You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 19, Issue 3
  • What happens between visits? Adverse and potential adverse events among a low-income, urban, ambulatory population with diabetes

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Error management
What happens between visits? Adverse and potential adverse events among a low-income, urban, ambulatory population with diabetes
Free
  1. U Sarkar1,
  2. M A Handley2,
  3. R Gupta3,
  4. A Tang4,
  5. E Murphy5,
  6. H K Seligman1,
  7. K G Shojania6,
  8. D Schillinger1
  1. 1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California, USA
  2. 2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California, USA
  3. 3Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  4. 4Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, USA
  5. 5Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  6. 6Department of Medicine, University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Urmimala Sarkar, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Box 1364, San Francisco, CA 94143-1364, USA; usarkar{at}medicine.ucsf.edu

Abstract

Background Little is known about adverse events (AEs) that occur between physician visits for ambulatory chronic disease patients. An automated telephone self-management support programme for a diverse population of diabetes patients was implemented to capture AEs, describe the self-management domains from which they emanate and explore contributing causes.

Methods AEs and potential AEs (PotAEs) were identified among 111 ethnically diverse diabetes patients. An AE is an injury that results from either medical management or patient self-management; a PotAE is an unsafe state likely to lead to an event if it persists without intervention. Medical record reviews were conducted to ascertain which self-management domain was involved with the event and to explore contributing causes.

Results Among the 111 patients, 86% had at least one event detected over the 9-month observation period. 111 AEs and 153 PotAEs were identified. For all events, medication management was the most common domain (166 events, 63%). Only 20% of events reflected a single contributing cause; in the remaining 80%, a combination of system, clinician and patient factors contributed to their occurrence. Patient actions were implicated in 205 (77%) events, systems issues in 183 (69%) events and inadequate physician–patient communication in 155 (59%) events. Aside from communication, primary care clinician actions contributed to the occurrence of the event in only 16 cases (6%).

Conclusions Our findings reveal a complex safety ecology, with multiple contributing causes for AEs and PotAEs among ambulatory diabetes patients. Moreover, patients themselves seem to be key drivers of safety and of AEs, suggesting that patient-level self-management support and patient-centred communication are critical to AE prevention.

  • Diabetes
  • ambulatory patient safety
  • adverse events
  • self-management support
  • ambulatory care
  • diabetes mellitus
  • information technology
  • patient-centred
  • ambulatory safety
  • medication safety

https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2008.029116

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Given the complexity of ambulatory management,1 many people with type 2 diabetes mellitus must independently complete complex tasks to manage their health.2 Although ambulatory care has increasingly been included in patient safety research,3–6 gaps remain in the current understanding of ambulatory safety, particularly for those with chronic diseases.

    Prior work in ambulatory patient safety has focused largely on discrete, one-time events, including adverse drug events4–6 and medical errors,7–10 such as events after hospital discharge, identified in malpractice claims in ambulatory settings10 11 or resulting in emergency department visits.12 Some studies have used ambulatory incident reporting8 9 13–15; however, this captures a relatively small subset of adverse events (AEs).13–17 There has been a recent focus on errors and AEs occurring in the context of home healthcare, particularly after hospital discharge.18–21 Moreover, prior work in telephone case management has suggested that such interventions may detect medically urgent situations among patients at home.22 Thus, in this study, we used an interactive telephone technology to specifically examine safety in diabetes patients' most familiar environment—at home, between visits.

    Ambulatory diabetes care provides an exemplary model to understand chronic disease safety. Diabetes is a communication-sensitive disease; communication barriers such as inadequate health literacy and limited English proficiency can contribute to suboptimal quality of care.23–25 Moreover, since patients must perform daily self-management behaviours,26–28 much of diabetes care occurs outside of the clinical setting. To address patients' self-management needs beyond the clinical encounter, some health systems have developed mechanisms to communicate with diabetes patients at home, through health information technology strategies.29–32 Surveillance of these communication encounters provides a unique opportunity to describe AEs and potential AEs (PotAEs) that arise between visits.

    In the course of implementing an automated telephone self-management (ATSM) support programme for patients with diabetes,33 nurse care managers identified that patients were reporting self-management difficulties and barriers, and AEs and PotAEs. In a prior publication,34 we described the yield of the ATSM as a surveillance system. In this article, we describe the events uncovered, the self-management domains from which they emanate and their contributing causes.

    Methods

    Setting and patients

    This study was nested within the Improving Diabetes Efforts Across Language and Literacy (IDEALL) project,33 a 9-month, three-arm randomised trial of two diabetes self-management support interventions compared with usual care for adults with type 2 diabetes, described in past publications.33–35 We measured health literacy using the short-form Test of Functional Health Literacy Assessment (TOFHLA),36 for English and Spanish patients only. We examined patient safety among the 111 patients who participated in the ATSM intervention. The Committees on Human Research at the Community Health Network of San Francisco and the University of California, San Francisco, approved the study protocol.

    ATSM support

    ATSM is a health IT application that provides patient education and self-management support.31 37–42 The IDEALL ATSM intervention included weekly interactive, automated telephone calls to patients, with review and follow-up by a nurse care manager.43 The ATSM application generated daily written output of patient responses. The nurse care manager reviewed these reports and followed up via telephone with those patients whose responses triggered a call-back based on preset criteria for each self-management query (eg, for the query, “How many days in the past 7 days did you exercise?”, a response of “0” triggered a call-back). Then, they completed a standardised progress note for each telephone encounter. The primary goal of the ATSM system was to support patient self-management and behaviour change, not safety surveillance.

    Candidate event detection

    Candidate events could come to light in three ways. First, certain preset call-back criteria were considered safety thresholds. For instance, a patient-entered blood glucose value of less than 60 mg/dl would trigger a call-back from the nurse care manager and would be considered a candidate AE. Second, a patient could request a call-back from the nurse during any ATSM call. Third, patients could report an unrelated event during a live telephone nurse encounter. For example, during a call about exercise, a nurse could elicit that a patient did not have his diabetes medicines.

    Because we could not confirm events if the nurse had been unable to reach the patients by telephone, we excluded those candidate events. In addition, we did not include events if the nurse care manager spoke with the patient but did not explicitly document confirmation of the candidate event.

    Ambulatory taxonomy and event ascertainment

    Our model, with “longitudinal” surveillance among a cohort of diabetes patients, required that we adapt existing taxono-mies5 6 8 11 44–47 to capture problems resulting from self-management of chronic diseases and to describe events as they developed over time. The taxonomy that we developed has been described in greater detail in a previously published report,34 and AE and PotAE definitions are provided in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Definitions and selected examples of events

    To operationalise these definitions, we convened a consensus group of clinicians and developed several clinical thresholds a priori. Next, two study physicians independently reviewed ATSM call records and ATSM progress notes to identify candidate events. They subsequently reviewed these candidate events jointly and included events that met the definitions and thresholds, and any disagreements were brought to the consensus panel for final determination as an AE or a PotAE.

    Domains and contributing causes

    Two study physicians assigned each event to one of several possible self-management domains. The following domains were identified: medication use, diet, symptom recognition, exercise, self-monitoring of blood glucose, foot care and appointment adherence. Next, we explored possible contributing causes for the events we uncovered. Drawing on prior taxonomies,8 44 our taxonomy grouped contributing causes into four broad areas: systems issues, patient–clinician communication issues, patient contribution (apart from patient–clinician communication) and clinician contribution (apart from patient–clinician communication). Recognising that patient safety problems are usually multifactorial,5 47 48 our taxonomy allows for coding of all applicable contributing causes for each event. If the two physician–reviewers could not determine whether a contributing cause was present from the medical records, it was coded as “unknown”. Definitions and examples of contributing causes can be found in table 2.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Definitions and examples of contributing causes

    Severity

    Although there are several existing severity scales for AEs,49 50 we chose to apply a widely used six-level classification, ranging from no harm up to and including death, developed by Bates et al.4–6 10 11 51 52

    Event characterisation and classification

    Following event ascertainment, the two physicians jointly reviewed all other patient-related documentation as previously described.34 They applied the patient safety taxonomy described above to characterise each event. If the medical record did not allow the coders to determine aspects of the taxonomy, the field was coded as “unable to determine”. For illustration, two example events and their coding scheme are shown in table 3.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Example events and coding scheme

    Data analysis

    We tabulated event characteristics, including the number of events in each self-management domain, and the distribution of contributing causes of events. Because we hypothesised that patients with limited health literacy and limited English proficiency might experience different events, we explored whether (1) the self-management domains and (2) the contributing causes of events differed by language preference and by health literacy (categorised as inadequate, TOFHLA score 0–16; marginal, 17–22; adequate, 23–36.)36

    Results

    Sample

    The 111 patients who participated in at least one ATSM call were ethnically and linguistically diverse, and most participants had long-standing, poorly controlled diabetes (table 4). In addition, 53% had limited health literacy, with TOFHLA scores of 22 (ie, “marginal”) or lower.

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Baseline patient characteristics, n=111

    We detected and confirmed 264 events, including 111 AEs and 153 PotAEs over the 9-month surveillance period. In addition to these confirmed events, 8 possible events were excluded because the ATSM nurse could not contact the patient (3%) and 12 possible events were excluded because they were not confirmed during subsequent ATSM nurse call-backs (4%). Ninety-six patients (86%) experienced at least one event.

    Self-management domains

    The most common self-management domain implicated in AEs and PotAEs was medication use (table 5). Patients frequently experienced difficulties obtaining prescribed medications at pharmacies, leading to significant gaps in medication use that could jeopardise safety. In addition, patients' understanding of medication instructions and purposes frequently contributed to incorrect or suboptimal use. For AEs, dietary adherence and symptom recognition were also frequently involved. Dietary non-adherence led to symptoms of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. On occasion, patients failed to recognise that their symptoms (including urinary symptoms and new-onset fevers) required medical attention. For PotAEs, inability to monitor glucose was a common problem among patients adjusting insulin or self-titrating oral medications.

    View this table:
    Table 5

    Self-management domains for adverse and potential adverse events

    Contributing causes

    We identified systems issues, patient–physician communication problems, and clinician and patient actions (apart from communication) that played a part in events. Most events had multiple contributing causes (figure 1). For nine events (3%), medical record review did not reveal a contributing cause. Fifty-two (20%) events had only one detected contributing cause, 106 (40%) had two causes, 93 (35%) had three causes and 4 (2%) had a contribution from all four possible causes. Patient actions were implicated in 205 (77%) of events. Systems issues contributed to 183 events (69%), impaired patient–clinician communication contributed to 155 (59%) events and primary care clinician actions contributed to 16 (6%) events.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Frequency and distribution of contributing causes for events (N=264).

    In our exploratory analysis, we found that the distribution of self-management domains from which events emanated differed by health literacy level, such that those with inadequate and marginal health literacy had a higher proportion of events related to symptom recognition and a lower proportion of events related to diet (p=0.01). There were no differences in distribution of self-management domains by language (p=0.67). The distribution of contributing causes did not differ by language (p=0.77) or health literacy (p=0.15).

    Discussion

    We provide the first detailed, longitudinal analysis of AEs and PotAEs between visits among vulnerable type 2 diabetes patients. The overwhelming majority experienced at least one AE or PotAE, and most events were related to medication use. We found that events commonly had multiple contributing causes. The frequency with which patient actions contribute to AEs and PotAEs suggests that improving safety will require extensive patient education, support and surveillance.

    Consistent with prior literature,4–6 48 53–56 our results suggest that efforts to improve ambulatory patient safety in diabetes should focus on medication safety and monitoring. In contrast with the inpatient setting, in which patients receive medications ordered and administered to them, ambulatory patients must actively participate in medication management by obtaining their medications at the pharmacy, understanding and correctly carrying out medication instructions, consistently adhering to their regimen and carrying out monitoring as necessary. Problems at any of these stages may jeopardise safety.

