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: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.

Project description:While multiple studies have demonstrated variations in the quality of cancer care in the USA, payers are increasingly assessing structure-level and process-level measures to promote quality improvement. Hospital-acquired adverse events are one such measure and we examine their national trends after major cancer surgery.Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of a weighted-national estimate from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) undergoing major oncological procedures (colectomy, cystectomy, oesophagectomy, gastrectomy, hysterectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy and prostatectomy). The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) were utilised to identify trends in hospital-acquired adverse events.Secondary and tertiary care, US hospitals in NIS PARTICIPANTS: A weighted-national estimate of 2 508 917 patients (>18 years, 1999-2009) from NIS.Hospital-acquired adverse events.324 852 patients experienced ?1-PSI event (12.9%). Patients with ?1-PSI experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality (OR 19.38, 95% CI 18.44 to 20.37), prolonged length of stay (OR 4.43, 95% CI 4.31 to 4.54) and excessive hospital-charges (OR 5.21, 95% CI 5.10 to 5.32). Patients treated at lower volume hospitals experienced both higher PSI events and failure-to-rescue rates. While a steady increase in the frequency of PSI events after major cancer surgery has occurred over the last 10 years (estimated annual % change (EAPC): 3.5%, p<0.001), a concomitant decrease in failure-to-rescue rates (EAPC -3.01%) and overall mortality (EAPC -2.30%) was noted (all p<0.001).Over the past decade, there has been a substantial increase in the national frequency of potentially avoidable adverse events after major cancer surgery, with a detrimental effect on numerous outcome-level measures. However, there was a concomitant reduction in failure-to-rescue rates and overall mortality rates. Policy changes to improve the increasing burden of specific adverse events, such as postoperative sepsis, pressure ulcers and respiratory failure, are required.

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