I'm wondering why ASHRM has adopted the goal of getting to zero preventable adverse events instead of all adverse events? I know this comes directly from HPI whose program ASHRM seems to have adopted, but doesn't it make more sense to aim for zero adverse events. Aren't we really trying to get patients through our care without injury. Doesn't this limited goal continue to provide the same excuses we have used for years i.e. "it was within the standard of care". Remember how we used to say some central line infections could not be prevented? Is that our current thought? I think the IHI Global Trigger Tool definition makes a lot more sense. Adverse events should be counted if they result from medical care, period! That's the definition used by the Harvard Malpractice Study that resulted in the 100,000 deaths statistic over 20 years ago. Some institutions have adopted this approach along with transparency (Henry Ford Health System) by publishing their adverse event rate on their website. Congratulations to HFH. BQ