj.gov/ health/ps/documents/final_directions_ march08.pdf Patterson, M.J. (2009, April 1). Lifting the veil on medical horrors: New Jersey bill would require reporting of “never” events. Retrieved from the AARP Bulletin Today website: http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/nj/ articles/public_disclosure.html The changing landscape of nursing and health care presents an especially difficult challenge for those providing care to geriatric patients who are not located in acute care settings. Journal of Gerontological Nursing • Vol. 35, No. 11, 2009 29 PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT :)