Dataset Information

Interventions to reduce the incidence of medical error and its financial burden in health care systems: A systematic review of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aim

Improving health care quality and ensuring patient safety is impossible without addressing medical errors that adversely affect patient outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to correctly estimate the incidence rates and implement the most appropriate solutions to control and reduce medical errors. We identified such interventions.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews by searching four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid Medline, and Embase) until January 2021 to elicit interventions that have the potential to decrease medical errors. Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction and analyses.

Results

Seventysix systematic review papers were included in the study. We identified eight types of interventions based on medical error type classification: overall medical error, medication error, diagnostic error, patients fall, healthcare-associated infections, transfusion and testing errors, surgical error, and patient suicide. Most studies focused on medication error (66%) and were conducted in hospital settings (74%).

Conclusions

Despite a plethora of suggested interventions, patient safety has not significantly improved. Therefore, policymakers need to focus more on the implementation considerations of selected interventions.

SUBMITTER: Ahsani-Estahbanati E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9363709 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interventions to reduce the incidence of medical error and its financial burden in health care systems: A systematic review of systematic reviews.

Ahsani-Estahbanati Ehsan E Sergeevich Gordeev Vladimir V Doshmangir Leila L

Frontiers in medicine 20220727

<h4>Background and aim</h4>Improving health care quality and ensuring patient safety is impossible without addressing medical errors that adversely affect patient outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to correctly estimate the incidence rates and implement the most appropriate solutions to control and reduce medical errors. We identified such interventions.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews by searching four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid Medline, and Embase) ...[more]

PMID: 35966854

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews should inform American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines. The quality of systematic reviews related to the forthcoming Preferred Practice Pattern® guideline (PPP) Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery is unknown. We sought to identify reliable systematic reviews to assist the AAO Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery PPP.MethodsSystematic reviews were eligible if they evaluated the effectiveness or safety of interventions included in the 2012 PPP Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery. To identify potentially eligible systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite database of systematic reviews. Two authors identified eligible reviews and abstracted information about the characteristics and quality of the reviews independently using the Systematic Review Data Repository. We classified systematic reviews as "reliable" when they (1) defined criteria for the selection of studies, (2) conducted comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies, (3) assessed the methodological quality (risk of bias) of the included studies, (4) used appropriate methods for meta-analyses (which we assessed only when meta-analyses were reported), (5) presented conclusions that were supported by the evidence provided in the review.ResultsWe identified 124 systematic reviews related to refractive error; 39 met our eligibility criteria, of which we classified 11 to be reliable. Systematic reviews classified as unreliable did not define the criteria for selecting studies (5; 13%), did not assess methodological rigor (10; 26%), did not conduct comprehensive searches (17; 44%), or used inappropriate quantitative methods (3; 8%). The 11 reliable reviews were published between 2002 and 2016. They included 0 to 23 studies (median = 9) and analyzed 0 to 4696 participants (median = 666). Seven reliable reviews (64%) assessed surgical interventions.ConclusionsMost systematic reviews of interventions for refractive error are low methodological quality. Following widely accepted guidance, such as Cochrane or Institute of Medicine standards for conducting systematic reviews, would contribute to improved patient care and inform future research.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral factors are associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (PTB); therefore, various interventions might have the potential to influence it. Due to the large number of interventions that address PTB, the objective of this overview is to summarise evidence from Cochrane reviews regarding the effects and safety of these different interventions.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews should be based on randomised controlled trials comparing antenatal non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that directly or indirectly address PTB with placebo/no treatment or routine care in pregnant women at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation without signs of threatened preterm labour. We considered PTB at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation as the primary outcome.ResultsWe included 56 Cochrane systematic reviews. Three interventions increased PTB risk significantly. Twelve interventions led to a statistically significant lower incidence of PTBs. However, this reduction was mostly observed in defined at-risk subgroups of pregnant women. The remaining antenatal interventions failed to prove a significant effect on PTB < 37 weeks, but some of them at least showed a positive effect in secondary outcomes (e.g., reduction in early PTBs). As an unintended result of this review, we identified 28 additional Cochrane reviews which intended to report on PTB < 37 weeks, but were not able to find any RCTs reporting appropriate data.ConclusionsThe possible effects of a diverse range of interventions on PTB have been evaluated in Cochrane systematic reviews. Few interventions have been demonstrated to be effective and a small number have been found to be harmful. For around half of the interventions evaluated, the Cochrane review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide sound recommendations for clinical practice. No RCT evidence is available for a number of potentially relevant interventions.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report.MethodsWe conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses.ResultsEighty percent of systematic reviews included authors' COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document.ConclusionA fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

Dataset Information

Interventions to reduce the incidence of medical error and its financial burden in health care systems: A systematic review of systematic reviews.

Background and aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Interventions to reduce the incidence of medical error and its financial burden in health care systems: A systematic review of systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets