Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

CQI Tools Sentinel Events, Warning, and Action Limits

  • David Birnbaum (a1)

Extract

Sentinel events, that is, events whose single occurrence is of sufficient concern to trigger systematic response, recently were advocated as an important component in managing quality under Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). Ideally, sentinel events are exceedingly rare and invariably indicate preventable deficiencies (eg, operation on the wrong patient, which should never occur, denotes a lack of management control requiring corrective action). However, although single cases of nosocomial group A streptococcal surgical wound infection or of tuberculosis are harbingers of worse to come unless prompt intervention is initiated, sentinel events generally have not served infection surveillance programs adequately. This is because nosocomial infection is the result of multifactorial chains of events that produce a probability, not a certainty, of infection, and our knowledge is incomplete. Without detailed knowledge of these probabilistic chains, the absolute minimum rates of infection that may be attained, and the optimal statistical approaches to define predictive outbreak “warning” or “action” levels, we will not be able to define meaningful sentinel events. How, then, can we best assure health services quality?

Nearly 30 years ago, Drucker suggested that three elements comprise effective management decisions. They involve determining 1) whether a specific situation is generic or an exception, 2) clear specification of what the decision has to accomplish, and 3) what is right rather than simply what is acceptable.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Lee, L, Anderson, V, Piringer, P, Boone, J, Henderson, DK. An epidemiologic approach to quality improvement, quality assurance, and clinical research. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:545552.
2. Bimbaum, D. Nosocomial infection surveillance programs. Infect Control 1987;8:474479.
3. Rutstein, DD, Berenberg, W, Chalmers, TC, et al. Measuring the quality of medical care-a clinical method. N Engl J Med 1976;294:582588.
4. Drucker, PE The Effective Executive. New York, NY: Harper & Row: 1966:122142.
5. Centers for Disease Control. Guidelines for investigating clusters of health events. MMWR 1990;39(RR-11):123.
6. Cochran, WG. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1977:7677.
7. Kiem, K, Lentner, C, eds. Scientific Tables. 7th ed. Basel, Switzerland: CIBA-GEIGY Ltd.; 1970:186, #770.
8. Hanley, JA, Lippman-Hand, A. If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? JAMA 1983;249:17431745.
9. Gehan, EA. The determination of the number of patients required in a preliminary and a follow-up trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. J Chron Dis 1961;13:346353.
10. Brewer, JH, Gasser, CS. The affinity between continuous quality improvement and epidemic surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:9598.
11. Birnbaum, D. Analysis of hospital infection surveillance data. Infect Control 1984;5:332338.
12. Pyzdek, T. Process control for short and small runs. Quality Progress 1993;26:5160.
13. Stroup, DE Williamson, D, Herndon, JL, et al. Detection of aberrations in the occurrence of notifiable diseases surveillance data. Stat Med 1989;8:323329.
14. Garnerin, PH, Saidi, Y, Valleron, A-J. The French Communicable Diseases computer network. In: Parsons, DE Fleischer, CM, Greenes, RA, eds. Extended clinical consulting by hospital computer networks. Ann NY Acad Sci 1992;670:2942.
15. Dessau, RB, Steenberg, I? Computerized surveillance in clinical microbiology with time series analysis. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:857860.
16. Shifman, RB, Palmer, RA. Surveillance of nosocomial infections by computer analysis of positive culture rates. J Clin Microbiol 1985;21:493495.
17. Stroup, DE Wharton, M, Kafadar, K, Dean, AG. Evaluation of a method for detecting aberrations in public health surveillance data. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:373380.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

CQI Tools Sentinel Events, Warning, and Action Limits

  • David Birnbaum (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.