Expert Consensus on Currently Accepted Measures of Harm

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.
Background Twenty-five years after the seminal work of the Harvard Medical Practice Study, the numbers and specific types of health care measures of harm have evolved and expanded. Using the World Café method to derive expert consensus, we sought to generate a contemporary list of triggers and adverse event measures that could be used for chart review to determine the current incidence of inpatient and outpatient adverse events. Methods We held a modified World Café event in March 2018, during which content experts were divided into 10 tables by clinical domain. After a focused discussion of a prepopulated list of literature-based triggers and measures relevant to that domain, they were asked to rate each measure on clinical importance and suitability for chart review and electronic extraction (very low, low, medium, high, very high). Results Seventy-one experts from 9 diverse institutions attended (primary acceptance rate, 72%). Of 525 total triggers and measures, 67% of 391 measures and 46% of 134 triggers were deemed to have high or very high clinical importance. For those triggers and measures with high or very high clinical importance, 218 overall were deemed to be highly amenable to chart review and 198 overall were deemed to be suitable for electronic surveillance. Conclusions The World Café method effectively prioritized measures/triggers of high clinical importance including those that can be used in chart review, which is considered the gold standard. A future goal is to validate these measures using electronic surveillance mechanisms to decrease the need for chart review.