Physicians and nurses are responsible for reporting medical adverse events. Each views these events through a different lens subject to their role-based perceptions and barriers. Physicians typically engage with diagnosis and treatment while nurses primarily care for patients’ daily lives and mental well-being. This results in reporting and describing medical adverse events differently.
OBJECTIVE:
We aimed to compare adverse medical event reports generated by physicians and nurses to better understand the differences and similarities in perspective as well as the nature of adverse medical events using social network analysis (SNA) and latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA).
METHODS:
The current study examined data from the Maccabi Healthcare Community. Approximately 17,868 records were collected from 2000 to 2017 regarding medical adverse events. Data analysis used SNA and LDA to perform descriptive text analytics and understand underlying phenomenon.
RESULTS:
A significant difference in harm levels reported by physicians and nurses was discovered. Shared topic keyword lists broken down by physicians and nurses were derived. Overall, communication, lack of attention, and information transfer issues were reported in medical adverse events data. Specialized keywords, more likely to be used by a physician were determined as: repeated prescriptions, diabetes complications, and x-ray examinations. For nurses, the most common special adverse event behavior keywords were vaccine problem, certificates of fitness, death and incapacity, and abnormal dosage.
CONCLUSIONS:
Communication and inattentiveness appeared most frequently in medical adverse events reports regardless of whether doctors or nurses did the reporting. Findings suggest feedback and information sharing processes could be implemented as a step toward alleviating many issues. Institutional management, healthcare managers and government officials should take actions to decrease medical adverse events, many of which may be preventable.
da S EtgesAPBde SouzaJSKliemann NetoFJFelixEA. A proposed enterprise risk management model for health organizations. J Risk Res. 2018;1–19.
2.
MuralidharSTanejaARameshV. Patient safety culture-perception of health care workers in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2012;24(4):191–9.
3.
KaganIBarnoyS. Factors associated with reporting of medication errors by Israeli nurses. J Nurs Care Qual. 2008;23(4):353–61.
4.
JaberMMustafaAA. Barriers to reporting errors among physicians and nurses in Pediatric Hospitals in Gaza City. J Med Care Res Rev. 2019;2(11):287–95.
5.
KällbergA-SEhrenbergAFlorinJÖstergrenJGöranssonKE. Physicians’ and nurses’ perceptions of patient safety risks in the emergency department. Int Emerg Nurs. 2017;33:14–9.
6.
SeymourJRietjensJBruinsmaSDeliensLSterckxSMortierFUsing continuous sedation until death for cancer patients: A qualitative interview study of physicians’ and nurses’ practice in three European countries. Palliat Med. 2015;29(1):48–59.
7.
Brunsveld-ReindersAHArbousMSDe VosRDe JongeE. Incident and error reporting systems in intensive care: A systematic review of the literature. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2015;28(1):2–13.
8.
KelloggKMHettingerZShahMWearsRLSellersCRSquiresM. Our current approach to root cause analysis: Is it contributing to our failure to improve patient safety?BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(5):381–7.
9.
MacraeC. The problem with incident reporting. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(2):71–5.
10.
KiegaldieDPryorEMarshallSEverardDIedemaRCraigSJunior doctors and nurses’ views and experiences of medical error: Moving toward shared learning and responsibility. J Interprofessional Educ Pract. 2016;4:21–7.
11.
HelmchenLABurkeMEWojtusiakJ. Designing highly reliable adverse-event detection systems to predict subsequent claims. J Healthc Risk Manag. 2015;34(4):7–17.
12.
StavropoulouCDohertyCToseyP. How effective are incident-reporting systems for improving patient safety? A systematic literature review. Milbank Q. 2015;93(4):826–66.
13.
MadsenMDØstergaardDAndersenHBHermannNSchiølerTFreilM. The attitude of doctors and nurses towards reporting and handling errors and adverse events. Ugeskr Laeger. 2006;168(48):4195–200.
14.
KingstonMJEvansSMSmithBJBerryJG. Attitudes of doctors and nurses towards incident reporting: A qualitative analysis. Med J Aust. 2004;181(1):36–9.
15.
RowinEJLucierDPaukerSGKumarSChenJSalemDN. Does error and adverse event reporting by physicians and nurses differ?Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34(9):537–45.
16.
McLennanSRDieboldMRichLEElgerBS. Nurses’ perspectives regarding the disclosure of errors to patients: A qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;54:16–22.
17.
TaylorJABrownsteinDChristakisDABlackburnSStrandjordTPKleinEJUse of incident reports by physicians and nurses to document medical errors in pediatric patients. Pediatrics. 2004;114(3):729–35.
18.
RashedAHamdanM. Physicians’ and nurses’ perceptions of and attitudes toward incident reporting in Palestinian hospitals. J Patient Saf. 2019;15(3):212–7.
19.
El-ShafyIADelgadoJAkermanMBullaroFChristophersonNAMPrinceJM. Closed-loop communication improves task completion in pediatric trauma resuscitation. J Surg Educ. 2018;75(1):58–64.
