[Adverse events related to medication in hospitals from the Valencian Community. EPIDEA Study 2005-2013]. / Eventos adversos relacionados con la medicación en los hospitales de la Comunidad Valenciana. Estudio EPIDEA 2005-2013.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of Adverse Events related to Medication (AEM) in hospitals of the Valencian Community in the 2005-2013 study period, and to describe the associated risk factors and their impact. METHODS: This study is based on data and methodology of the Study of Prevalence of Adverse Events in hospitals (EPIDEA), since its inception in 2005 until 2013. AEM produced in each year were analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 344 AEM that occurred in 337 patients, among 35,103 patients studied, giving a prevalence of patients with AEM of 0.96% (IC95% 0.89-1.07). The most prevalent intrinsic risk factors for AEM were hypertension, diabetes and cancer. The most prevalent extrinsic risk factors were peripheral venous catheter, urinary catheter and central venous catheter. Therapeutic groups most frequently involved were systemic antibiotics, cardiovascular drugs and antineoplastics. The 61.17% of AEM was classified as moderate, followed by 27.18% as mild and 11.65% as severe. The 33.99% of EAM caused increase of the patient's stay and 39.90% of EAM caused the re-entry of patient. The 58.5% of AEM were avoidable. Mild AEM were avoidable in 46.3%, moderate AEM were avoidable in 60.3% and severe AEM were in 75% (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of patients with AEM in hospitals of the Community of Valencia for the period 2005- 2013 was 0.96%. More than half of AEM were preventable, and preventability increases significantly with the severity of the event.

[Identification of adverse events in hospitalised influenza patients]. / Identificación de eventos adversos en pacientes hospitalizados por gripe.

OBJECTIVE: To test the inter-observer agreement in identifying adverse events (AE) in patients hospitalized by flu and undergoing precautionary isolation measures. METHODS: Historical cohort study, 50 patients undergoing isolation measures due to flu, and 50 patients without any isolation measures. RESULTS: The AE incidence ranges from 10 to 26% depending on the observer (26% [95%CI: 17.4%-34.60%], 10% [95%CI: 4.12%-15.88%], and 23% [95%CI: 14.75%-31.25%]). It was always lower in the cohort undergoing the isolation measures. This difference is statistically significant when the accurate definition of a case is applied. The agreement as regards the screening was good (higher than 76%; Kappa index between 0.29 and 0.81). The agreement as regards the accurate identification of AE related to care was lower (from 50 to 93.3%, Kappa index from 0.20 to 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Before performing an epidemiological study on AE, interobserver concordance must be analyzed to improve the accuracy of the results and the validity of the study. Studies have different levels of reliability. Kappa index shows high levels for the screening guide, but not for the identification of AE. Without a good methodology the results achieved, and thus the decisions made from them, cannot be guaranteed. Researchers have to be sure of the method used, which should be as close as possible to the optimal achievable.

[Study of adverse events in private healthcare. Confidence project for patient safety]. / Estudio de eventos adversos en sanidad privada. Proyecto Confianza de seguridad del paciente.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate and identify priority areas and issues of patient safety and analyse which patient and health care characteristics are related to Adverse Events (AE). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study to identify AE reviewing medical records of in-patients. Information was obtained from all patients attended between 15 and 30 November 2009 in eight facilities committed to the project. RESULTS: Of the 927 patients, 40 patients had any injury, of which 23 were related to healthcare. Thus, the percentage of patients with any AE associated with health care was 2.48% (95%CI, 1.43%-3.54%). Age, comorbidity and use of invasive devices explained the occurrence of an AE. Of these, 33.3% (8 AE) were considered slight, 33.3% (8) moderate and 33.3% (8) severe. Half (50%) of AE were considered preventable. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of AE found was low, possibly due to study design and the idiosyncrasy of the patients: age, comorbidity and use of invasive devices. The AE found have a similar impact and preventability as those identified in public sector.

[Systematic literature review on patient safety in medical departments]. / Revisión sistemática de la literatura acerca de la seguridad de los pacientes hospitalizados en servicios médicos.

UNLABELLED: Patient safety is an issue of interest. All scenarios of health care have a risk of adverse events (AE) and determination of its incidence has been reported in virtually all medical specialties. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence reported in the medical literature of adverse events in medical departments. DESIGN AND METHODS: An exhaustive search of biomedical databases using different strategies, search in high impact journals and a manual search of related articles. RESULTS: We reviewed 17,437 entries. After reading the abstracts and articles, and applying previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected 10 articles that reported the incidence of adverse events in medical departments. Most studies corresponded to a historical cohort, had used an AE screening to identify high risk patients, and had used a structured review to check clinical records. None of them had as their ultimate objective to report on the impact of adverse events or characterize them. The incidence reported in medical departments ranged from 3.6% to 21.7%. The definitions of adverse events and forms of detection were similar; however the few differences put the comparability at risk. CONCLUSION: No studies were aimed at quantifying or characterising the adverse events in health care. None of them defined what constitutes a medical department, although the results reported are within the published values for health systems. Further research is needed in this area.

[Factors that contribute to health care associated infections: how to prevent them]. / Factores que contribuyen a la infección relacionada con la asistencia sanitaria: cómo evitarlos.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the patient and medical care characteristics of Health Care-Associated Infections (HCAI) and to determine whether or not there are any differences between those that may be avoidable. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study, based on three Spanish cohort studies of Adverse Events associated with hospitalization. The medical records were reviewed to assess whether or not the health care was the causing factor of the HCAI. We carried out the analyses using the same methodology as the National Study on the Adverse Effects associated with hospitalization (ENEAS). After reviewing the patient medical records to identify the HCAI associated factors, the reviewers gave a valued judgment on how likely the health care was the cause of the infection (HCAI) and whether there was evidence that they could have been avoided. RESULTS: A total of 2.3% the patients in the study had one or more HCAI, with 60.2% of them being avoidable. The patients who had an HCAI were older and had a greater number of intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors. There was a significant difference in the presence of some intrinsic risk factor between patients who had an HCAI and those with an avoidable HCAI, but there were no differences as regards medical care extrinsic risk factors. The factors that best explained the HCAI were different for each one of the most common infection locations. Generally, the factors which best explained the HCAI were: urinary catheter (OR=2.4), nasogastric tube (OR=1.9) or central venous catheter (OR=1.8). Similarly, hospital admissions through a surgery department or a hospital stay longer than a week were identified as main factors, (OR=1.6), (OR=7.5), respectively. The best strategies to avoid an HCAI were: proper management of any aseptic technique and use of catheter (25.5%), a proper follow-up of the bladder catheterisation protocols (20%) and a proper health care follow-up of vulnerable patients (16.5%). CONCLUSION: Patients with an HCAI showed significant different characteristics from those who did not have an HCAI. The preventability is an independent valued judgment from the causality, and is associated to whether the proper protocol has been implemented or not. To identify these weaknesses enables us to establish strategies to improve the quality of medical care.