Measuring Preventable Harm
Helping Science Keep Pace With Policy
- Peter J. Pronovost, MD, PhD;
- Elizabeth Colantuoni, PhD
- Author Affiliations: Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine and Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (Dr Pronovost); and Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (Dr Colantuoni), Baltimore, Maryland.
Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text.
Four years after Sorrel King's daughter, Josie, died from preventable medical errors in 2001,1 King asked us if her daughter would be less likely to die today. We answered by describing the myriad safety programs in hospitals. She abruptly cut us off. King was not interested in what we were doing. She wanted evidence that Josie and other patients were less likely to be harmed by medical care today, but we could not give her this evidence.
A decade after the To Err Is Human report,2 the global health care community still struggles to state definitively whether patients are safer. Despite rhetoric and work to improve safety, sufficient effort to rigorously evaluate patients has not happened.3,4 The general public, US Congress, and health care payers demand public accountability and safer outcomes.5
Given the desire to measure safety outcomes, why has it been so challenging? …
