54
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The incidence of adverse events in Swedish hospitals: a retrospective medical record review study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To estimate the incidence, nature and consequences of adverse events and preventable adverse events in Swedish hospitals.

          Design

          A three-stage structured retrospective medical record review based on the use of 18 screening criteria.

          Setting

          Twenty-eight Swedish hospitals.

          Population

          A representative sample ( n = 1967) of the 1.2 million Swedish hospital admissions between October 2003 and September 2004.

          Main Outcome Measures

          Proportion of admissions with adverse events, the proportion of preventable adverse events and the types and consequences of adverse events.

          Results

          In total, 12.3% ( n = 241) of the 1967 admissions had adverse events (95% CI, 10.8–13.7), of which 70% ( n = 169) were preventable. Fifty-five percent of the preventable events led to impairment or disability, which was resolved during the admission or within 1 month from discharge, another 33% were resolved within 1 year, 9% of the preventable events led to permanent disability and 3% of the adverse events contributed to patient death. Preventable adverse events led to a mean increased length of stay of 6 days. Ten of the 18 screening criteria were sufficient to detect 90% of the preventable adverse events. When extrapolated to the 1.2 million annual admissions, the results correspond to 105 000 preventable adverse events (95% CI, 90 000–120 000) and 630 000 days of hospitalization (95% CI, 430 000–830 000).

          Conclusions

          This study confirms that preventable adverse events were common, and that they caused extensive human suffering and consumed a significant amount of the available hospital resources.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Quality in Australian Health Care Study.

          A review of the medical records of over 14,000 admissions to 28 hospitals in New South Wales and South Australia revealed that 16.6% of these admissions were associated with an "adverse event", which resulted in disability or a longer hospital stay for the patient and was caused by health care management; 51% of the adverse events were considered preventable. In 77.1% the disability had resolved within 12 months, but in 13.7% the disability was permanent and in 4.9% the patient died.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado.

            The ongoing debate on the incidence and types of iatrogenic injuries in American hospitals has been informed primarily by the Harvard Medical Practice Study, which analyzed hospitalizations in New York in 1984. The generalizability of these findings is unknown and has been questioned by other studies. We used methods similar to the Harvard Medical Practice Study to estimate the incidence and types of adverse events and negligent adverse events in Utah and Colorado in 1992. We selected a representative sample of hospitals from Utah and Colorado and then randomly sampled 15,000 nonpsychiatric 1992 discharges. Each record was screened by a trained nurse-reviewer for 1 of 18 criteria associated with adverse events. If > or =1 criteria were present, the record was reviewed by a trained physician to determine whether an adverse event or negligent adverse event occurred and to classify the type of adverse event. The measures were adverse events and negligent adverse events. Adverse events occurred in 2.9+/-0.2% (mean+/-SD) of hospitalizations in each state. In Utah, 32.6+/-4% of adverse events were due to negligence; in Colorado, 27.4+/-2.4%. Death occurred in 6.6+/-1.2% of adverse events and 8.8+/-2.5% of negligent adverse events. Operative adverse events comprised 44.9% of all adverse events; 16.9% were negligent, and 16.6% resulted in permanent disability. Adverse drug events were the leading cause of nonoperative adverse events (19.3% of all adverse events; 35.1% were negligent, and 9.7% caused permanent disability). Most adverse events were attributed to surgeons (46.1%, 22.3% negligent) and internists (23.2%, 44.9% negligent). The incidence and types of adverse events in Utah and Colorado in 1992 were similar to those in New York State in 1984. Iatrogenic injury continues to be a significant public health problem. Improving systems of surgical care and drug delivery could substantially reduce the burden of iatrogenic injury.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

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

              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). Independent assessment of three methods applied to one sample. 37 wards in seven hospitals (three public, four private) in southwestern France. 778 patients: medical (n = 278), surgical (n = 263), and obstetric (n = 237). 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. 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. 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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Qual Health Care
                intqhc
                intqhc
                International Journal for Quality in Health Care
                Oxford University Press
                1353-4505
                1464-3677
                August 2009
                25 June 2009
                25 June 2009
                : 21
                : 4
                : 285-291
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department for Supervision of Healthcare Services, simpleNational Board of Health and Welfare , Stockholm, Sweden
                [2 ]simpleCentre for Epidemiology, National Board of Health and Welfare , Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                Address reprint requests to: Michael Soop, Department for Supervision of Healthcare Services, simpleNational Board of Health and Welfare , 10630, Stockholm, Sweden. Tel: +46 701623328; Fax: +46 752473555; E-mail: michael.soop@ 123456socialstyrelsen.se
                Article
                mzp025
                10.1093/intqhc/mzp025
                2712321
                19556405
                dd2de9e7-c57e-46da-93ba-6032b73c9fa8
                Published by Oxford University Press 2009

                The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open access version of this article for non-commercial purposes provided that: the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with the correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work this must be clearly indicated. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

                History
                : 20 May 2009
                Categories
                Papers

                Medicine
                patient safety,adverse events,risk management,medical record review
                Medicine
                patient safety, adverse events, risk management, medical record review

                Comments

                Comment on this article