Skip to main content
Sister Publication Links
  • ESG: THE NEW IMPERATIVE
Subscribe
  • My Account
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • COVID-19
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Transformation
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Digital Health
  • Insights
    • ACA 10 Years After
    • Best Practices
    • Special Reports
    • Innovations
  • Data/Lists
    • Rankings/Lists
    • Interactive Databases
    • Data Points
  • Op-Ed
    • Bold Moves
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Vital Signs Blog
    • From the Editor
  • Awards
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top 25 Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
    • Women in Healthcare
    • - Luminaries
    • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
    • - Leaders to Watch
    • - Luminaries
    • - Top 25 Women Leaders
    • - Women to Watch
  • Events
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Custom Media Event: ESG Summit
    • Transformation Summit
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Supply Chain Revenue Cycle
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - Strategic Marketing
    • - Virtual Health
  • Listen
    • Podcast - Next Up
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Video Series - The Check Up
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
  • MORE +
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Newsletters
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Safety & Quality
July 18, 2016 01:00 AM

Blog: BMJ medical errors paper fuels growing debate

Elizabeth Whitman
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    In early May, the BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal, published a study that claimed medical errors led to the death of 251,454 people in the United States every year. The report immediately generated headlines in leading news outlets like the New York Times, NPR, the Washington Post and others.

    It also led to a tsunami of backlash from doctors and others in the medical community. The study's estimates were inflated, many were quick to argue. Critics targeted everything from the researchers' methodology (flawed, lazy) to their agenda (headline-chasing). They decried the damage it had inflicted on the U.S.' medical reputation and on relationships between doctors and patients. Yet others have said the study ought to instead draw badly needed attention to the subject of medical error and the inconsistent ways in which it's measured.

    “We appreciate the urge to draw attention to this area,” Kaveh Shojania, a physician and researcher who is the editor-in-chief of the journal BMJ Quality & Safety, and Mary Dixon-Woods, the RAND professor of health services research at the University of Cambridge, wrote in a joint comment on BMJ's website a month after the study was published.

    “But it is critical that the claims made to secure attention are well-founded. We worry that this estimate is not,” they added.

    The BMJ study, carried out by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, deemed medical errors the third-highest cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer. They drew on four studies looking at deaths due to medical errors and extrapolated from the data to reach what they said was an underestimate of such casualties.

    That low number accounted for 9.7% of all deaths in the U.S., they said. They called upon the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to revise cause-of-death reporting by allowing a space on death certificates to show whether or not medical error was a factor.

    Several in the medical world have openly rejected those findings.

    In a blog post for the Pennsylvania Medical Society, Dr. Shyam Sabat, an associate professor of neuroradiology, slammed the study, writing that it “likely purposefully has a tabloid type spicy headline” and calling it “an extremely shoddy piece of scientific and statistical work.” Sabat, who said he reviewed the paper with an expert statistician, questioned whether the study was truly a meta-analysis of four other studies.

    Three of the studies were small enough that they lacked the “statistical power to be clubbed [sic] together,” he stated in a petition for BMJ to retract the study. As a result, the study's projections of medical errors were outrageous, he said, because the authors of the study had taken mortality rates from a sicker Medicare population and applied them to all U.S. inpatient admissions, without any adjustments.

    Sabat's claim echoed an opinion piece by Vinay Prasad, a senior scholar in the Center for Ethics in Health Care at Oregon Health & Science University, published on STAT News a week after the BMJ study.

    “The authors essentially averaged error-related death rates from four prior studies and then extrapolated it to the number of hospitalized patients today,” Prasad wrote. Besides, the study's definition of medical error—anything “that does not achieve its intended outcome”—was “uselessly broad,” he said.

    Yet others, including the BMJ study's lead author, insist that focusing on the study's flaws diverts attention from fixing what is a legitimate and serious problem in medicine.

    “Even if this study is flawed, there still is a claim on the table that there's a really serious safety issue,” said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Medical School. “That doesn't mean the paper's right. It just means it's not wildly inconsistent with other claims,” he added.

    In 1999, a landmark report from the Institute of Medicine, To Err Is Human, estimated the death toll from medical error in the U.S. to be anywhere from 44,000 and 98,000 people per year. The report is often credited with sparking a national discussion of patient safety.

    Even earlier than that report was the Harvard Medical Practice Study, which examined 31,429 records of hospitalized patients in New York in 1984. Extrapolating the data to apply to all 2.6 million hospitalized patients in the state that year, they determined that out of an estimated 98,609 adverse events, 56.8% suffered minimal disability followed by complete recovery, 13.7% had moderate disability with complete recovery, and 13.6%—13,451 people—died. A small proportion, 2.6%, suffered permanent total disability.

    Dr. Martin Makary, the lead author of the controversial BMJ study and a surgeon at Johns Hopkins, told Modern Healthcare in an email that the definition of medical error his study used had “stirred a territorial discussion around nomenclature.” He defended his work, saying that “while no estimate is perfect, we offer a more updated estimate that is based on rigorous scientific studies.”

    He pointed as well to the broader, fundamental issues that his study highlighted. “The very real problem of medical care gone wrong should be measured rigorously,” Makary said, yet methods to do so remain inadequate.

    “Our definition (of medical error) is best summarized in the notion that people can die from the care they receive rather than from the disease or injury that brings them to care,” Makary said. “An honest conversation on the best available scientific data is an important prerequisite to addressing the problem.”

    The BMJ did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    coronavirus_covid-19_AP_edit_i.jpg
    Dominant coronavirus mutant contains ghost of pandemic past
    Pandemic-weary Americans plan for summer despite COVID surge
    Pandemic-weary Americans plan for summer despite COVID surge
    Sponsored Content
    COVID-19 Coverage Newsletter: Sign up today to receive a comprehensive daily newsletter designed for healthcare leaders looking for the most accurate and comprehensive resources related to coronavirus.
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2022. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • COVID-19
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Digital Health
    • Insights
      • ACA 10 Years After
      • Best Practices
      • Special Reports
      • Innovations
    • Data/Lists
      • Rankings/Lists
      • Interactive Databases
      • Data Points
    • Op-Ed
      • Bold Moves
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • Vital Signs Blog
      • From the Editor
    • Awards
      • Nominate/Eligibility
      • 100 Most Influential People
      • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
      • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
      • Excellence in Governance
      • Health Care Hall of Fame
      • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
      • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
      • Top 25 Innovators
      • Diversity in Healthcare
        • - Luminaries
        • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
        • - Leaders to Watch
      • Women in Healthcare
        • - Luminaries
        • - Top 25 Women Leaders
        • - Women to Watch
    • Events
      • Conferences
        • Transformation Summit
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Leadership Symposium
      • Galas
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Supply Chain Revenue Cycle
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - Strategic Marketing
        • - Virtual Health
      • Webinars
      • Custom Media Event: ESG Summit
    • Listen
      • Podcast - Next Up
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Video Series - The Check Up
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • MORE +
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Newsletters
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing