Patient Safety: Long Way to Go?

April 10, 2013
A book I’ve been reading about the death of President James Garfield can be connected to a recent report which discussed patient safety at-length. The report, from Consumer Reports, looked at the safety rankings of U.S. hospitals in six measures. The results were not positive for the healthcare industry, according to Consumer Reports, which said more than half (51 percent) of the hospitals rated received a score below 50 (on a scale of 1-100).

I’ve been reading a great book lately about the death of President James Garfield, the 20th president of the U.S., and the second to be assassinated while in office. The book, Destiny of the Republic, written by Candice Millard, details the rise of the self-made Garfield, his unlikely ascension into the highest office in the country, and why a delusional, deranged Charles Guiteau shot him in the back on a summer’s day in 1881 at a Washington, D.C., train station.

What does this book have to do with healthcare? Well, the book talks about how President Garfield’s medical team, led by Dr. Doctor Bliss (yes, Doctor was his first name), royally screwed up his care, and ultimately caused his death. According to Millard’s book, it wasn’t the bullet that entered Garfield’s back that killed him, but rather the infections in his blood, caused by a lack of antisepsis treatments that were not yet popularized in American medicine.

Moments after Garfield was shot, he was informally treated on the dirty train station floor, where numerous doctors put their unwashed fingers in his wound, allowing infections to enter his body. The lack of un-clean treatment continued until Garfield died approximately two months after he was shot.  Though Garfield’s death was unfortunate, it did lead to the acceptance of antisepsis treatment in the U.S. Millard says had Garfield been shot only 10 years later, he would have survived. Had he been shot today, she says, he’d be on his feet in weeks.

A recent report which discussed patient safety at-length, made me think of Garfield’s story through Millard’s highly entertaining historical non-fiction narrative. The report, from Consumer Reports, looked at the safety rankings of U.S. hospitals in six measures. The results were not positive for the healthcare industry, according to Consumer Reports, which said more than half (51 percent) of the hospitals rated received a score below 50 (on a scale of 1-100).

Safety scores, Consumer Reports says, could be improved across the board. Even the hospital that scored the highest, Montana-based Billings Clinic, only received a safety score of 72.  

One of the safety measures examined is an old enemy of healthcare executives:  readmissions. According to Consumer Reports, research suggests that up to three-quarters of readmissions may be preventable. In addition while no hospital earned Consumer Reports’ highest score for readmissions, 166 hospitals received its lowest score.  Considering Consumer Reports rated 1,159 hospitals across 44 states, this equates to roughly 14 percent that received the lowest score, which is fairly high.

Another measure related to health IT that could be improved is communication. According to the report, no hospital earned the top score while almost 500 hospitals earned the lowest score for communication about new medications and discharge plans.

The report also highlighted the risks associated with infections and radiation overload. According to the report, 202 hospitals reported infections at rates higher than the national benchmark, and only 148 reported zero infections. In terms of radiation overload, there were a high number of hospitals that had a high double CT-scan rate, which according to a doctor interviewed for the report, is necessary in less than one percent of the patients.

If this truly is reflective of the industry, these kinds of numbers are alarming, this day and age. We know how much effort is being put into curbing readmission rates at hospitals. We also know how organizations like the Institute of Medicine have made internal patient safety improvement a focal issue, through extensive reports. Clearly this is an issue, but I had no idea how much progress has still yet to be made.

“Medical harm is probably one of the three leading causes of death in the U.S., but the government doesn’t adequately track it as it does deaths from automobiles, plane crashes, and cancer. It’s appalling,” said Peter Pronovost, M.D., senior vice president for patient safety at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, to Consumer Reports.

When I read about Doctor Bliss, and how President Garfield’s life was taken by poor medical care, I realize how far we’ve come in 130 years. But as this report shows, we may have a lot longer to go.

What do you think? Is this report overblown, or does it signify a real issue for providers?  Please leave your comments below to continue the discussion.

Sponsored Recommendations

Clinical Evaluation: An AI Assistant for Primary Care

The AAFP's clinical evaluation offers a detailed analysis of how an innovative AI solution can help relieve physicians' administrative burden and aid them in improving health ...

From Chaos to Clarity: How AI Is Making Sense of Clinical Documentation

From Chaos to Clarity dives deep into how AI Is making sense of disorganized patient data and turning it into evidence-based diagnosis suggestions that physicians can trust, leading...

Bridging the Health Plan/Provider Gap: Data-Driven Collaboration for a Value-Based Future

Download the findings report to understand the current perspective of provider and health plan leaders’ shift to value-based care—with a focus on the gaps holding them back and...

Exploring the future of healthcare with Advanced Practice Providers

Discover how Advanced Practice Providers are transforming healthcare: boosting efficiency, cutting wait times and enhancing patient care through strategic integration and digital...