    Similar to other studies among ambulatory transplant recipients,48 and of closed malpractice claims,10 we found patient actions and inactions to be a significant contributing cause for events. Thus, to be effective, ambulatory safety strategies must adopt a patient-centred approach,57 58 in which systems and clinicians facilitate the patients' ability to comprehend and carry out optimal self-management. Efforts to improve safety should take the perspective of the patient who is navigating the ambulatory environment and build in safeguards for common obstacles, from obtaining clear medication instructions to completing transitions among clinicians or between the ambulatory and acute-care settings.

    In addition, our analysis of contributing causes revealed that system inadequacies contributed to the majority of events. Compared with hospitals, the ambulatory environment presents unique challenges to implementing system-level interventions, including fragmentation of care and less regulatory scrutiny,59–61 and inadequate penetration of health information technology.62 63 Interventions that address system-level barriers and patient–clinician communication are needed to improve safety for ambulatory diabetes patients.

    Despite its strengths, this study has several limitations. First, because our sample was a socioeconomically disadvantaged, racially/ethnically and linguistically diverse group with poor health status, our findings may not be generalisable to all ambulatory diabetes patients, and may partly explain the ubiquity of events and distribution of self-management domains and contributing causes. Notably, those with limited health literacy had more events related to inadequate symptom recognition compared with other participants; further studies are needed to characterise the role of communication barriers in ambulatory safety. Second, we harnessed a health IT-facilitated self-management support application to explore patient safety. The system was not designed to systematically identify threats to patient safety, nurses were not specially trained or instructed to identify or elicit threats to patient safety, and patients varied in their degree of engagement with the system.64 As such, we may have underestimated the number of events, as is true for other methods of event detection and reporting.13–15 17 65 Third, event ascertainment by review requires clinical judgement66 67 and can vary from clinician to clinician. Similar to prior studies, we used a two-physician review model.11 65 68–70 Future work in ambulatory patient safety research will need to arrive at common definitions and validate thresholds. Fourth, because event ascertainment was retrospective, we needed to use chart review to investigate contributing causes; we did not use a technique such as root cause analysis71–75 or failure mode effects analysis76 77 to definitively establish event causation. We are currently planning prospective AE surveillance using ATSM support in which we will be able to perform real-time, thorough event investigation.

    Ambulatory diabetes patients frequently face safety problems in the course of self-managing their disease. Especially in the area of medication use, patients require support beyond usual care to avoid AEs. In applying our results to safety promotion efforts in the ambulatory setting, health systems should focus on medication safety, improve systems of care and suboptimal communication, and, most importantly, address the primary role of the patient in performing safe self-management of chronic diseases.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Hofer TP,
      2. Zemencuk JK,
      3. Hayward RA
      . When there is too much to do: how practicing physicians prioritize among recommended interventions. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:646–53.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Tierney WM
      . Adverse outpatient drug events—a problem and an opportunity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1587–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Elder NC,
      2. Vonder Meulen M,
      3. Cassedy A
      . The identification of medical errors by family physicians during outpatient visits. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:125–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      1. Gandhi TK,
      2. Burstin HR,
      3. Cook EF,
      4. et al
      . Drug complications in outpatients. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:149–54.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Gandhi TK,
      2. Weingart SN,
      3. Borus J,
      4. et al
      . Adverse drug events in ambulatory care. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1556–64.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Gurwitz JH,
      2. Field TS,
      3. Harrold LR,
      4. et al
      . Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. JAMA 2003;289:1107–16.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Elder NC,
      2. Dovey SM
      . Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: a synthesis of the literature. J Fam Pract 2002;51:927–32.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Fernald DH,
      2. Pace WD,
      3. Harris DM,
      4. et al
      . Event reporting to a primary care patient safety reporting system: a report from the ASIPS collaborative. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:327–32.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      1. Rosser W,
      2. Dovey S,
      3. Bordman R,
      4. et al
      . Medical errors in primary care: results of an international study of family practice. Can Fam Physician 2005;51:386–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Gandhi TK,
      2. Kachalia A,
      3. Thomas EJ,
      4. et al
      . Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:488–96.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      1. Forster AJ,
      2. Murff HJ,
      3. Peterson JF,
      4. et al
      . The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:161–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Budnitz DS,
      2. Pollock DA,
      3. Weidenbach KN,
      4. et al
      . National surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events. JAMA 2006;296:1858–66.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Cullen DJ,
      2. Bates DW,
      3. Small SD,
      4. et al
      . The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1995;21:541–8.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. O'Neil AC,
      2. Petersen LA,
      3. Cook EF,
      4. et al
      . Physician reporting compared with medical-record review to identify adverse medical events. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:370–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Schmidek JM,
      2. Weeks WB
      . Relationship between tort claims and patient incident reports in the Veterans Health Administration. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:117–22.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Sari AB,
      2. Sheldon TA,
      3. Cracknell A,
      4. et al
      . Sensitivity of routine system for reporting patient safety incidents in an NHS hospital: retrospective patient case note review. BMJ 2007;334:79.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    17. ↵
      1. Phillips R,
      2. Dovey S,
      3. Graham D,
      4. et al
      . Learning from different lenses: reports of medical errors in primary care by clinicians, staff, and patients. J Patient Saf 2006;2:140–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    18. ↵
      1. McGraw C,
      2. Drennan V,
      3. Humphrey C
      . Understanding risk and safety in home health care: the limits of generic frameworks. Qual Prim Care 2008;16:239–48.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Wachter R
      . Understanding patient safety. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008.
    20. ↵
      1. Hauck M,
      2. Bauer A,
      3. Voss F,
      4. et al
      . “Home monitoring“ for early detection of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator failure: a single-center prospective observational study. Clin Res Cardiol 2008;98:19–24.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Tsilimingras D,
      2. Bates DW
      . Addressing postdischarge adverse events: a neglected area. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008;34:85–97.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Izquierdo R,
      2. Meyer S,
      3. Starren J,
      4. et al
      . Detection and remediation of medically urgent situations using telemedicine case management for older patients with diabetes mellitus. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2007;3:485–9.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Schillinger D,
      2. Wang F,
      3. Rodriguez M,
      4. et al
      . The importance of establishing regimen concordance in preventing medication errors in anticoagulant care. J Health Commun 2006;11:555–67.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Kripalani S,
      2. LeFevre F,
      3. Phillips CO,
      4. et al
      . Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA 2007;297:831–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Shojania KG,
      2. Ranji SR,
      3. McDonald KM,
      4. et al
      . Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis. JAMA 2006;296:427–40.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Fisher EB,
      2. Brownson CA,
      3. O'Toole ML,
      4. et al
