Search

Background Understanding the patient safety literature has been compromised by the inconsistent use of language. Objectives To identify key concepts of relevance to the International Patient Safety Classification (ICPS) proposed by the World Alliance For Patient Safety of the World Health Organization (WHO), and agree on definitions and preferred terms. Methods Six principles were agreed upon—that the concepts and terms should: be applicable across the full spectrum of healthcare; be consistent with concepts from other WHO Classifications; have meanings as close as possible to those in colloquial use; convey the appropriate meanings with respect to patient safety; be brief and clear, without unnecessary or redundant qualifiers; be fit-for-purpose for the ICPS. Results Definitions and preferred terms were agreed for 48 concepts of relevance to the ICPS; these were described and the relationships between them and the ICPS were outlined. Conclusions The consistent use of key concepts, definitions and preferred terms should pave the way for better understanding, for comparisons between facilities and jurisdictions, and for trends to be tracked over time. Changes and improvements, translation into other languages and alignment with other sets of patient safety definitions will be necessary. This work represents the start of an ongoing process of progressively improving a common international understanding of terms and concepts relevant to patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global advances in patient safety have been hampered by the lack of a uniform classification of patient safety concepts. This is a significant barrier to developing strategies to reduce risk, performing evidence-based research and evaluating existing healthcare policies relevant to patient safety. Since 2005, the World Health Organizations World Alliance for Patient Safety has undertaken the Project to Develop an International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS) to devise a classification which transforms patient safety information collected from disparate systems into a common format to facilitate aggregation, analysis and learning across disciplines, borders and time. A drafting group, comprised of experts from the fields of patient safety, classification theory, health informatics, consumer/patient advocacy, law and medicine, identified and defined key patient safety concepts and developed an internationally agreed conceptual framework for the ICPS based upon existing patient safety classifications. The conceptual framework was iteratively improved through technical expert meetings and a two-stage web-based modified Delphi survey of over 250 international experts. This work culminated in a conceptual framework consisting of ten high level classes: incident type, patient outcomes, patient characteristics, incident characteristics, contributing factors/hazards, organizational outcomes, detection, mitigating factors, ameliorating actions and actions taken to reduce risk. While the framework for the ICPS is in place, several challenges remain. Concepts need to be defined, guidance for using the classification needs to be provided, and further real-world testing needs to occur to progressively refine the ICPS to ensure it is fit for purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Interpretation and comparison of patient safety information have been compromised by the lack of a common understanding of the concepts involved. The World Alliance set out to develop an International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS) to address this, and to test the relevance and acceptability of the draft ICPS and progressively refine it prior to field testing. Design Two-stage Delphi survey. Quantitative and qualitative analyses informed the review of the ICPS. Setting International web-based survey of expert opinion. Participants Experts in the fields of patient safety, health policy, reporting systems, safety and quality control, classification theory and development, health informatics, consumer advocacy, law and medicine; 253 responded to the first round survey, 30% of whom responded to the second round. Results In the first round, 14% felt that the conceptual framework was missing at least one class, although it was apparent that most respondents were actually referring to concepts they felt should be included within the classes rather than the classes themselves. There was a need for clarification of several components of the classification, particularly its purpose, structure and depth. After revision and feedback, round 2 results were more positive, but further significant changes were made to the conceptual framework and to the major classes in response to concerns about terminology and relationships between classes. Conclusions The Delphi approach proved invaluable, as both a consensus-building exercise and consultation process, in engaging stakeholders to support completion of the final draft version of the ICPS. Further refinement will occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]