Cargando…

Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether isolated patients admitted to hospital have a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs), to identify their nature, impact and preventability. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with isolated and non-isolated patients. SETTING: One public university hospital in the Valenc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiménez-Pericás, Fátima, Gea Velázquez de Castro, María Teresa, Pastor-Valero, María, Aibar Remón, Carlos, Miralles, Juan José, Meyer García, María del Carmen, Aranaz Andrés, Jesús Maria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7592267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33109639
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035238
_version_ 1783601150709202944
author Jiménez-Pericás, Fátima
Gea Velázquez de Castro, María Teresa
Pastor-Valero, María
Aibar Remón, Carlos
Miralles, Juan José
Meyer García, María del Carmen
Aranaz Andrés, Jesús Maria
author_facet Jiménez-Pericás, Fátima
Gea Velázquez de Castro, María Teresa
Pastor-Valero, María
Aibar Remón, Carlos
Miralles, Juan José
Meyer García, María del Carmen
Aranaz Andrés, Jesús Maria
author_sort Jiménez-Pericás, Fátima
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine whether isolated patients admitted to hospital have a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs), to identify their nature, impact and preventability. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with isolated and non-isolated patients. SETTING: One public university hospital in the Valencian Community (southeast Spain). PARTICIPANTS: We consecutively collected 400 patients, 200 isolated and 200 non-isolated, age ≥18 years old, to match according to date of entry, admission department, sex, age (±5 years) and disease severity from April 2017 to October 2018. Exclusion criteria: patients age <18 years old and/or reverse isolation patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome as the AE, defined according to the National Study of Adverse Effects linked to Hospitalisation (Estudio Nacional Sobre los Efectos Adversos) criteria. Cumulative incidence rates and AE incidence density rates were calculated. RESULTS: The incidence of isolated patients with AEs 16.5% (95% CI 11.4% to 21.6%) compared with 9.5% (95% CI 5.4% to 13.6%) in non-isolated (p<0.03). The incidence density of patients with AEs among isolated patients was 11.8 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 7.8 to 15.9) compared with 4.3 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 2.4 to 6.3) among non-isolated patients (p<0.001). The incidence of AEs among isolated patients was 18.5% compared with 11% for non-isolated patients (p<0.09). Among the 37 AEs detected in 33 isolated patients, and the 22 AEs detected in 19 non-isolated patients, most corresponded to healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) for both isolated and non-isolated patients (48.6% vs 45.4%). There were significant differences with respect to the preventability of AEs, (67.6% among isolated patients compared with 52.6% among non-isolated patients). CONCLUSIONS: AEs were significantly higher in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients, more than half being preventable and with HAIs as the primary cause. It is essential to improve training and the safety culture of healthcare professionals relating to the care provided to this type of patient.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7592267
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75922672020-10-29 Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study Jiménez-Pericás, Fátima Gea Velázquez de Castro, María Teresa Pastor-Valero, María Aibar Remón, Carlos Miralles, Juan José Meyer García, María del Carmen Aranaz Andrés, Jesús Maria BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: To determine whether isolated patients admitted to hospital have a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs), to identify their nature, impact and preventability. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with isolated and non-isolated patients. SETTING: One public university hospital in the Valencian Community (southeast Spain). PARTICIPANTS: We consecutively collected 400 patients, 200 isolated and 200 non-isolated, age ≥18 years old, to match according to date of entry, admission department, sex, age (±5 years) and disease severity from April 2017 to October 2018. Exclusion criteria: patients age <18 years old and/or reverse isolation patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome as the AE, defined according to the National Study of Adverse Effects linked to Hospitalisation (Estudio Nacional Sobre los Efectos Adversos) criteria. Cumulative incidence rates and AE incidence density rates were calculated. RESULTS: The incidence of isolated patients with AEs 16.5% (95% CI 11.4% to 21.6%) compared with 9.5% (95% CI 5.4% to 13.6%) in non-isolated (p<0.03). The incidence density of patients with AEs among isolated patients was 11.8 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 7.8 to 15.9) compared with 4.3 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 2.4 to 6.3) among non-isolated patients (p<0.001). The incidence of AEs among isolated patients was 18.5% compared with 11% for non-isolated patients (p<0.09). Among the 37 AEs detected in 33 isolated patients, and the 22 AEs detected in 19 non-isolated patients, most corresponded to healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) for both isolated and non-isolated patients (48.6% vs 45.4%). There were significant differences with respect to the preventability of AEs, (67.6% among isolated patients compared with 52.6% among non-isolated patients). CONCLUSIONS: AEs were significantly higher in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients, more than half being preventable and with HAIs as the primary cause. It is essential to improve training and the safety culture of healthcare professionals relating to the care provided to this type of patient. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7592267/ /pubmed/33109639 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035238 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) 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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Public Health
Jiménez-Pericás, Fátima
Gea Velázquez de Castro, María Teresa
Pastor-Valero, María
Aibar Remón, Carlos
Miralles, Juan José
Meyer García, María del Carmen
Aranaz Andrés, Jesús Maria
Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_full Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_fullStr Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_short Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_sort higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7592267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33109639
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035238
work_keys_str_mv AT jimenezpericasfatima higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT geavelazquezdecastromariateresa higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT pastorvaleromaria higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT aibarremoncarlos higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT mirallesjuanjose higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT meyergarciamariadelcarmen higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT aranazandresjesusmaria higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy