Deciphering harm measurement

30 May 2012 | Adverse Events

The need for agreement on how harm rates should be measured and tracked is highlighted in The Journal of the American Medical Association this week.

The author states that improvement in health care quality and safety can be notable when measurement criteria are clear, evidence is strong, and policy and interventions are focussed. However progress has been delayed due to difficulties in defining how harm should be measured.

The advantages and disadvantages of several approaches to measuring harm are discussed. The author concludes that an adapted version of the Global Trigger Tool which excludes harm present on admission, calculates separate rates for higher-severity harm and estimates rates of preventable harm, may be the best option.

Click here to read the article.

Last updated 27/03/2015