Chapter 1. Defining Patient Safety and Quality Care 

Pamela H. Mitchell 

Introduction 

The goal of this chapter is to provide some fundamental definitions that link patient safety 

with health care quality. Evidence is summarized that indicates how nurses are in a key position 

to improve the quality of health care through patient safety interventions and strategies. 

Quality Care 

Many view quality health care as the overarching umbrella under which patient safety 

resides. For example, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) considers patient safety “indistinguishable 

from the delivery of quality health care.”1 Ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato 

contemplated quality and its attributes. In fact, quality was one of the great ideas of the Western 

world.2 Harteloh3 reviewed multiple conceptualizations of quality and concluded with a very 

abstract definition: “Quality [is] an optimal balance between possibilities realised and a 

framework of norms and values.” This conceptual definition reflects the fact that quality is an 

abstraction and does not exist as a discrete entity. Rather it is constructed based on an interaction 

among relevant actors who agree about standards (the norms and values) and components (the 

possibilities). 

Work groups such as those in the IOM have attempted to define quality of health care in 

terms of standards. Initially, the IOM defined quality as the “the degree to which health services 

for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are 

consistent with current professional knowledge.”4 This led to a definition of quality that appeared 

to be listings of quality indicators, which are expressions of the standards. Theses standards are 

not necessarily in terms of the possibilities or conceptual clusters for these indicators. Further, 

most clusters of quality indicators were and often continue to be comprised of the 5Ds—death, 

disease, disability, discomfort, and dissatisfaction5

—rather than more positive components of 

quality. 

The work of the American Academy of Nursing Expert Panel on Quality Health focused on 

the following positive indicators of high-quality care that are sensitive to nursing input: 

achievement of appropriate self-care, demonstration of health-promoting behaviors, healthrelated quality of life, perception of being well cared for, and symptom management to criterion. 

Mortality, morbidity, and adverse events were considered negative outcomes of interest that 

represented the integration of multiple provider inputs.6, 7 The latter indicators were outlined 

more fully by the National Quality Forum.8 Safety is inferred, but not explicit in the American 

Academy of Nursing and National Quality Forum quality indicators. 

The most recent IOM work to identify the components of quality care for the 21st century is 

centered on the conceptual components of quality rather than the measured indicators: quality 

care is safe, effective, patient centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. Thus safety is the 

foundation upon which all other aspects of quality care are built.9

1 
Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses

Patient Safety 

A definition for patient safety has emerged from the health care quality movement that is 

equally abstract, with various approaches to the more concrete essential components. Patient 

safety was defined by the IOM as “the prevention of harm to patients.”1 Emphasis is placed on 

the system of care delivery that (1) prevents errors; (2) learns from the errors that do occur; and 

(3) is built on a culture of safety that involves health care professionals, organizations, and 

patients.1, 10 The glossary at the AHRQ Patient Safety Network Web site expands upon the 

definition of prevention of harm: “freedom from accidental or preventable injuries produced by 

medical care.”11 

Patient safety practices have been defined as “those that reduce the risk of adverse events 

related to exposure to medical care across a range of diagnoses or conditions.”12 This definition 

is concrete but quite incomplete, because so many practices have not been well studied with 

respect to their effectiveness in preventing or ameliorating harm. Practices considered to have 

sufficient evidence to include in the category of patient safety practices are as follows:12

• Appropriate use of prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients at risk 

• Use of perioperative beta-blockers in appropriate patients to prevent perioperative 

morbidity and mortality 

• Use of maximum sterile barriers while placing central intravenous catheters to prevent 

infections 

• Appropriate use of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical patients to prevent postoperative 

infections 

• Asking that patients recall and restate what they have been told during the informedconsent process to verify their understanding 

• Continuous aspiration of subglottic secretions to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia 

• Use of pressure-relieving bedding materials to prevent pressure ulcers 

• Use of real-time ultrasound guidance during central line insertion to prevent 

complications 

• Patient self-management for warfarin (Coumadin®) to achieve appropriate outpatient 

anticoagulation and prevent complications 

• Appropriate provision of nutrition, with a particular emphasis on early enteral nutrition in 

critically ill and surgical patients, to prevent complications 

• Use of antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters to prevent catheter-related 

infections 

Many patient safety practices, such as use of simulators, bar coding, computerized physician 

order entry, and crew resource management, have been considered as possible strategies to avoid 

patient safety errors and improve health care processes; research has been exploring these areas, 

but their remains innumerable opportunities for further research.12 Review of evidence to date 

critical for the practice of nursing can be found in later chapters of this Handbook. 

The National Quality Forum attempted to bring clarity and concreteness to the multiple 

definitions with its report, Standardizing a Patient Safety Taxonomy.

13 This framework and 

taxonomy defines harm as the impact and severity of a process of care failure: “temporary or 

permanent impairment of physical or psychological body functions or structure.” Note that this 

classification refers to the negative outcomes of lack of patient safety; it is not a positive 

classification of what promotes safety and prevents harm. The origins of the patient safety 

2
Defining Patient Safety, Quality Care

problem are classified in terms of type (error), communication (failures between patient or 

patient proxy and practitioners, practitioner and nonmedical staff, or among practitioners), 

patient management (improper delegation, failure in tracking, wrong referral, or wrong use of 

resources), and clinical performance (before, during, and after intervention). 

The types of errors and harm are further classified regarding domain, or where they occurred 

across the spectrum of health care providers and settings. The root causes of harm are identified 

in the following terms:8

 • Latent failure—removed from the practitioner and involving decisions that affect the 

organizational policies, procedures, allocation of resources • Active failure—direct contact with the patient • Organizational system failure—indirect failures involving management, organizational 

culture, protocols/processes, transfer of knowledge, and external factors • Technical failure—indirect failure of facilities or external resources

Finally, a small component of the taxonomy is devoted to prevention or mitigation activities. 

These mitigation activities can be universal (implemented throughout the organization or health 

care settings), selective (within certain high-risk areas), or indicated (specific to a clinical or 

organizational process that has failed or has high potential to fail). 

Nursing As the Key to Improving Quality 

Through Patient Safety 

Nursing has clearly been concerned with defining and measuring quality long before the 

current national and State-level emphasis on quality improvement. Florence Nightingale 

analyzed mortality data among British troops in 1855 and accomplished significant reduction in 

mortality through organizational and hygienic practices.14 She is also credited with creating the 

world’s first performance measures of hospitals in 1859. In the 1970s, Wandelt15 reminded us of 

the fundamental definitions of quality as characteristics and degrees of excellence, with 

standards referring to a general agreement of how things should be (to be considered of high 

quality). About the same time, Lang16 proposed a quality assurance model that has endured with 

its foundation of societal and professional values as well as the most current scientific knowledge 

(two decades before the IOM definition was put forth). 

In the past, we have often viewed nursing’s responsibility in patient safety in narrow aspects 

of patient care, for example, avoiding medication errors and preventing patient falls. While these 

dimensions of safety remain important within the nursing purview, the breadth and depth of 

patient safety and quality improvement are far greater. The most critical contribution of nursing 

to patient safety, in any setting, is the ability to coordinate and integrate the multiple aspects of 

quality within the care directly provided by nursing, and across the care delivered by others in 

the setting. This integrative function is probably a component of the oft-repeated finding that 

richer staffing (greater percentage of registered nurses to other nursing staff) is associated with 

fewer complications and lower mortality.17 While the mechanism of this association is not 

evident in these correlational studies, many speculate it is related to the roles of professional 

nurses in integrating care (which includes interception of errors by others—near misses), as well 

as the monitoring and surveillance that identifies hazards and patient deterioration before they 

become errors and adverse events.18 Relatively few studies have had the wealth of process data 

evident in the RAND study of Medicare mortality before and after implementation of diagnosisrelated groups. The RAND study demonstrated lower severity-adjusted mortality related to better 

3
Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses

nurse and physician cognitive diagnostic and treatment decisions, more effective diagnostic and 

therapeutic processes, and better nursing surveillance.19, 20

Further, when we consider the key role of communication or communication lapses in the 

commission of error, the role of nursing as a prime communication link in all health care settings 

becomes evident. The definition of “error chain” at PSNet clearly indicates the role of leadership 

and communication in the series of events that leads to patient harm. Root-cause analyses of 

errors provide categories of linked causes, including “(1) failure to follow standard operating 

procedures, (2) poor leadership, (3) breakdowns in communication or teamwork, (4) overlooking 

or ignoring individual fallibility, and (5) losing track of objectives.”21 This evidence was used in 

developing the cause portion of the National Quality Forum’s patient safety taxonomy and is 

further discussed in other chapters of this book. 

Conclusion 

Patient safety is the cornerstone of high-quality health care. Much of the work defining 

patient safety and practices that prevent harm have focused on negative outcomes of care, such 

as mortality and morbidity. Nurses are critical to the surveillance and coordination that reduce 

such adverse outcomes. Much work remains to be done in evaluating the impact of nursing care 

on positive quality indicators, such as appropriate self-care and other measures of improved 

health status. 

Author Affiliation 

Pamela H. Mitchell, Ph.D., R.N., C.N.R.N., F.A.A.N., F.A.H.A., associate dean for research, 

professor of biobehavioral nursing and health systems, and Elizabeth S. Soule Distinguished 

Professorship of Health Promotion at the University of Washington School of Nursing. E-mail: 

pmitch@u.washington.edu.

References 

1. Aspden P, Corrigan J, Wolcott J, et al., eds. Patient 

safety: achieving a new standard for care. Washington, 

DC: National Academies Press; 2004. 

2. Adler M, Goman W. Quality. In: Adler M, Goman W, 

eds. The great ideas: a syntopicon of great books of 

the Western world. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica; 

1952:p. 513-6. 

3. Harteloh PPM. The meaning of quality in health care: 

a conceptual analysis. Health Care Analysis 2003; 

11(3):259-67. 

4. Lohr K, Committee to Design a Strategy for Quality 

Review and Assurance in Medicare, eds. Medicare: a 

strategy for quality assurance, Vol. 1. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press; 1990. 

5. Lohr KN. Outcome measurements: concepts and 

questions. Inquiry 1988; 25(1):37-50. 

6. Mitchell PH, Lang NM. Framing the problem of 

measuring and improving healthcare quality: has the 

Quality Health Outcomes Model been useful? Med 

Care 2004; 42:II4-11. 

7. Mitchell PH, Heinrich J, Moritz P, et al. Outcome 

measures and care delivery systems: Introduction and 

purposes of the conference. Medical Care 1997; 

35(11):NS1-5. 

8. National Quality Forum. National consensus standards 

for nursing-sensitive care: an initial performance 

measure set. Washington, DC: National Quality 

Forum; 2004. p. 40. 

4
Defining Patient Safety, Quality Care

9. Committee on the Quality of Health Care in America. 

Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for 

the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press; 2001. 

10. Clancy CM, Farquhar MB, Sharp BA. Patient safety in 

nursing practice. J Nurs Care Qual Jul-Sep 

2005;20(3):193-7. 

11. AHRQ PSNet Patient Safety Network. Patient safety. 

http://psnet.ahrq.gov/glossary.aspx#P. Accessed 

October 20, 2007.

12. Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, et al., eds. 

Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient 

safety practices. Evidence Report/Technology 

Assessment No. 43 (Prepared by the University of 

California at San Francisco-Stanford Evidence-based 

Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0013). 

Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality; July 2001. AHRQ Publication No. 01-E058, 

Summary. 

13. National Quality Forum. Standardizing a patient safety 

taxonomy: a consensus report. Washington, DC: 

National Quality Forum; 2006. 

14. Nightingale F. In: Goldie SM, ed. "I have done my 

duty”: Florence Nightingale in the Crimean War, 

1854-56. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 

1987. 

15. Wandelt MA. Definitions of words germane to 

evaluation of health care. NLN Publ. 1976(15-

1611):57-8. 

16. Lang N. Issues in quality assurance in nursing. Paper 

presented at issues in evaluation research: an 

invitational conference, December 10-12, 1975. 

Kansas City, KS: American Nurses Association; 1976. 

17. Tourangeau AE, Cranley LA, Jeffs L. Impact of 

nursing on hospital patient mortality: a focused review 

and related policy implications. Qual Saf Health Care 

Feb 2006;15(1):4-8. 

18. Mitchell PH, Lang NM. Nurse staffing: a structural 

proxy for hospital quality? Med Care. Jan 

2004;42(1):1-3. 

19. Kahn KL, Keeler EB, Sherwood MJ, et al. Comparing 

outcomes of care before and after implementation of 

the DRG-based prospective payment system. JAMA. 

Oct 17 1990; 264(15):1984-8. 

20. Rubenstein L, Chang B, Keeler E, et al. Measuring the 

quality of nursing surveillance activities for five 

diseases before and after implementation of the DRGbased prospective payment system. Paper presented at 

Patient outcomes research: examining the 

effectiveness of nursing practice, 1992; Bethesda, 

MD. 

21. AHRQ PSNet Patient Safety Network. Error chain. 

http://psnet.ahrq.gov/glossary.aspx#E. Accessed 

October 20, 2007. 

5