2007 Guide to State Adverse Event Reporting Systems
Since the Institute of Medicine called for a nationwide, mandatory reporting system to provide for the collection by state governments of standardized information about adverse medical events, much state activity has focused on the development and refinement of these systems. The information collected can help identify health system weaknesses, complement other state functions, and help safeguard health-care consumers.
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) recently collected information about all state adverse event reporting systems that were authorized as of October 2007. For purposes of this research, state adverse event reporting systems were defined as those systems authorized and operated by state governments to collect reports from hospitals (and in some cases other types of facilities such as ambulatory surgical centers) about adverse events, with the intent of improving patient safety. The work was supported by the Commonwealth Fund.
This State Health Policy Survey Report provides a snap shot of the current scope and operations of state adverse event reporting systems and compares current information with information from previous NASHP work. The intent of this work is to identify trends in state policies governing those systems.
| shpsurveyreport_adverse2007.pdf | 1.2 MB |

For individuals living with complex, often chronic conditions, and their families, palliative care can provide relief from symptoms, improve satisfaction and outcomes, and help address critical mental and spiritual needs during difficult times. Now more than ever, there is growing recognition of the importance of palliative care services for individuals with serious illness, such as advance care planning, pain and symptom management, care coordination, and team-based, multi-disciplinary support. These services can help patients and families cope with the symptoms and stressors of disease, better anticipate and avoid crises, and reduce unnecessary and/or unwanted care. While this model is grounded in evidence that demonstrates improved quality of life, better outcomes, and reduced cost for patients, only a fraction of individuals who could benefit from palliative care receive it. 























































































































