      . Ecological approaches to self-management: the case of diabetes. Am J Public Health 2005;95:1523–35.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, 2001.
    28. ↵
      1. Mensing C,
      2. Boucher J,
      3. Cypress M,
      4. et al
      . National standards for diabetes self-management education. Task Force to Review and Revise the National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education Programs. Diabetes Care 2000;23:682–9.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Gerber BS,
      2. Brodsky IG,
      3. Lawless KA,
      4. et al
      . Implementation and evaluation of a low-literacy diabetes education computer multimedia application. Diabetes Care 2005;28:1574–80.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. Piette J,
      2. Weinberger M,
      3. McPhee S
      . The effect of automated calls with telephone nurse follow-up on patient-centered outcomes of diabetes care. Med Care 2000;38:218–30.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Piette JD,
      2. Weinberger M,
      3. Kraemer FB,
      4. et al
      . Impact of automated calls with nurse follow-up on diabetes treatment outcomes in a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2001;24:202–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. Shea S,
      2. Weinstock RS,
      3. Starren J,
      4. et al
      . A randomized trial comparing telemedicine case management with usual care in older, ethnically diverse, medically underserved patients with diabetes mellitus. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:40–51.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. Handley M,
      2. Hammer H,
      3. Schillinger D
      . Navigating the terrain between research and practice: a Collaborative Research Network (CRN) case study in diabetes research. J Am Board Fam Med 2006;19:85–92.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Sarkar U,
      2. Handley M,
      3. Gupta R,
      4. et al
      . Use of an interactive, telephone-based self-management support program to identify adverse events among ambulatory diabetes patients. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:459–65.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    35. ↵
      1. Schillinger D,
      2. Hammer H,
      3. Wang F,
      4. et al
      . Seeing in 3-D: examining the reach of diabetes self-management support strategies in a public health care system. Health Educ Behav 2007;35:664–82.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Parker RM,
      2. Baker DW,
      3. Williams MV,
      4. et al
      . The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients' literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:537–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Aubert RE,
      2. Herman WH,
      3. Waters J,
      4. et al
      . Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:605–12.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      1. Chumbler NR,
      2. Neugaard B,
      3. Ryan P,
      4. et al
      . An observational study of veterans with diabetes receiving weekly or daily home telehealth monitoring. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11:150–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    39. ↵
      1. Piette JD,
      2. McPhee SJ,
      3. Weinberger M,
      4. et al
      . Use of automated telephone disease management calls in an ethnically diverse sample of low-income patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999;22:1302–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    40. ↵
      1. Weinberger M,
      2. Kirkman MS,
      3. Samsa GP,
      4. et al
      . A nurse-coordinated intervention for primary care patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: impact on glycemic control and health-related quality of life. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:59–66.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. Piette JD,
      2. Weinberger M,
      3. McPhee SJ
      . The effect of automated calls with telephone nurse follow-up on patient-centered outcomes of diabetes care: a randomized, controlled trial. Med Care 2000;38:218–30.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Piette JD,
      2. Weinberger M,
      3. McPhee SJ,
      4. et al
      . Do automated calls with nurse follow-up improve self-care and glycemic control among vulnerable patients with diabetes? Am J Med 2000;108:20–7.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      1. McLean I,
      2. Schneiderman M,
      3. Palacios J,
      4. et al
      . Extra care for diabetes: automated telephone disease management protocol. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 2004.
    44. ↵
      1. Chang A,
      2. Schyve PM,
      3. Croteau RJ,
      4. et al
      . The JCAHO patient safety event taxonomy: a standardized terminology and classification schema for near misses and adverse events. Int J Qual Health Care 2005;17:95–105.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    45. ↵
      The Linnaeus-PC Collaboration. International taxonomy of medical errors in primary care version 2. Washington, DC: The Robert Graham Center, 2002.
    46. ↵
      1. Victoroff M,
      2. Pace W
      . ASIPS-Victoroff dimensions of medical outcome taxonomy. 2005.
    47. ↵
      1. Dovey SM,
      2. Meyers DS,
      3. Phillips RL Jr,
      4. et al
      . A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:233–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    48. ↵
      1. Friedman AL,
      2. Geoghegan SR,
      3. Sowers NM,
      4. et al
      . Medication errors in the outpatient setting: classification and root cause analysis. Arch Surg 2007;142:278–83; [discussion 284].
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    49. ↵
      Food and Drug Administration. Title 21—Food and drugs, Chapter 1 FDA, HHS, subchapter D— Drugs for human use, 2008. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=312.
    50. ↵
      Institute for Safe Medication Practices. FMEA scoring guidelines, 2005. http://ismp.org/Tools/FMEAofPCA.pdf.
    51. ↵
      1. Bates DW,
      2. Cullen DJ,
      3. Laird N,
      4. et al
      . Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995;274:29–34.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    52. ↵
      1. Gandhi TK,
      2. Sittig DF,
      3. Franklin M,
      4. et al
      . Communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:626–31.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    53. ↵
      1. Gandhi TK,
      2. Weingart SN,
      3. Seger AC,
      4. et al
      . Outpatient prescribing errors and the impact of computerized prescribing. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:837–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    54. ↵
      1. Hanlon JT,
      2. Schmader KE,
      3. Koronkowski MJ,
      4. et al
      . Adverse drug events in high risk older outpatients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997;45:945–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      1. Hutchinson TA,
      2. Flegel KM,
      3. Kramer MS,
      4. et al
      . Frequency, severity and risk factors for adverse drug reactions in adult out-patients: a prospective study. J Chronic Dis 1986;39:533–42.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Plews-Ogan ML,
      2. Nadkarni MM,
      3. Forren S,
      4. et al
      . Patient safety in the ambulatory setting. A clinician-based approach. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:719–25.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    57. ↵
      1. Hibbard JH,
      2. Peters E,
      3. Slovic P,
      4. et al
      . Can patients be part of the solution? Views on their role in preventing medical errors. Med Care Res Rev 2005;62:601–16.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    58. ↵
      1. Buetow S,
      2. Elwyn G
      . Patient safety and patient error. Lancet 2007;369:158–61.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    59. ↵
      1. Wachter RM
      . Expected and unanticipated consequences of the quality and information technology revolutions. JAMA 2006;295:2780–3.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. ↵
      1. Wachter RM
      . Is ambulatory patient safety just like hospital safety, only without the “stat”? Ann Intern Med 2006;145:547–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. ↵
      1. Wagner EH
      . Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract 1998;1:2–4.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    62. ↵
      1. Linder JA,
      2. Ma J,
      3. Bates DW,
      4. et al
      . Electronic health record use and the quality of ambulatory care in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:1400–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    63. ↵
      1. Baron RJ,
      2. Fabens EL,
      3. Schiffman M,
      4. et al
      . Electronic health records: just around the corner? Or over the cliff? Ann Intern Med 2005;143:222–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    64. ↵
      1. Schillinger D,
      2. Hammer H,
      3. Wang F,
      4. et al
      . Seeing in 3-D: examining the reach of diabetes self-management support strategies in a public healthcare system. Health Educ Behav 2008;35:664–82.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    65. ↵
      1. Thomas EJ,
      2. Lipsitz SR,
      3. Studdert DM,
      4. et al
      . The reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:812–16.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    66. ↵
      Standards of medical care in diabetes–2007. Diabetes Care 2007;30(Suppl 1):S4–S41.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    67. ↵
      1. Hayward RA,
      2. Hofer TP
      . Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer. JAMA 2001;286:415–20.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    68. ↵
      1. Brennan TA,
      2. Leape LL,
      3. Laird NM,
      4. et al
      . Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    69. ↵
      1. Leape LL,
      2. Brennan TA,
      3. Laird N,
      4. et al
      . The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991;324:377–84.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    70. ↵
      1. Thomas EJ,
      2. Studdert DM,
      3. Burstin HR,
      4. et al
      . Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000;38:261–71.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    71. ↵
      1. Bittle MJ,
      2. Charache P,
      3. Wassilchalk DM
      . Registration-associated patient misidentification in an academic medical center: causes and corrections. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2007;33:25–33.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Iedema RA,
      2. Jorm C,
      3. Braithwaite J,
      4. et al
      . A root cause analysis of clinical error: confronting the disjunction between formal rules and situated clinical activity. Soc Sci Med 2006;63:1201–12.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    73. ↵
      1. Rex JH,
      2. Turnbull JE,
      3. Allen SJ,
      4. et al
      . Systematic root cause analysis of adverse drug events in a tertiary referral hospital. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000;26:563–75.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Shojania KG,
      2. Duncan BW,
      3. McDonald KM,
      4. et al
      . Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 2001(43):i–x, 1–668.
    75. ↵
      Veterans' Affairs National Center for Patient Safety. Root Cause Analysis. http://www4.va.gov/NCPS/rca.html.
    76. ↵
      Veterans' Affairs National Center for Patient Safety. The Basics of Health Care Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. http://www4.va.gov/ncps/SafetyTopics/HFMEA/HFMEAIntro.pdf.
    77. ↵
      Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) Tool (IHI Tool).

    Footnotes

    • Funding US is supported by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality K08 HS017594. Support for this research was also provided by The Commonwealth Fund and The California Health Care Foundation. The views presented here are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, or their directors, officers or staff. DS and MAH were also supported by grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality R21 HS014864 and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality R18 HS01726101. Electronic data were made available through the support of NIH grant UL1 RR024131. KGS received salary support from the Government of Canada Research Chairs Program. Other Funders: NIH.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco General Hospital.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles

    • Quality lines
      Quality lines
      David P Stevens
      BMJ Quality & Safety 2010; 19 i-i Published Online First: 09 Jun 2010. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2010.043679