It’s not as easy as you think.
In this piece from Slate, two physicians question the numbers circulating in the media that sensationalize medical mistakes. For instance, when citing the Institute of Medicine’s popular assertion that close to 100,000 patient deaths are preventable, they say that, “had [the researchers] used a different calculation method, the number of estimated deaths would have been less than 10 percent of the original.”
Determining what exactly is a medical error is challenging, particularly when distinguishing an avoidable injury from an adverse complication. Which may be one reason why “encouraging a ‘culture of safety’ to promote an atmosphere in which staff members can discuss safety concerns freely or requiring hand-washing to prevent the spread of germs—have been shown to have no real effect on your chance of leaving the hospital alive.”
It’s easy to read the headlines and be led to believe that preventable errors are a leading cause of patient deaths. And yes, any figure greater than zero is too many.
But realize there is nuance behind the numbers, and that our methods to measure patient safety are grossly imperfect.
Related posts:
- How to reduce the risk of medical errors from patient hand-offs
- Is reducing medical errors similar to improving transportation safety?
- Medicare ceases to pay for medical errors
- Can transparency of medical errors be a selling point?
- Why health reform is going to be difficult, and the trouble with saying no to American patients
- Working harder won’t reduce medical errors
- When should you keep your sick child away from school?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 3 comments }
Measuring medical errors is difficult. Conversely, measuring medical quality, an Obama priority, is extremely challenging. Medical quality is like pornography, it’s hard to define but we know it when we see it. See http://mdwhistleblower.blogspot.com/2009/02/appraising-art-and-medicine.html, a posting on a blog devoted to medical quality.
The irony of physicians complaining about the misuse of statistics in a political debate is rich.
You raise a good point, Kevin.
These data – the 100,000 figure – are sensationalized because they are, well, sensational. You can use that number to support almost any agenda you like: the idea we don’t need medical malpractice reform (how can you ask for caps on damages, 100,000 people are killed every year!), or that we need more evidence based care (doctors left to their own devices kill 100,000 people each year!), or that we need to reform our health care system (our system leads to 100,000 deaths each year!). Or, really, whatever you like.
I don’t doubt that there are a very many people hurt by things that happen to them while being treated. But oversimplifying these isn’t helpful to finding solutions.
Evan Falchuk
Comments on this entry are closed.