Blog #3: Patient’s Perspective on Adverse Events.

Question: In your own words, explain why or why not the perspective of the patient is the most important determinant as to whether an adverse event has occurred.

No, the patient should not be viewed as the most important determinant as to whether an adverse event has occurred. The patient observations, although extremely valuable and important, are not always available or reliable. If a system is established to utilize the patient as the most important determinant to monitor adverse events, then what happens when the patient is incoherent or does not have any family members to observe treatment? The system of checks and balances would fall apart.

Understandably, the common patient will tend to have a natural deficit in the language of adverse events. Patients might not have a complete understanding of the adverse events, but they do have the first hand perspective of understanding the effects being applied in their treatment. Patient’s lack of understanding for the system checks in place to interrupt adverse events does not mean they do not play a vital role in notifying their care workers of an event. Essentially, an observant patient or family member is a key player in the balance for the system of checks and balances, but only a component of the entire system. If a patient is coherent and mentally keeping track of what is going on, then in the event there is a repeated process then the patient can notify the care worker of the event. This helps to strengthen the overall system.

The patient, when in a state to participate, can offer much value to a system that utilizes patient input. This could be in the form of a digital survey interlaced with the patients viewing device for example. The patient could answer a couple of quick multiple-choice questions that would be calculated and uploaded to the EMR. Then, based off those answers the system could flag the EMR if an adverse event has occurred or is about to occur.

Patients need to focus on recovery, not system process to ensure adverse events are not occurring. This speaks volumes about the state of our current healthcare system. Errors occur at such an alarming rate that the environment of healing is now approaching a quasi healing/monitoring system where the patient is being asked to make sure things are being done correctly. This is not a standard of care we should be embracing. The organizational structures and communications must improve for the benefit of the patient. It is good to have patients who take a vested interest in their own health, but patients should not have to worry about maintaining a “defensive observation” while entrusting their care to a healthcare organization.