HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lilford, R J Articles by Hofer, T P Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lilford, R J Articles by Hofer, T P

The measurement of active errors: methodological issues

¹ Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
² HSR&D (11H), VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA

Correspondence to:
R J Lilford
Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; r.j.lilford{at}bham.ac.uk The value of research in any topic area turns on its validity. Patient safety research has revealed—or, at least, given renewed urgency to—a raft of methodological issues. The meaning and thus the value of empirical research in this field is contingent on getting the methodology right. The need for good methods for the measurement of error is necessary whenever an inference is intended and, since inferences lie at the heart of research and management, there is a huge need to understand better how to make measurements that are meaningful, precise, and accurate. In this paper we consider issues relating to the measurement of error and the need for more research.

Keywords: error measurement

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C Brown, T Hofer, A Johal, R Thomson, J Nicholl, B D Franklin, and R J Lilford An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 3. End points and measurement Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2008; 17(3): 170 - 177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E N de Vries, M A Ramrattan, S M Smorenburg, D J Gouma, and M A Boermeester The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2008; 17(3): 216 - 223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J Lilford, C. A Brown, and J. Nicholl Use of process measures to monitor the quality of clinical practice BMJ, September 29, 2007; 335(7621): 648 - 650. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M K Szekendi, C Sullivan, A Bobb, J Feinglass, D Rooney, C Barnard, and G A Noskin Active surveillance using electronic triggers to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients. Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2006; 15(3): 184 - 190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J West, J Wright, D Tuffnell, D Jankowicz, and R West Do clinical trials improve quality of care? A comparison of clinical processes and outcomes in patients in a clinical trial and similar patients outside a trial where both groups are managed according to a strict protocol Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2005; 14(3): 175 - 178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M J Shapiro, J C Morey, S D Small, V Langford, C J Kaylor, L Jagminas, S Suner, M L Salisbury, R Simon, and G D Jay Simulation based teamwork training for emergency department staff: does it improve clinical team performance when added to an existing didactic teamwork curriculum? Qual. Saf. Health Care, December 1, 2004; 13(6): 417 - 421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]