Robert M. Wachter M.D. (Professor and Associate Chairman), Kaveh G. Shojania M.D.
{"title":"错误的面孔:以案例为基础的方法来教育提供者,政策制定者和公众关于患者安全","authors":"Robert M. Wachter M.D. (Professor and Associate Chairman), Kaveh G. Shojania M.D.","doi":"10.1016/S1549-3741(04)30078-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>When patient safety became a subject of policy and research, the question was how to engage clinicians—perhaps they would respond more to case studies of dramatic adverse events than to statistics.</p></div><div><h3>The Chronology</h3><p>In 2001, we launched a case-based series in the <em>Annals of Medicine</em> which focused on diagnosing what ailed the system rather than the patient. For example, in “The Wrong Patient,” 17 discrete errors resulted in a woman’s receiving a cardiac electrophysiology procedure intended for another patient with a similar last name. The Web-based Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) <em>WebM&M</em> was then developed as a forum that was part-reporting system and part-journal. Finally, we then applied this approach to writing a book for a popular audience.</p></div><div><h3>Lessons Learned</h3><p>We found that clinicians were willing to submit cases, assuming that anonymity was protected. Cases of errors that led to harm were generally more compelling than near misses. As in real life, many cases lacked complete information, but sufficient information was usually available to highlight the key lessons. All three vehicles generated substantial readerships and critical praise, indicating that there is a “market” for case-based education about patient safety.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Presenting de-identified cases of medical mistakes in a variety of public venues is an effective way to educate patients and providers about safety.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":84970,"journal":{"name":"Joint Commission journal on quality and safety","volume":"30 12","pages":"Pages 665-670"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1549-3741(04)30078-X","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Faces of Errors: A Case-Based Approach to Educating Providers, Policymakers, and the Public About Patient Safety\",\"authors\":\"Robert M. Wachter M.D. (Professor and Associate Chairman), Kaveh G. Shojania M.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1549-3741(04)30078-X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>When patient safety became a subject of policy and research, the question was how to engage clinicians—perhaps they would respond more to case studies of dramatic adverse events than to statistics.</p></div><div><h3>The Chronology</h3><p>In 2001, we launched a case-based series in the <em>Annals of Medicine</em> which focused on diagnosing what ailed the system rather than the patient. For example, in “The Wrong Patient,” 17 discrete errors resulted in a woman’s receiving a cardiac electrophysiology procedure intended for another patient with a similar last name. The Web-based Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) <em>WebM&M</em> was then developed as a forum that was part-reporting system and part-journal. Finally, we then applied this approach to writing a book for a popular audience.</p></div><div><h3>Lessons Learned</h3><p>We found that clinicians were willing to submit cases, assuming that anonymity was protected. Cases of errors that led to harm were generally more compelling than near misses. As in real life, many cases lacked complete information, but sufficient information was usually available to highlight the key lessons. All three vehicles generated substantial readerships and critical praise, indicating that there is a “market” for case-based education about patient safety.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Presenting de-identified cases of medical mistakes in a variety of public venues is an effective way to educate patients and providers about safety.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":84970,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Joint Commission journal on quality and safety\",\"volume\":\"30 12\",\"pages\":\"Pages 665-670\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1549-3741(04)30078-X\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Joint Commission journal on quality and safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S154937410430078X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint Commission journal on quality and safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S154937410430078X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
摘要
当患者安全成为政策和研究的主题时,问题是如何让临床医生参与其中——也许他们会更多地对戏剧性不良事件的案例研究做出反应,而不是对统计数据做出反应。2001年,我们在《医学年鉴》(Annals of Medicine)上推出了一个以病例为基础的系列,重点是诊断系统的问题,而不是病人。例如,在“错误的病人”中,17个离散的错误导致一名妇女接受了本应为另一名姓氏相似的病人进行的心脏电生理手术。基于web的医疗保健研究和质量机构(AHRQ) WebM&M随后发展成为一个兼具报告系统和期刊功能的论坛。最后,我们将这种方法应用于为大众读者写一本书。我们发现临床医生愿意提交病例,假设匿名受到保护。导致伤害的错误案例通常比侥幸脱险更引人注目。正如在现实生活中一样,许多案例缺乏完整的信息,但通常可以获得足够的信息来突出关键教训。这三种工具都获得了大量读者和好评,表明基于病例的患者安全教育存在“市场”。结论在各类公共场所展示去标识化的医疗事故案例是对患者和医护人员进行安全教育的有效途径。
The Faces of Errors: A Case-Based Approach to Educating Providers, Policymakers, and the Public About Patient Safety
Background
When patient safety became a subject of policy and research, the question was how to engage clinicians—perhaps they would respond more to case studies of dramatic adverse events than to statistics.
The Chronology
In 2001, we launched a case-based series in the Annals of Medicine which focused on diagnosing what ailed the system rather than the patient. For example, in “The Wrong Patient,” 17 discrete errors resulted in a woman’s receiving a cardiac electrophysiology procedure intended for another patient with a similar last name. The Web-based Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) WebM&M was then developed as a forum that was part-reporting system and part-journal. Finally, we then applied this approach to writing a book for a popular audience.
Lessons Learned
We found that clinicians were willing to submit cases, assuming that anonymity was protected. Cases of errors that led to harm were generally more compelling than near misses. As in real life, many cases lacked complete information, but sufficient information was usually available to highlight the key lessons. All three vehicles generated substantial readerships and critical praise, indicating that there is a “market” for case-based education about patient safety.
Conclusion
Presenting de-identified cases of medical mistakes in a variety of public venues is an effective way to educate patients and providers about safety.