Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Health care as a risk factor

Peter Davis
CMAJ May 25, 2004 170 (11) 1688-1689; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040690
Peter Davis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The article by Baker and associates in this issue (see page 1678) adds to the growing body of evidence that health care, though undoubtedly beneficial, also has potentially harmful effects on patients.1 According to the estimates published here, nearly 70 000 annual hospital admissions in Canada are associated with an adverse event (AE) that was preventable. Most are relatively minor, but a good proportion (20.8%) result in death. The impact on an already overtaxed system is not to be underestimated: patients experiencing AEs require a longer stay in hospital and may need more intensive care. What are we to make of these results? Are they sound? If so, what can be done about them? Or, are they a risk that we must accept in a world of increasingly complex and powerful therapeutic interventions with patients who are ever more frail?

Baker and associates followed a swath of investigations with similar methodologies published in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Denmark and New Zealand.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 This is one of the study's strengths. Science establishes fact by replicating results under different conditions. Indeed, in some respects, this investigation pushes the boundaries in the field. It is probably the first study of AEs that can safely claim to be nationally representative, since the investigators selected hospitals of different sizes from 5 of Canada's most populous provinces. Furthermore, electronic data collection instruments may well have improved accuracy.

In scientific terms, the study results are reassuringly robust and familiar. There are some variations, of course. The overall AE rate (7.5% of all hospital admissions) is closer to European than to American findings. The proportion of AEs associated with death seems high when compared with that of other studies, and the proportion of AEs attributable to system-related events (just over 3.0%) is lower. But in other respects, including the distinctive distribution of AEs across hospital services (higher in surgery) and patient ages (higher among elderly patients), as well as a variety of other factors, the results are comparable with those of other studies.

One conclusion we can draw from this study is that, although the populations of Western societies might enjoy all the benefits of affluence and modern medical care, they also run a significant risk as patients. The hazard of AEs is contextual in nature and seems to be relatively uniform regardless of medicolegal culture, sociocultural setting and type of health care system. In New Zealand we have quantified what is in effect a newly discovered public health risk. Of the top 20 risk factors that account for nearly three-quarters of all deaths annually, adverse in-hospital health care events come in at number 11, above air pollution, alcohol and drugs, violence and road traffic injury, among others.11 Indeed, at 1500 deaths annually, this equals a third of the 5000 deaths attributed to tobacco each year.

The painful paradox is that, by lavishing ever more care on our patients, we may also be exposing them to a potential hazard.This is underlined by Baker and associates' finding that the AE rate was higher in teaching hospitals. Are these really more dangerous places than humbler institutions? The fact that the preventable AE rate was no higher in teaching hospitals suggests that quality was not the crucial factor. Rather, it may be that in a hospital-oriented referral system, the unchallenged therapeutic imperative of modern medicine to move patients to a higher level of intervention than they can — or even should — sustain needs to be re-examined. Other options may exist, particularly for older patients, who bear a disproportionate share of the iatrogenic burden.

At one level, treatment injury is a public health issue. It is a significant risk factor, associated with demonstrable variables, and there are clear opportunities for prevention. Although the results of this study do not bring this out, infection is likely an important source of harm, and it is one for which there are well-established control strategies. Other major areas where established procedures can be enhanced are the prescription and administration of medications. Indeed, a combination of evidence-based practice supported by information technology would go a long way to reducing the AE rate. Within the complexity of the modern hospital environment, we need to address issues of coordination, competence and communication. Stable team structures, openness to cross-professional exchange and sturdy peer-review mechanisms are vital factors in work organization, the lack of which contribute to the potential for AEs.

At another level, treatment injury is also a matter of human rights. Patients need to be made more aware of the level of risk involved in a particular course of treatment. When things go wrong, they must be informed. Their concerns — yes, even their complaints — must guide the system. And, if injured, they deserve rehabilitation, explanation and even compensation. Just as employees harmed at work might expect redress for the unwanted and possibly unanticipated risk to which they have been exposed, so patients harmed at a hospital — and their caregivers — might welcome an environment in which their claims can be heard. In New Zealand, for example, treatment injury is dealt with as a special case of accidental harm. Patients and their relatives do not have to litigate to receive compensation for AEs that result in injury or permanent harm or death. Instead, they approach the Accident Compensation Corporation, which administers a tax-based fund.12 Furthermore, in order to secure accountability for harm — whether it be an apology, remedial training or discipline — patients do not have to risk the courts either; they work through a semi-judicial complaints system headed by a health and disability commissioner.13

As with any matter of public policy, responding to AEs requires a mixture of sound empirical evidence, balanced scientific assessment and solid ethical grounding. The great contribution of studies such as Baker and associates' is that, for the first time, we have indisputable facts of a representative character. Those facts must be assessed against a balanced set of scientific criteria. What interventions are cost-effective? Which are most easily implemented and likely to have the greatest effect? Finally, we need an ethical debate on the purpose of medicine, placing the requirements of the patient at its core.

𝛃 See related article page 1678

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

    Correspondence to: Dr. Peter Davis, Professor of Public Health, University of Otago, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand

References

  1. 1.↵
    Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, Blais R, Brown A, Cox J, et al. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004;170(11):1678-86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324(6):370-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995; 163 (9): 458-76.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991;324(6):377-84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, Orav EJ, Zeena T, Williams EJ, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000;38(3):261-71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, Schug S, Scott A, Johnson S, et al. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals: principal findings from a national survey. Wellington: NZ Ministry of Health; 2001. Available: www.moh.govt.nz/publications/adverseevents (accessed 2004 Apr 28).
  7. 7.↵
    Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review [published erratum in BMJ 2001;322:1395]. BMJ 2001;322(7285):517-9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, Ali W, Scott A, Schug S. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals I: occurrence and impact. N Z Med J 2002;115(1167):U271.
  9. 9.↵
    Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, Ali W, Scott A, Schug S. Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals II: preventability and clinical context. N Z Med J 2003;116(1183):U624.
  10. 10.↵
    Schioler T, Lipczak H, Pedersen BL, Mogensen TS, Bech KB, Stockmarr A, et al. Danish Adverse Event Study [Incidence of adverse events in hospitals. A retrospective study of medical records]. Ugeskr Laeger 2001;163(39):5370-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Looking upstream: causes of death cross-classified by risk and condition, New Zealand 1997. Public Health Intelligence Occasional Bulletin no 20. Wellington: NZ Ministry of Health; 2004.
  12. 12.↵
    Dyson R. Review of ACC medical misadventure. Consultation document. Wellington: NZ ACC and Department of Labour; 2003.
  13. 13.
    Paterson R. The patients' complaints system in New Zealand. Health Affairs 2002;21(3):70-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 170 (11)
CMAJ
Vol. 170, Issue 11
25 May 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Health care as a risk factor
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Health care as a risk factor
Peter Davis
CMAJ May 2004, 170 (11) 1688-1689; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040690

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Health care as a risk factor
Peter Davis
CMAJ May 2004, 170 (11) 1688-1689; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040690
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Patient safety in developing countries: retrospective estimation of scale and nature of harm to patients in hospital
  • The National Patient Safety Agency
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Antiracist practice for pediatric surgeons in Canada
  • Understanding and addressing Islamophobia through trauma-informed care
  • Dismantling gendered Islamophobia in medicine
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Areas of Focus
    • Health services
  • Topics
    • Drugs: adverse reactions
    • Patient safety & quality improvement

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire