You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 24, Issue 4
  • Real-time information on preventable death provided by email from frontline intensivists: results in high response rates with useful information

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Real-time information on preventable death provided by email from frontline intensivists: results in high response rates with useful information
  1. L Marjon Dijkema,
  2. Frederik Keus,
  3. Willem Dieperink,
  4. Iwan C C van der Horst,
  5. Jan G Zijlstra
  1. Department of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to L Marjon Dijkema, Department of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO box 30001, 9700 RB, The Netherlands; l.m.dijkema{at}umcg.nl

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003899

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.

    Recently, Provenzano et al1 found that an electronic tool collecting real-time clinical information directly from frontline providers was both feasible and useful to evaluate inpatient deaths.

    These findings concur with our evaluation of the preventability of death using a simple electronic evaluation tool in our 46-bed adult intensive care unit (ICU).

    From September 2010 to September 2011, an email was sent to the attending intensivist each time a patient died in our intensive care including two questions: “Was this death preventable? If yes, what was the cause of preventability?” The definition of preventable …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published online first. The author names have been corrected.

    • Contributors LMD, WD and JGZ conceived the initial design of the study. LMD coordinated the study and collected the data. LMD, WD and JGZ analysed the results. LMD, FK and ICCvdH wrote the initial manuscript. JGZ critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Competing interests None.

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

    Linked Articles