Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Volume 61, Issue 2 , Pages 193-205, August 2009

Patient safety:

Part II. Opportunities for improvement in patient safety

  • Dirk M. Elston, MD

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Dermatology and Pathology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Dirk M. Elston, MD, Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Medical Center, 100 N Academy Ave, Danville, PA 17822-1406.
  • ,
  • Erik Stratman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology at the Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, Wisconsin
  • ,
  • Hillary Johnson-Jahangir, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
  • ,
  • Alice Watson, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Susan Swiggum, MD

      Affiliations

    • Canadian Medical Protective Association and the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • ,
  • C. William Hanke, MD

      Affiliations

    • Laser and Skin Surgery Center of Indiana, Carmel, Indiana

The quality movement in medicine has prompted a shift from a “name, shame, blame” approach to medical errors to one in which each error is regarded as an opportunity to prevent future patient harm. This new culture of patient safety requires the involvement of all members of the health care team and learned skill sets related to quality improvement. A root cause analysis identifies the sources of medical errors, allowing system changes that reduce the risk. In large organizations, sentinel events and signals prompt chart reviews and reduce the reliance on voluntary reporting. Failure mode analysis prompts the development of safety nets in the case of a system failure. The second part of this two-part series on patient safety examines how the culture of patient safety is taught, how medical errors and threats to patient safety can be identified, and how engineering tools can be used to improve patient care. It also examines efforts to measure clinical effectiveness and outcomes in the practice of medicine.

Learning objectives

After completing this learning activity, participants should be able to improve patient safety through an understanding of both the beneficial and adverse consequences of quality reporting, apply safety engineering tools to the practice of dermatology, and be able to establish a quality improvement plan for a dermatologic practice.

Key words: medical errors, morbidity, mortality, office-based, patient safety, quality, surgery

 

 Funding sources: None.

 Conflicts of interest: The authors, editors, and peer reviewers have no relevant financial relationships.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0190-9622(09)00602-1

doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2009.04.055

Refers to article:

  • CME examination

    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology August 2009 (Vol. 61, Issue 2, Page 206)

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Volume 61, Issue 2 , Pages 193-205, August 2009