Patient safety classifications, taxonomies and ontologies, part 2: A systematic review on content coverage

Abstract

Background: Content coverage of patient safety ontology and classification systems should be evaluated to provide a guide for users to select appropriate ones for specific applications. In this review, we identified and compare content coverage of patient safety classifications and ontologies.

Methods: We searched different databases and ontology/classification repositories to identify these classifications and ontologies. We included patient safety-related taxonomies, ontologies, classifications, and terminologies. We identified and extracted different concepts covered by these systems and mapped these concepts to international classification for patient safety (ICPS) and finally compared the content of these systems.

Results: Finally, 89 papers (77 classifications or ontologies) were analyzed. Thirteen classifications have been developed to cover all medical domains. Among specific domain systems, most systems cover medication (16), surgery (8), medical devices (3), general practice (3), and primary care (3). The most common patient safety-related concepts covered in these systems include incident types (41), contributing factors/hazards (31), patient outcomes (29), degree of harm (25), and action (18). However, stage/phase (6), incident characteristics (5), detection (5), people involved (5), organizational outcomes (4), error type (4), and care setting (3) are some of the less covered concepts in these classifications/ontologies.

Conclusion: Among general systems, ICPS, World Health Organization's Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART), and Ontology of Adverse Events (OAE) cover most patient safety concepts and can be used as a gold standard for all medical domains. As a result, reporting systems could make use of these broad classifications, but the majority of their covered concepts are related to patient outcomes, with the exception of ICPS, which covers other patient safety concepts. However, the ICPS does not cover specialized domain concepts. For specific medical domains, MedDRA, NCC MERP, OPAE, ADRO, PPST, OCCME, TRTE, TSAHI, and PSIC-PC provide the broadest coverage of concepts. Many of the patient safety classifications and ontologies are not formally registered or available as formal classification/ontology in ontology repositories such as BioPortal. This study may be used as a guide for choosing appropriate classifications for various applications or expanding less developed patient safety classifications/ontologies. Furthermore, the same concepts are not represented by the same terms; therefore, the current study could be used to guide a harmonization process for existing or future patient safety classifications/ontologies.

Keywords: Adverse event; Classification; Content coverage; Mapping; Medical errors; Ontology; Patient safety; Taxonomy; Terminology.