Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Identifying and comparing risks in emergency medicine.

M Thomas1, R Morton, K Mackway-Jones

  • 1Emergency Department, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK.

Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ
|June 23, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Self-poisoning suicide deaths in England: could improved medical management contribute to suicide prevention?

QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians·2010
Same author

Can a modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score outperform the original for risk stratifying emergency department patients with chest pain?

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2009
Same author

Incidence and causes of critical incidents in emergency departments: a comparison and root cause analysis.

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2008
Same author

Derivation of the children's head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events decision rule for head injury in children.

Archives of disease in childhood·2006
Same author

Who's who at a major incident: standardising role titles for emergency planners.

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2006
Same author

Best evidence topic report. Towards evidence based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary.

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2006
Same journal

Challenges faced by UK HEMS clinicians when managing awake patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries: a cross-sectional survey.

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2026
Same journal

Is there evidence that intranasal ketamine can provide adequate procedural sedation in paediatric patients?

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2026
Same journal

Consensus-based definition of paediatric out-of-hospital clinical deterioration: a modified delphi study.

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2026
Same journal

Parents' and children's experiences of prehospital care after a child's head injury: a qualitative study.

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2026
Same journal

Nurse-delivered intravenous opioids in UK emergency departments: implications for pain standards and practice.

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2026
Same journal

Are high doses of naloxone required for nitazene overdoses?

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ·2026
See all related articles

Patient assessment failures are the most common risks in emergency departments (EDs). Risk types significantly differ across various EDs, highlighting the need for targeted safety improvements.

Area of Science:

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Patient Safety
  • Risk Management

Background:

  • Emergency departments (EDs) face numerous critical incidents.
  • Understanding risk types is crucial for improving patient safety.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify prevalent risk types within emergency departments.
  • To compare the occurrence of risks across different EDs.

Main Methods:

  • A risk typology was applied to a database of 816 critical incidents.
  • Data were collected uniformly from four EDs in the North West of England.
  • Statistical comparisons were made between EDs regarding incident types and severity.

Main Results:

  • Patient assessment omission failures were the most frequent, comprising 35.6% of incidents.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Level 1 and Level 2 failures accounted for 31.1% of incidents.
  • Significant differences in critical incident types were observed between EDs (p = 0.009).

    • Conclusions:

    • Emergency departments experience a high volume of critical incidents with potential for severe harm.
    • The types of risks encountered vary significantly among different emergency departments.