IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0208087.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adverse event detection by medical record review is reproducible, but the assessment of their preventability is not

Author

Listed:
  • Dorthe O Klein
  • Roger J M W Rennenberg
  • Richard P Koopmans
  • Martin H Prins

Abstract

Objective: To assess the reproducibility of adverse event evaluation by a medical record review committee. Design: Cross-sectional reanalysis of medical records. Intervention: Reviewers re-examined fifty medical records of deceased patients regarding the presence of adverse events, their potential preventability and their possible contribution to death. Also we investigated the root causes of the preventable AEs. Differences between the first and second assessment were calculated. Results: The Kappa on the presence of an adverse event was 0.64 and 0.32 for the potential preventability. The intrarater agreement showed a Kappa of 0.61 on the adverse event presence and 0.64 for the potential preventability. Interrater agreement showed a Kappa of 0.66 for the adverse event presence and 0.03 for the potential preventability. Conclusion: We found a fair reproducibility for the detection of adverse events, but a poor reproducibility for the potential preventability. Possibly this was caused by lack of a definition for the preventability of adverse events. We think giving feedback to professionals using the results of medical record review remains valuable, but an improvement of its reproducibility is essential. To our opinion an international consensus on what exactly constitutes preventability of adverse events and agreement on a definition is necessary. This would result in more comparable studies in this field and could then be more informative on the ideal procedure to avoid certain potentially preventable adverse events in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Dorthe O Klein & Roger J M W Rennenberg & Richard P Koopmans & Martin H Prins, 2018. "Adverse event detection by medical record review is reproducible, but the assessment of their preventability is not," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208087
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208087
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208087&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0208087?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208087. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.