Categorizing errors and adverse events for learning: a provider perspective

There is little agreement in the literature as to what types of patient safety events (PSEs) should be the focus for learning, change and improvement, and we lack clear and universally accepted definitions of error. In particular, the way front-line providers or managers understand and categorize different types of errors, adverse events and near misses and the kinds of events this audience believes to be valuable for learning are not well understood. Focus groups of front-line providers, managers and patient safety officers were used to explore how people in healthcare organizations understand and categorize different types of PSEs in the context of bringing about learning from such events. A typology of PSEs was developed from the focus group data and then mailed, along with a short questionnaire, to focus group participants for member checking and validation. Four themes emerged from our data: (1) incidence study categories are problematic for those working in organizations; (2) preventable events should be the focus for learning; (3) near misses are an important but complex category, differentiated based on harm potential and proximity to patients; (4) staff disagree on whether events causing severe harm or events with harm potential are most valuable for learning. A typology of PSEs based on these themes and checked by focus group participants indicates that staff and their managers divide events into simple categories of minor and major events, which are differentiated based on harm or harm potential. Confusion surrounding patient safety terminology detracts from the abilities of providers to talk about and reflect on a range of PSEs, and from opportunities to enhance learning, reduce event reoccurrence and improve patient safety at the point of care.