Cargando…

Adverse events in critical care: Search and active detection through the Trigger Tool

AIM: To investigate the incidence of disadvantageous events by using the Global Trigger Tool in an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was performed in a 12-bed university ICU in the city of Medellin, Colombia. Clinical charts of hospitalized patients were reviewed,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Molina, Francisco J, Rivera, Paula T, Cardona, Alejandro, Restrepo, Diana C, Monroy, Oralia, Rodas, Daniel, Barrientos, Juan G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5797974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29430403
http://dx.doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v7.i1.9
Descripción
Sumario:AIM: To investigate the incidence of disadvantageous events by using the Global Trigger Tool in an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was performed in a 12-bed university ICU in the city of Medellin, Colombia. Clinical charts of hospitalized patients were reviewed, between January 1 and December 31, 2016, with the following inclusion criteria: subjects aged over 18 years, with at least 24 h of hospitalization and who had a complete medical history that could be accessed. Interventions: Trained reviewers conducted a retrospective examination of medical charts searching for clue events that elicit investigation, in order to detect an unfavorable event. Measurements: Information was processed through SPSS software version 21; for numerical variables, the mean was reported with standard deviation (SD). Percentages were calculated for qualitative variables. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-four triggers occurred, with 82.4% of subjects having presented with at least one and an average of 3.37 (SD 3.47). A total of 178 adverse events (AEs) took place in 48 individuals, with an incidence of 52.1%. On average, four events per patient were recorded, and for each unfortunate event, 1.98 triggers were presented. The most frequent displeasing issues were: pressure ulcers (17.6%), followed by complications or reactions to medical devices (4.3%), and lacerations or skin defects (3.7%); the least frequent was delayed diagnosis or treatment (0.56%). Thirty-eight point four percent of mishap events caused temporary damage that required intervention, and 48.9% of AEs were preventable. Comparison between AEs and admission diagnoses found that hypertension and sepsis were the only diagnoses that had statistical significance (P = 0.042 and 0.022, respectively). CONCLUSION: Almost half of the unfavorable issues were classified as avoidable, which leaves a very wide field of work in terms of preventative activities.