How do near-miss reports differ from adverse event reports, and why are they both important?

• A. Near-misses involve no harm but could have caused harm; adverse events cause harm.
• B. Near-misses always lead to legal action.
• C. Adverse events are never preventable.
• D. Near-misses are ignored.

Answer: (A)

Near-miss reports capture events where no patient harm occurred, but the situation could have caused harm if it hadn’t been caught or corrected. Adverse event reports document incidents where actual harm did occur to a patient. This distinction matters because it shows different parts of safety risk: near misses highlight weaknesses in systems, processes, or checks that, if fixed, can prevent harm; adverse events reveal failures that still need remediation and can point to where processes broke down.

Both types are important. Reporting near misses builds a learning culture focused on prevention, helps identify recurring system issues, and guides proactive changes before harm happens. Reporting adverse events provides concrete learning from real harm, helping to understand what went wrong, why, and how to prevent recurrence. Together, they support continuous improvement and safer medication practices.

The other statements aren’t accurate: near-misses do not automatically lead to legal action; adverse events can be preventable; near-misses are not ignored and are actively encouraged in strong safety programs.