20.
SassoliMDayG. Understanding pharmacist communication and medication errors: A systematic literature review. Asia Pacific J Heal Manag. 2017;12(1):47.
21.
MoumtzoglouA. Reporting adverse events: Greek doctor and nurse attitudes. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2010;23(7):680–7.
ZhuLReychavIMcHaneyRBrodaATalYManorO. Combined SNA and LDA methods to understand adverse medical events. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2019;30(3):129–53.
24.
KudybaSP. Healthcare Informatics: Improving Efficiency through Technology, Analytics, and Management. CRC Press; 2016.
25.
BhardwajPKhoslaP. Review of text mining techniques. IITM J Manag IT. 2017;8(1):27–31.
26.
De NooyWMrvarABatageljV. Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018.
27.
ScottJ. Social Network Analysis. 4th ed. Sage; 2017.
28.
BrunsonJCLaubenbacherRC. Applications of network analysis to routinely collected health care data: A systematic review. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2018;25(2):210–21.
29.
JonsonC-OPrytzEJanssonO. A social network analysis of the emergency medical command during a live CBRNE exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(S1):S223–4.
30.
HanGWangW. Mapping user relationships for health information diffusion on microblogging in China: A social network analysis of Sina Weibo. Asian J Commun. 2015;25(1):65–83.
31.
RaghavanSPachuckiMCChangYPornealaBFoxCSDupuisJIncident type 2 diabetes risk is influenced by obesity and diabetes in social contacts: A social network analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(10):1127–33.
32.
PritchardJKStephensMDonnellyP. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics. 2000;155(2):945–59.
MeyerDHornikKFeinererI. Text mining infrastructure in R. J Stat Softw. 2008;25(5):1–54.
35.
NassirtoussiAKAghabozorgiSWahTYNgoDCL. Text mining for market prediction: A systematic review. Expert Syst Appl. 2014;41(16):7653–70.
36.
WangFXuTTangTZhouMWangH. Bilevel feature extraction-based text mining for fault diagnosis of railway systems. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst. 2017;18(1):49–58.
37.
WangS-HDingYZhaoWHuangY-HPerkinsRZouWText mining for identifying topics in the literatures about adolescent substance use and depression. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):279–88.
38.
MaguaWZhuXBhattacharyaAFilutAPotvienALeatherberryRAre female applicants disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health peer review? Combining algorithmic text mining and qualitative methods to detect evaluative differences in R01 reviewers’ critiques. J Women’s Heal. 2017;26(5):560–70.
39.
WuJHouSJinM. Social support and user roles in a Chinese online health community: A LDA based text mining studyInternational Conference on Smart Health2017. pp. 169–176.
40.
L’HuillierGAlvarezHRíosSAAguileraF. Topic-based social network analysis for virtual communities of interests in the dark web. SIGKDD Explor Newsl. 2011;12(2):66–73.
41.
ChaYBiBHsiehC-CChoJ , Incorporating popularity in topic models for social network analysis. In: Jones GJF, Sheridan P, Kelly D, de Rijke M, Sakai T, editors. Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. Dublin, Ireland: ACM; 2013. p. 223–32.
42.
RíosSAAguileraFNuñez-GonzalezJDGrañaM. Semantically enhanced network analysis for influencer identification in online social networks. Neurocomputing. 2019;326-327:71–81.
43.
MoessnerMFeldhegeJWolfMBauerS. Analyzing big data in social media: Text and network analyses of an eating disorder forum. Int J Eat Disord. 2018).
44.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria; 2013. Available from: http://www.r-project.org/.
45.
SilgeJRobinsonD. Tidytext: Text mining and analysis using tidy data principles in R. J Open Source Softw. 2016;1(3):37–40.
46.
SilgeJRobinsonD. Text Mining with R: A Tidy Approach. O’Reilly Media, Inc.; 2017.
47.
Hadley WickhamRFHenryLMüllerK , dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.7. 4. 2017.
48.
ChenGXiaoL. Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: A comparison of three methods. J Informetr. 2016;10(1):212–23.
49.
ZhuLLiuXHeSShiJPangM. Keywords co-occurrence mapping knowledge domain research base on the theory of Big Data in oil and gas industry. Scientometrics. 2015;105(1):249–60.
50.
ZhangJXieJHouWTuXXuJSongFMapping the knowledge structure of research on patient adherence: Knowledge domain visualization based co-word analysis and social network analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34497.
51.
CsardiGNepuszT. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Syst. 2006;1695(5):1–9.
52.
ArunRSureshVMadhavanCEVMurthyMNN. On finding the natural number of topics with latent dirichlet allocation: Some observationsPacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2010. pp. 391–402.
53.
CaoJXiaTLiJZhangYTangS. A density-based method for adaptive LDA model selection. Neurocomputing. 2009;72(7–9):1775–81.
54.
DeveaudRSanJuanEBellotP. Accurate and effective latent concept modeling for ad hoc information retrieval. Doc Mumérique. 2014;17(1):61–84.
KhalilzadehJTasciADA. Large sample size, significance level, and the effect size: Solutions to perils of using big data for academic research. Tour Manag. 2017;62:89–96.
57.
LakensD. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4.
58.
HedgesLV. Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. J Educ Stat. 1981;6(2):107–28.
59.
CohenJ. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
60.
CooperHHedgesLV. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1994.
61.
HärkänenMVoutilainenATurunenEVehviläinen-JulkunenK. Systematic review and meta-analysis of educational interventions designed to improve medication administration skills and safety of registered nurses. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;41:36–43.
62.
ElderNCDoveySM. Classification of medical errors and preventable adverse events in primary care: A synthesis of the literature. J Fam Pract. 2002;51(11):927–32.
63.
KrollLSingletonACollierJRees JonesI. Learning not to take it seriously: Junior doctors’ accounts of error. Med Educ. 2008;42(10):982–90.
64.
LanderLIConnorJAShahRKKentalaEHealyGBRobersonDW. Otolaryngologists’ responses to errors and adverse events. Laryngoscope. 2006;116(7):1114–20.
65.
O’ConnorECoatesHMYardleyIEWuAW. Disclosure of patient safety incidents: A comprehensive review. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2010;22(5):371–9.
66.
SchuererDJENastPAHarrisCBKraussMJJonesRMBoyleWAA new safety event reporting system improves physician reporting in the surgical intensive care unit. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202(6):881–7.
67.
FargenKMVelatGJLawsonMFFirmentCSMoccoJHohBL. Enhanced staff communication and reduced near-miss errors with a neurointerventional procedural checklist. J Neurointerv Surg. 2013;5(5):497–500.
68.
LandriganCPParryGJBonesCBHackbarthADGoldmannDASharekPJ. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(22):2124–34.
69.
MichelPBramiJChanelièreMKretMMosnierADupieIPatient safety incidents are common in primary care: A national prospective active incident reporting survey. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0165455.
70.
JylhäVBatesDWSarantoK. Critical factors in the information management process: The analysis of hospital-based patient safety incident reports. Finnish J eHealth eWelfare. 2016;8(4):164–76.
71.
LeapeLL, The preventability of medical injury. Bogner MS, editor. In: Human error in medicine. CRC Press; 2018. p. 13–25.
72.
ReesPEdwardsAPowellCHibbertPWilliamsHMakehamMPatient safety incidents involving sick children in primary care in England and Wales: A mixed methods analysis. PLoS Med. 2017;14(1):e1002217.
73.
NundySMukherjeeASextonJBPronovostPJKnightARowenLCImpact of preoperative briefings on operating room delays: A preliminary report. Arch Surg. 2008;143(11):1068–72.
74.
AyoubianAHabibiMYazdianPBagherian-MahmoodabadiHArastehPEghbaliTSurvey of nursery errors in healthcare centers, Isfahan, Iran. Glob J Health Sci. 2016;8(3):43–8.
75.
CasanovaJDayKDorpatDHendricksBTheisLWiesmanS. Nurse-physician work relations and role expectations. J Nurs Adm. 2007;37(2):68–70.
76.
HewittTChreimSForsterA. Sociocultural factors influencing incident reporting among physicians and nurses: Understanding frames underlying self-and peer-reporting practices. J Patient Saf. 2017;13(3):129–37.
77.
DroriTGuettaHBen NatanMPolakevichY. Patient violence toward psychiatric health care workers in Israel as viewed through incident reports: A retrospective study. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2017;23(2):143–8.
78.
WongAH-WCombellickJWispelweyBASquiresAGangM. The patient care paradox: An interprofessional qualitative study of agitated patient care in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(2):226–35.
79.
LiWZhangLLiangW. An Accident Causation Analysis and Taxonomy (ACAT) model of complex industrial system from both system safety and control theory perspectives. Saf Sci. 2017;92:94–103.
80.
SpathPL. Role of HIM professionals in quality management. Perspect Heal Inf Manag Am Heal Inf Manag Assoc. 2009;6(Summer).
81.
GarmanAScribnerL. Leading for quality in healthcare: Development and validation of a competency model. J Healthc Manag. 2011;56(6):373–84.
82.
Jiménez-ZarcoAIGonzález-GonzálezISaig’i-RubióFTorrent-SellensJ. The co-learning process in healthcare professionals: Assessing user satisfaction in virtual communities of practice. Comput Human Behav. 2015;51:1303–13.
83.
EgeaJMOGonzálezMVR. Explaining physicians’ acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors. Comput Human Behav. 2011;27(1):319–32.
84.
KaoH-YYuM-CMasudMWuW-HChenL-JWuY-CJ. Design and evaluation of hospital-based business intelligence system (HBIS): A foundation for design science research methodology. Comput Human Behav. 2016;62:495–505.
85.
BrynjolfssonEHuYSimesterD. Goodbye pareto principle, hello long tail: The effect of search costs on the concentration of product sales. Manage Sci. 2011;57(8):1373–86.
