You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 104, Issue 2
  • Systematic physician cross-checking between emergency department physicians is associated with a significant reduction in adverse events

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Structured abstracts of sentinel articles: Picket
Systematic physician cross-checking between emergency department physicians is associated with a significant reduction in adverse events
  1. Victoria Currie1,
  2. Stuart Hartshorn2
  1. 1 School of Paediatrics, West Midlands Deanery, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2 Emergency Department, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Stuart Hartshorn, Emergency Department, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Birmingham B4 6NH, UK; stuart.hartshorn{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-315850

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Randomised crossover trial.1

    Setting: 6 Emergency departments (EDs) in France.

    Patients: Random sample of adults (mean age 57.5 years) attending the EDs between 8:30 and 16:00 on a weekday, within one of two 10-day inclusion periods. 1680 patients in total (840 in each arm).

    Intervention: Attendance during periods of cross-checking. This comprised a brief case presentation by one ED physician followed by feedback from a second ED physician, occurring three times per day.

    Outcomes: Rates of ED medical error, defined as preventable serious adverse events (injuries that might have resulted from medical care or lack thereof, but could have been prevented) or near misses (medical errors with the potential to cause an adverse event but which did not, either by chance or after an intervention). These errors were determined by a two-level review with the initial screening of charts by an …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.