Dataset Information

Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness, reliability, and acceptability of estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events using three methods: cross sectional (data gathered in one day), prospective (data gathered during hospital stay), and retrospective (review of medical records).

Design

Independent assessment of three methods applied to one sample.

Setting

37 wards in seven hospitals (three public, four private) in southwestern France.

Participants

778 patients: medical (n = 278), surgical (n = 263), and obstetric (n = 237).

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were the proportion of cases (patients with at least one adverse event) identified by each method compared with a reference list of cases confirmed by ward staff and the proportion of preventable cases (patients with at least one preventable adverse event). Secondary outcome measures were inter-rater reliability of screening and identification, perceived workload, and face validity of results.

Results

The prospective and retrospective methods identified similar numbers of medical and surgical cases (70% and 66% of the total, respectively) but the prospective method identified more preventable cases (64% and 40%, respectively), had good reliability for identification (kappa = 0.83), represented an acceptable workload, and had higher face validity. The cross sectional method showed a large number of false positives and identified none of the most serious adverse events. None of the methods was appropriate for obstetrics.

Conclusion

The prospective method of data collection may be more appropriate for epidemiological studies that aim to convince clinical teams that their errors contribute significantly to adverse events, to study organisational and human factors, and to assess the impact of risk reduction programmes.

SUBMITTER: Michel P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC318484 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals.

Michel Philippe P Quenon Jean Luc JL de Sarasqueta Anne Marie AM Scemama Olivier O

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20040101 7433

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the effectiveness, reliability, and acceptability of estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events using three methods: cross sectional (data gathered in one day), prospective (data gathered during hospital stay), and retrospective (review of medical records).<h4>Design</h4>Independent assessment of three methods applied to one sample.<h4>Setting</h4>37 wards in seven hospitals (three public, four private) in southwestern France.<h4>Part ...[more]

PMID: 14739187

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOlder US adults often receive care from multiple ambulatory providers. Seeing multiple providers may be clinically appropriate but creates challenges for communication. Whether frailty is a risk factor for gaps in communication among older adults and subsequent preventable adverse events is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of community-dwelling US adults ≥ 65 years of age in the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study who attended an in-home study examination in 2013-2016 and completed a survey on experiences with healthcare in 2017-2018 (n = 5,024). Using 5 frailty indicators (low body mass index, exhaustion, slow walk, weakness, and history of falls), we characterized participants into 3 mutually exclusive groups: not frail (0 indicators), intermediate-frail (1-2 indicators), and frail (3-5 indicators). We used survey data on self-reported gaps in care coordination and self-reported adverse events that participants attributed to poor communication among providers (a drug-drug interaction, repeat testing, an emergency department visit, or a hospital admission).ResultsOverall, 2,398 (47.7%) participants were not frail, 2,436 (48.5%) were intermediate-frail, and 190 (3.8%) were frail. The prevalence of any gap in care coordination was 37.0%, 40.8%, and 51.1% among participants who were not frail, intermediate-frail and frail, respectively. The adjusted prevalence ratio (PR) for any gap in care coordination among intermediate-frail and frail versus not frail participants was 1.09 (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.02-1.18) and 1.34 (95%CI 1.15-1.56), respectively. The prevalence of any preventable adverse event was 7.0%, 11.3% and 20.0% among participants who were not frail, intermediate-frail and frail, respectively. The adjusted PR for any preventable adverse event among those who were intermediate-frail and frail versus not frail was 1.47 (95%CI 1.22-1.77) and 2.24 (95%CI 1.60-3.14), respectively.ConclusionAmong older adults, frailty is associated with an increased prevalence for self-reported gaps in care coordination and preventable adverse events. Targeted interventions to address patient-reported concerns regarding care coordination among intermediate-frail and frail older adults may be warranted.

Project description:BackgroundLimited data are available on adverse events among children admitted to hospital. The Canadian Paediatric Adverse Events Study was done to describe the epidemiology of adverse events among children in hospital in Canada.MethodsWe performed a 2-stage medical record review at 8 academic pediatric centres and 14 community hospitals in Canada. We reviewed charts from patients admitted from April 2008 through March 2009, evenly distributed across 4 age groups (0 to 28 d; 29 to 365 d; > 1 to 5 yr and > 5 to 18 yr). In stage 1, nurses and health records personnel who had received training in the use of the Canadian Paediatric Trigger Tool reviewed medical records to detect triggers for possible adverse events. In stage 2, physicians reviewed the charts identified as having triggers and described the adverse events.ResultsA total of 3669 children were admitted to hospital during the study period. The weighted rate of adverse events was 9.2%. Adverse events were more frequent in academic pediatric centres than in community hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-5.39). The incidence of preventable adverse events was not significantly different between types of hospital, but nonpreventable adverse events were more common in academic pediatric centres (adjusted OR 4.39, 95% CI 2.08-9.27). Surgical events predominated overall and occurred more frequently in academic pediatric centres than in community hospitals (37.2% v. 21.5%, relative risk [RR] 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.1), whereas events associated with diagnostic errors were significantly less frequent (11.1% v. 23.1%, RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9).InterpretationMore children have adverse events in academic pediatric centres than in community hospitals; however, adverse events in the former are less likely to be preventable. There are many opportunities to reduce harm affecting children in hospital in Canada, particularly related to surgery, intensive care and diagnostic error.

Dataset Information

Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets