← University
Adverse Events and Critical Incident Reporting
0 of 6

A medication error at a mid-sized regional hospital in central Alberta set off a chain of institutional questions that reached every level of the organization within 72 hours. The incident involved a 67-year-old patient recovering from elective surgery who received 10 times the intended dose of an anticoagulant medication, resulting in internal bleeding that required emergency intervention and an extended stay in intensive care. The patient survived but experienced complications that prolonged hospitalization by 11 days and left residual symptoms requiring ongoing monitoring.

The error originated during an overnight shift when a registered nurse on a medical-surgical unit transcribed a physician's verbal order into the electronic medication administration record. The nurse, working the 3rd consecutive 12-hour shift on a unit operating at 94 percent capacity with 2 vacant positions, entered a decimal point in the wrong position. The hospital's electronic ordering system flagged the dosage as outside normal parameters, but the nurse overrode the alert, a function the system permitted without requiring secondary authorization. A pharmacist reviewed the order 4 hours later during a routine batch check but did not catch the discrepancy before the medication was administered.

The patient's spouse, present at bedside during the deterioration, observed staff responding to the crisis and asked direct questions about what had caused the sudden change in condition. The attending physician, uncertain about the hospital's disclosure protocols and concerned about potential liability, provided only general reassurances during the acute phase. By the time the patient stabilized 36 hours later, no formal disclosure conversation had taken place with either the patient or the family.

The hospital's quality and patient safety department initiated an internal review, but administrators discovered that the unit in question had submitted only 4 incident reports in the preceding 6 months despite staffing pressures and workload concerns that staff had raised informally with their manager. Exit interviews with 3 nurses who had recently resigned from the unit revealed a pattern of discouraging incident reporting when the unit was short-staffed, with one departing nurse describing a culture in which submitting reports was viewed as creating work rather than protecting patients.

The regional health authority's patient safety reporting system required notification of serious adverse events within 24 hours, and the nursing regulatory body maintained its own expectations for self-reporting of practice concerns. The hospital now faced questions about what reports were required, to whom, and within what timeframes, alongside deeper questions about organizational culture, disclosure obligations to the patient and family, and whether the incident reflected individual error or systemic failure requiring root cause analysis and quality improvement intervention.

Defining Adverse Events and Near Misses in Canadian Healthcare

Healthcare professionals, corrections officers, residential care workers, and administrators across Canada share a fundamental obligation to recognize, report, and respond to adverse events and near misses within their care environments. This obligation arises not from a single source but from an interconnected web of federal and provincial legislation, professional regulatory standards, organizational policies, and common law duties of care that together establish the framework governing patient and resident safety in controlled care settings. Understanding what constitutes an adverse event or a near miss, and appreciating why the distinction matters, forms the essential foundation for meeting reporting obligations and contributing to systemic improvements that protect both those in care and those providing it.

An adverse event in Canadian healthcare contexts refers to an unintended injury or complication that results from healthcare management rather than from the underlying disease or condition, and that leads to death, disability, prolonged hospitalization, or other harm to the patient or resident. This definition, which has been adopted with variations across Canadian jurisdictions and healthcare accreditation bodies, distinguishes between harm caused by the natural progression of illness and harm attributable to the actions, omissions, or systems failures of those delivering care. The Canadian Patient Safety Institute, now part of Healthcare Excellence Canada as of the date of authorship, has long emphasized that adverse events are not synonymous with negligence or error, though they may sometimes involve both. Rather, they represent outcomes that warrant investigation and disclosure because they indicate that something in the care process contributed to harm that might otherwise have been prevented.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.