Skip to main content

Main menu

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

User menu

Search

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

Advanced Search

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

Adverse events and patient safety in Canadian health care

G. Ross Baker and Peter G. Norton
CMAJ February 03, 2004 170 (3) 353-354;
G. Ross Baker
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter G. Norton
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2004 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

Patient-safety research has burgeoned in the United States and elsewhere, but researchers in Canada are only beginning to assess the safety of our health care system. Forster and colleagues1 provide in this issue one of the first detailed assessments of the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in Canadian health care (see page 345). Their article is also one of the first reports anywhere to focus on the AEs that occur after discharge from hospital. The authors used methods that had been employed by Forster and a group of associates in a study at a US teaching hospital.2 The results of these studies are very similar despite the differences in context.

AEs are unintended injuries or complications caused by health care management, not by the underlying disease process. Few experienced clinicians would be surprised to find that such problems can occur in the transition from hospital care to care at home and in the community. Forster and colleagues' results suggest, however, that these problems are far from unusual. Nearly one-quarter of patients discharged from the studied Canadian teaching hospital experienced an AE. Half of the AEs were judged to be either preventable or ameliorable. Preventable AEs are those that occur because clinicians did not follow accepted practice or the systems they relied on failed to offer appropriate information or resources. Some AEs are not preventable. An example is a rash after penicillin administration in a patient who has not previously had an allergic reaction to the drug. If, on the other hand, the patient had a history of allergy to penicillin, then the rash would be a preventable AE. Ameliorable AEs are ones whose severity would have been reduced had different actions been taken.

Information on AEs is critical to improving care. As Forster and colleagues note, many problems can emerge with the medications that patients take after discharge. Treatment with high-risk medications (e.g., warfarin, heparin, insulin and chemotherapeutic agents) needs to be carefully monitored. In some settings where numerous AEs have been noted with such drugs, quality-improvement projects have been carried out to identify ways to improve care, such as standardizing medication protocols and improving follow-up. Fairview Health System in Minnesota, for example, has used quality-improvement methods to reduce the variation in drug protocols and to improve the monitoring of anticoagulation therapy in stroke patients.3 Such efforts require collaboration among physicians, nurses and pharmacists, an investment by the hospital in helping health care professionals use quality-improvement tools and community follow-up.

The evidence on AEs in hospitals has generated considerable interest and action. Forster and colleagues' results suggest that even greater problems may emerge after discharge. Whereas hospital-based studies in Britain,4 New Zealand5 and the United States6 have suggested that 2.9% to 11.7% of adult patients in general hospitals experience one or more AEs, Forster and colleagues found that 23% of their sample had an AE after discharge. Although Forster and colleagues used interviews rather than chart reviews, their definition of AE was similar to those used in the inpatient studies. Thus, the risk of AEs may increase rather than diminish after discharge.

Most of the research on AEs has occurred in hospitals, where clinicians and health records are more accessible. Few studies have been done on patients in ambulatory or community settings. Forster and colleagues, by following patients discharged from hospital care, have identified that many problems can occur in the community, and they have provided tools that may prove useful for other researchers, clinicians and managers. Additional research is needed to examine these problems.

The results of this study also underline the critical nature of the transition from hospital-based care to community-based care. Problems in handoffs in care may occur more often in Ontario, where the organization of home and community services is separate from hospitals, than elsewhere in Canada. But handoffs are likely problematic in many regions. Research comparing the experience of patients in transition to community-based care under regional health authorities would be instructive. Evaluations of interventions to improve the transition are also needed.

The information that Forster and colleagues have gathered will be useful for improving performance in our system. In particular, their data highlight the need for close monitoring of patients during the postdischarge period, with special attention to drug therapy. Their report challenges us all to improve communication between professionals and to develop better methods for monitoring patients after hospital discharge.

𝛃 See related article page 345

Footnotes

  • Contributors: Dr. Baker wrote the initial draft of the paper, made revisions and approved the final version. Dr. Norton reviewed and critically revised the first draft and approved the final version.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, Dupuis N, Chernish R, Chandok N, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ 2004; 170(3):345-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:161–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Meisel S, Sershon L, White D. Reducing adverse drug events and medication errors using rapid cycle improvement. Qual Manage Health Care 1998; 6 (4): 15–25.
  4. 4.↵
    Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001;322:517–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Schug S, Briant R, Scott A, Johnson S, et al. Adverse events regional feasibility study: indicative findings. N Z Med J 2001; 114: 203–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    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 [see comments]. Med Care 2000;38:261–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 170 (3)
CMAJ
Vol. 170, Issue 3
3 Feb 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.
Adverse events and patient safety in Canadian health care
(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
Adverse events and patient safety in Canadian health care
G. Ross Baker, Peter G. Norton
CMAJ Feb 2004, 170 (3) 353-354;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Adverse events and patient safety in Canadian health care
G. Ross Baker, Peter G. Norton
CMAJ Feb 2004, 170 (3) 353-354;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Adverse Outcomes Associated with Preventable Complications in Hospitalized Patients with CKD
  • Validity of AHRQ patient safety indicators derived from ICD-10 hospital discharge abstract data (chart review study)
  • Experiences of health professionals who conducted root cause analyses after undergoing a safety improvement programme
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Transforming race-based health research in Canada
  • Not neutral: reimagining antiracism as a professional competence
  • Time to dismantle systemic anti-Black racism in medicine in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Patient safety & quality improvement

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
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule 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.

Powered by HighWire