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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |