Cargando…

A pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a priori selection of patient records using unexpectedly long length of stay (UL-LOS) leads to detection of more records with adverse events (AEs) compared to non-UL-LOS. DESIGN: To investigate the opportunities of the UL-LOS, we looked for AEs in all records of pa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cihangir, Sezgin, Borghans, Ine, Hekkert, Karin, Muller, Hein, Westert, Gert, Kool, Rudolf B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3717450/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23872292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003034
_version_ 1782277694803673088
author Cihangir, Sezgin
Borghans, Ine
Hekkert, Karin
Muller, Hein
Westert, Gert
Kool, Rudolf B
author_facet Cihangir, Sezgin
Borghans, Ine
Hekkert, Karin
Muller, Hein
Westert, Gert
Kool, Rudolf B
author_sort Cihangir, Sezgin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a priori selection of patient records using unexpectedly long length of stay (UL-LOS) leads to detection of more records with adverse events (AEs) compared to non-UL-LOS. DESIGN: To investigate the opportunities of the UL-LOS, we looked for AEs in all records of patients with colorectal cancer. Within this group, we compared the number of AEs found in records of patients with a UL-LOS with the number found in records of patients who did not have a UL-LOS. SETTING: Our study was done at a general hospital in The Netherlands. The hospital is medium sized with approximately 30 000 admissions on an annual basis. The hospital has two major locations in different cities where both primary and secondary care is provided. PARTICIPANTS: The patient records of 191 patients with colorectal cancer were reviewed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of triggers and adverse events were the primary outcome measures. RESULTS: In the records of patients with colorectal cancer who had a UL-LOS, 51% of the records contained one or more AEs compared with 9% in the reference group of non-UL-LOS patients. By reviewing only the UL-LOS group with at least one trigger, we found in 84% (43 out of 51) of these records at least one adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: A priori selection of patient records using the UL-LOS indicator appears to be a powerful selection method which could be an effective way for healthcare professionals to identify opportunities to improve patient safety in their day-to-day work.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3717450
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37174502013-07-22 A pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection Cihangir, Sezgin Borghans, Ine Hekkert, Karin Muller, Hein Westert, Gert Kool, Rudolf B BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a priori selection of patient records using unexpectedly long length of stay (UL-LOS) leads to detection of more records with adverse events (AEs) compared to non-UL-LOS. DESIGN: To investigate the opportunities of the UL-LOS, we looked for AEs in all records of patients with colorectal cancer. Within this group, we compared the number of AEs found in records of patients with a UL-LOS with the number found in records of patients who did not have a UL-LOS. SETTING: Our study was done at a general hospital in The Netherlands. The hospital is medium sized with approximately 30 000 admissions on an annual basis. The hospital has two major locations in different cities where both primary and secondary care is provided. PARTICIPANTS: The patient records of 191 patients with colorectal cancer were reviewed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of triggers and adverse events were the primary outcome measures. RESULTS: In the records of patients with colorectal cancer who had a UL-LOS, 51% of the records contained one or more AEs compared with 9% in the reference group of non-UL-LOS patients. By reviewing only the UL-LOS group with at least one trigger, we found in 84% (43 out of 51) of these records at least one adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: A priori selection of patient records using the UL-LOS indicator appears to be a powerful selection method which could be an effective way for healthcare professionals to identify opportunities to improve patient safety in their day-to-day work. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3717450/ /pubmed/23872292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003034 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Public Health
Cihangir, Sezgin
Borghans, Ine
Hekkert, Karin
Muller, Hein
Westert, Gert
Kool, Rudolf B
A pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection
title A pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection
title_full A pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection
title_fullStr A pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection
title_full_unstemmed A pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection
title_short A pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection
title_sort pilot study on record reviewing with a priori patient selection
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3717450/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23872292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003034
work_keys_str_mv AT cihangirsezgin apilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT borghansine apilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT hekkertkarin apilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT mullerhein apilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT westertgert apilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT koolrudolfb apilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT cihangirsezgin pilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT borghansine pilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT hekkertkarin pilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT mullerhein pilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT westertgert pilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection
AT koolrudolfb pilotstudyonrecordreviewingwithaprioripatientselection