Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2003 Dec;12(Suppl 2):ii8–ii12. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii8

The measurement of active errors: methodological issues

R Lilford, M Mohammed, D Braunholtz, T Hofer
PMCID: PMC1765778  PMID: 14645889

Abstract

The value of research in any topic area turns on its validity. Patient safety research has revealed—or, at least, given renewed urgency to—a raft of methodological issues. The meaning and thus the value of empirical research in this field is contingent on getting the methodology right. The need for good methods for the measurement of error is necessary whenever an inference is intended and, since inferences lie at the heart of research and management, there is a huge need to understand better how to make measurements that are meaningful, precise, and accurate. In this paper we consider issues relating to the measurement of error and the need for more research.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (139.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ash A. Identifying poor-quality hospitals with mortality rates. Often there's more noise than signal. Med Care. 1996 Aug;34(8):735–736. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199608000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beaulieu Marie-Dominique, Rivard Michèle, Hudon Eveline, Saucier Danielle, Remondin Martine, Favreau Robert. Using standardized patients to measure professional performance of physicians. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Jun;15(3):251–259. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzg037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bechtel G. A., Vertrees J. L., Swartzberg B. A continuous quality improvement approach to medication administration. J Nurs Care Qual. 1993 Apr;7(3):28–34. doi: 10.1097/00001786-199304000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brennan T. A., Localio R. J., Laird N. L. Reliability and validity of judgments concerning adverse events suffered by hospitalized patients. Med Care. 1989 Dec;27(12):1148–1158. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198912000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brook R. H., Appel F. A. Quality-of-care assessment: choosing a method for peer review. N Engl J Med. 1973 Jun 21;288(25):1323–1329. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197306212882504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dean B., Barber N., Schachter M. What is a prescribing error? Qual Health Care. 2000 Dec;9(4):232–237. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.4.232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Donchin Y., Gopher D., Olin M., Badihi Y., Biesky M., Sprung C. L., Pizov R., Cotev S. A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1995 Feb;23(2):294–300. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199502000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldman R. L. The reliability of peer assessments of quality of care. JAMA. 1992 Feb 19;267(7):958–960. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hayward R. A., Hofer T. P. Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer. JAMA. 2001 Jul 25;286(4):415–420. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.4.415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hofer T. P., Bernstein S. J., DeMonner S., Hayward R. A. Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality. Med Care. 2000 Feb;38(2):152–161. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200002000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hofer T. P., Kerr E. A., Hayward R. A. What is an error? Eff Clin Pract. 2000 Nov-Dec;3(6):261–269. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mant J., Hicks N. Detecting differences in quality of care: the sensitivity of measures of process and outcome in treating acute myocardial infarction. BMJ. 1995 Sep 23;311(7008):793–796. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7008.793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001 Dec;13(6):475–480. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/13.6.475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Park R. E., Brook R. H., Kosecoff J., Keesey J., Rubenstein L., Keeler E., Kahn K. L., Rogers W. H., Chassin M. R. Explaining variations in hospital death rates. Randomness, severity of illness, quality of care. JAMA. 1990 Jul 25;264(4):484–490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Peabody J. W., Luck J., Glassman P., Dresselhaus T. R., Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000 Apr 5;283(13):1715–1722. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.13.1715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rubenstein L. V., Kahn K. L., Reinisch E. J., Sherwood M. J., Rogers W. H., Kamberg C., Draper D., Brook R. H. Changes in quality of care for five diseases measured by implicit review, 1981 to 1986. JAMA. 1990 Oct 17;264(15):1974–1979. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Stanhope N., Crowley-Murphy M., Vincent C., O'Connor A. M., Taylor-Adams S. E. An evaluation of adverse incident reporting. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999 Feb;5(1):5–12. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1999.00146.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Thomas Eric J., Lipsitz Stuart R., Studdert David M., Brennan Troyen A. The reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Jun 4;136(11):812–816. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-11-200206040-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Verho Henna, Arnetz Judith E. Validation and application of an instrument for measuring patient relatives' perception of quality of geriatric care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Jun;15(3):197–206. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzg030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Wilson B., Thornton J. G., Hewison J., Lilford R. J., Watt I., Braunholtz D., Robinson M. The Leeds University Maternity Audit Project. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002 Jun;14(3):175–181. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.intqhc.a002609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES