Is Ambulatory Patient Safety Just Like Hospital Safety, Only without the “Stat”?
Authors: Robert M. Wachter
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2006)

Editorials3 October 2006Is Ambulatory Patient Safety Just Like Hospital Safety, Only without the "Stat"?FREERobert M. Wachter, MDRobert M. Wachter, MDFrom University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00014 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail When I was a resident in internal medicine 2 decades ago, we spent virtually all of our time in the hospital and very little of it in the ambulatory setting. This structure reflected the traditions of medical residency training, the relative importance that chairs of medicine and the Residency Review Committee placed on the 2 settings, and the economic realities of residency funding. However, it also reflected a premise that a physician well trained in the care of the very ill could easily translate these skills into excellent care in an environment where the pace was slower, the patients were less sick, and the word "stat" was rarely heard.We later came to realize that this logic was flawed. We now understand that the ambulatory environment is so different from the hospital environment that expertise in hospital care might not predict excellent outpatient care and might even create skills and instincts that are harmful in the ambulatory care environment. In the ambulatory world, most patients are well or have stable or gradually deteriorating chronic illness. Many symptoms resolve with time; prevention is the core activity; and patients are anything but captive, supine beings in flimsy gowns. These differences are not trivial; indeed, they are fundamental. Thankfully, our residency accreditors now insist on more and better training in ambulatory care (1). Newly graduated residents continue to have a steep learning curve on entering primary care practice, but at least they are not starting nearly at square one, as many of the physicians of my generation did.As patient safety has become a consuming issue for both seasoned practitioners and new graduates, we are beginning to understand the nature of medical errors in a variety of environments. The study by Gandhi and colleagues in this issue (2) uses settled malpractice claims to help us better understand the nature of diagnostic errors in the ambulatory setting. Their findings—that such errors are common (59% of all outpatient claims) and are due to an array of both individual and system factors—are sobering, since they do not offer a single target and the promise of a magic bullet. Nevertheless, the study helps point the way to changes in training, practice, and systems that might prevent many of these errors.For example, the most common errors in the study were ones that led to missed or delayed diagnoses of cancer (with breast cancer accounting for about 42% of these cases). Typical process breakdowns included failure to order the appropriate diagnostic or laboratory test (59% of missed cancer cases), incorrect interpretation of tests (46% of missed cancer diagnoses), and inappropriate or inadequate follow-up (48% of missed cancer diagnoses). One can envision an electronic health record that would prompt the physician to perform mammography at the appropriate time, provide evidence-based recommendations regarding how to act on various mammography results, and generate automatic notifications if the patient misses scheduled follow-up visits or a consultant's note is late in coming (3, 4).This article comes on the heels of several studies that are helping us begin to understand the nature of ambulatory care errors (5–9). Just as we came to appreciate that strong hospital training does not automatically create a competent office-based clinician, the question arises: Does what we have learned about hospital patient safety apply to the ambulatory setting? Since the patient safety world has focused on hospital care heretofore, this question is very important. As we begin to learn about patient safety in the office setting, we should take account of several differences between hospital practice and office practice.The first difference is in the nature of the errors. The hospital patient safety movement has emphasized the prevention of errors related to treatment: medication errors; surgical errors (wrong-site surgery, retained sponges and instruments); handoff and communication errors; and hospital infections, falls, and blood clots. When we examine the overlap between ambulatory and hospital mistakes, it is clear that medication errors beset both settings, but even here the issues are often different (administration errors and those involving intravenous pumps are common in the hospital and unusual in the outpatient setting) (10). The relatively few studies of diagnostic errors have generally focused on errors in the emergency department and in training environments (11, 12). Missed diagnoses of cancer, the main problem found by Gandhi and colleagues, are uncommon in the hospital, partly because so many diagnoses (particularly of cancer) are made in the office and the patient comes to the hospital to receive treatment or complete a complex work-up.The second major difference is in the nature of the patient–provider relationship. Because the patient is neither passive nor captive in the office, patient adherence is far more important than in the hospital (Gandhi and colleagues found that 46% of errors involved significant patient factors, with nearly half of these reflecting nonadherence). In office practice, the focus of attention is the patient's understanding of and agreement with the plan, which requires an appreciation of the patient's health literacy and any possible language barriers. Talk about hospital patients being active participants in their own safety is often an empty promise (particularly in the case of the confused or desperately ill patient). On the other hand, involving the patient actively is sure to be a key component of ambulatory safety efforts (13).A difference that is perhaps even larger than these 2 differences is the organizational structures of hospitals and clinics. Take the not-so-simple matter of implementing an electronic medical record. In most hospitals, a team of computer experts would handle this problem aided by clinicians with specialized expertise in informatics and time carved out of their clinical schedules. Although the process would engage "user groups," no one would expect a rank-and-file doctor to double as "the IT guy." However, in all but hospital-associated or huge ambulatory practices, a clinician must take the lead role when an office practice transitions to an electronic medical record (14). Similarly, hospitals can afford to have staff with specialized expertise in various types of errors (such as pharmacists for medication errors) or in human factors, root-cause analysis, and legal medicine. The hospital cross-subsidizes these positions, which do not generate revenue, with profits from the clinical operation. Contrast this lavish staffing with the 3-person ambulatory practice, in which the physician (or nurse) is likely to also be "the human factors guy" (or woman), "the root-cause guy," and "the malpractice guy." And what profits are available for cross-subsidy? Get serious.Finally, we should consider the macropolitical and organizational issues. Hospitals are visited regularly by regulators (such as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) and are embarrassed by errors that make the headlines and by unfavorable quality or safety data published on the Web (15). Such scrutiny is highly unlikely for the small ambulatory office, in which the malpractice system (for all its many flaws) represents the only tangible incentive, other than sheer professionalism, to catalyze safety efforts. The other drivers of safety initiatives, such as legislation (for example, California's mandatory hospital nurse-to-patient ratios) and public campaigns (for example, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's recent campaign to save 100 000 lives), target the hospital environment. This diverse and powerful set of incentives makes "doing patient safety" far easier in the hospital than in the office.On the other hand, the office has unique advantages in promoting patient safety. In general, physicians and the other providers and staff share close quarters and often have a collegial working relationship (however, physicians are likely to employ the staff, which they do not in the hospital, so it's more difficult to dampen down hierarchies, a goal of most efforts to improve safety culture [16]). Physicians enjoy longitudinal relationships with patients, making collaborative safety efforts and patient engagement more likely to take hold. Patients are healthier and so are much more likely to take an active role in improving their own care. Making substantive changes does not require the assent of dozens of hospital committees or the consensus of a diverse medical staff. (Remember the old joke: What do you call a 99-to-1 vote of the medical staff? Answer: a tie). Finally, because many patient safety initiatives involve standardizing and simplifying complex care processes (17), office practitioners may well see an economic advantage to improved efficiency from thoughtfully applied safety efforts.I believe that the initial emphasis of the patient safety movement on hospital care was appropriate given the high stakes, the intense media and public scrutiny, and some relatively low-hanging fruit. Despite significant progress, we certainly have not solved all of the problems in hospital safety—far from it (18). However, work undone in the hospital is no excuse for continuing to neglect safety research, training, systems, and regulations in the office setting, where most patients receive their care. As we turn our attention increasingly to the ambulatory environment, aided by such important insights as those provided by Gandhi and colleagues, we must take advantage of what we have learned in the hospital while remembering that the office setting is a whole different world.References1. Swing SR, Vasilias J. Internal medicine residency education in ambulatory settings. Acad Med. 1997;72:988-96. [PMID: 9387824] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Thomas EJ, Puopolo AL, Yoon C, Brennan TA, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:488-96. LinkGoogle Scholar3. Poon EG, Gandhi TK, Sequist TD, Murff HJ, Karson AS, Bates DW. "I wish I had seen this test result earlier!": Dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2223-8. [PMID: 15534158] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005;330:765. [PMID: 15767266] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Harrold LR, Rothschild J, Debellis K, Seger AC, et al. Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. JAMA. 2003;289:1107-16. [PMID: 12622580] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Bhasale AL, Miller GC, Reid SE, Britt HC. Analysing potential harm in Australian general practice: an incident-monitoring study. Med J Aust. 1998;169:73-6. [PMID: 9700340] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Gandhi TK, Weingart SN, Borus J, Seger AC, Peterson J, Burdick E, et al. Adverse drug events in ambulatory care. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1556-64. [PMID: 12700376] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Gandhi TK. Fumbled handoffs: one dropped ball after another. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:352-8. [PMID: 15738454] LinkGoogle Scholar9. Gandhi TK, Weingart SN, Seger AC, Borus J, Burdick E, Poon EG, et al. Outpatient prescribing errors and the impact of computerized prescribing. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:837-41. [PMID: 16117752] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Small SD, Servi D, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1995;274:29-34. [PMID: 7791255] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Goldman L, Kirtane AJ. Triage of patients with acute chest pain and possible cardiac ischemia: the elusive search for diagnostic perfection. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:987-95. [PMID: 14678918] LinkGoogle Scholar12. Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1493-9. [PMID: 16009864] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13. Hibbard JH, Peters E, Slovic P, Tusler M. Can patients be part of the solution? Views on their role in preventing medical errors. Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62:601-16. [PMID: 16177460] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14. Baron RJ, Fabens EL, Schiffman M, Wolf E. Electronic health records: just around the corner? Or over the cliff? Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:222-6. [PMID: 16061920] LinkGoogle Scholar15. Wachter RM. Expected and unanticipated consequences of the quality and information technology revolutions. JAMA. 2006;295:2780-3. [PMID: 16788133] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Sexton JB, Thomas EJ, Helmreich RL. Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. BMJ. 2000;320:745-9. [PMID: 10720356] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Rozich JD, Howard RJ, Justeson JM, Macken PD, Lindsay ME, Resar RK. Standardization as a mechanism to improve safety in health care. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2004;30:5-14. [PMID: 14738031] MedlineGoogle Scholar18. Wachter RM. The end of the beginning: patient safety five years after 'to err is human'. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4-534-45. [PMID: 15572380] Google Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Robert M. Wachter, MDAffiliations: From University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143.Disclosures: Dr. Wachter is on the Board of Directors of the American Board of Internal Medicine and the Scientific Advisory Boards of Hoana Medical, Codigy, and Intellidot.Corresponding Author: Robert M. Wachter, MD, Department of Medicine, Room M-994, 505 Parnassus, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0120; e-mail, [email protected]ucsf.edu. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoMissed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory Setting: A Study of Closed Malpractice Claims Tejal K. Gandhi , Allen Kachalia , Eric J. Thomas , Ann Louise Puopolo , Catherine Yoon , Troyen A. Brennan , and David M. Studdert Missed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory Setting Eta S. Berner , Randolph A. Miller , and Mark L. Graber Metrics Cited byConceptual and practical challenges associated with understanding patient safety within community‐based mental health servicesImproving Patient Safety in Public Hospitals: Developing Standard Measures to Track Medical Errors and Process BreakdownsTackling Ambulatory Safety Risks Through Patient Engagement: What 10,000 Patients and Families Say About Safety-Related Knowledge, Behaviors, and Attitudes After Reading Visit NotesExamining Medical Office Owners and Clinicians Perceptions on Patient Safety ClimateCall to Action: Addressing Pediatric Fall Safety in Ambulatory EnvironmentsWhat Safety Events Are Reported For Ambulatory Care? Analysis of Incident Reports from a Patient Safety OrganizationPrioritizing Patient Safety Efforts in Office Practice SettingsFactors contributing to patient safety incidents in primary care: a descriptive analysis of patient safety incidents in a French study using CADYA (categorization of errors in primary care)Accurate Measurement In California's Safety-Net Health Systems Has Gaps And BarriersTwo Decades Since To Err Is Human : An Assessment Of Progress And Emerging Priorities In Patient SafetyPatient safety in phlebology: The ACP Phlebology Safety ChecklistThe effect of facility characteristics on patient safety, patient experience, and service availability for procedures in non-hospital-affiliated outpatient settings: A systematic reviewPatient safety incidents are common in primary care: A national prospective active incident reporting surveyTip of the iceberg: patient safety incidents in primary carePatient Safety in Outpatient CareSafety Events during an Automated Telephone Self-Management Support InterventionAdverse Drug Events in U.S. Adult Ambulatory Medical CareClinician Personality and the Evaluation of Higher-Risk Patient SymptomsPatient Safety beyond the HospitalOutpatient Adverse Drug Events Identified by Screening Electronic Health RecordsPatient Safety At Ten: Unmistakable Progress, Troubling GapsPatient Safety and Error ManagementStrategies for Safe Medication Use in Ambulatory Care Settings in the United StatesRefocusing the Lens: Patient Safety in Ambulatory Chronic Disease CareUse of an Interactive, Telephone-based Self-management Support Program to Identify Adverse Events Among Ambulatory Diabetes PatientsPractical Solutions to Improve Safety in the Obstetrics/Gynecology Office Setting and in the Operating RoomThe Quality and Safety of Ambulatory Medical Care: Current and Future ProspectsMissed and Delayed Diagnoses in the Ambulatory SettingEta S. Berner, EdD, Randolph A. Miller, MD, and Mark L. Graber, MD 3 October 2006Volume 145, Issue 7Page: 547-549KeywordsCancer treatmentElectronic medical recordsHospital medicineMedical staffMotivationOutpatient clinicsOutpatientsPrevention, policy, and public healthResidencySafety ePublished: 3 October 2006 Issue Published: 3 October 2006 PDF downloadLoading ...