RSS Feeds
Adverse Events following Discharge from the Hospital
- Alan J. Forster, MD, FRCPC, MSc; and
- David W. Bates, MD, MSc
- From Ottawa Health Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4E9, Canada; and Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115.
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
IN RESPONSE:
We apologize to Dr. Rifas, and other readers, who had the misimpression that we were suggesting that adverse events postdischarge were “simply due to stupid doctors.” We strongly agree that preventable adverse events occur primarily because of systems issues (1). Our intent was to try to shed light on the extent of a problem that we feel is the result of changes in the health system, specifically the increasing fragmentation and complexity of care. Certainly, the unnecessarily complicated rules that patients face regarding health insurance reimbursements, which Dr. Rifas and Drs. Leff and Boult rightly underscore, contribute to this problem.
Drs. Medlock, Cantilena, and Riel are concerned about some of our classifications pertaining to preventability and “ameliorability.” It is important to note that for confidentiality reasons, we could not describe all case details. Drs. Medlock, Cantilena, and Riel also address resources available to physicians to help with decision making, and we concur with the importance of such resources (2).
Drs. Hayward and Hofer raise concerns about the use of implicit reviews to determine adverse event rates. Although some of these concerns are legitimate, some are unfounded. They suggest that we “ignored” this “well-documented bias,” but we did deal with it in several ways. Drs. Hayward and Hofer are particularly concerned that our interrater reliability was overestimated because we used a method of reviewer discussion to achieve consensus. This method had no affect on our κ values because we used the agreement on the initial, independent review to determine reliability. Drs. Hayward and Hofer cite their own research as evidence that the method of implicit review results in overestimates because of poor reliability; however, they are generalizing the results of a study that rated whether deaths were due to errors (3). Determinations about death are especially problematic. In contrast, the ratings our reviewers made were generally much less challenging. Furthermore, we addressed the limitations of the method in several ways. We reported confidence limits, reported the initial agreement rate for the initial reviews, and presented each of the 76 cases in sufficient detail for readers to judge for themselves whether an adverse event occurred.
We conducted this study to help direct quality improvement efforts. Concentrating on blame or quibbling about reliability will not help anyone. Public trust requires us to proceed with our efforts responsibly and expeditiously and to avoid being paralyzed by methodologic issues. This study identified many important health system problems that deserve our attention as a profession.
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
- Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians
