Inappropriate hospital admission as a risk factor for the subsequent development of adverse events: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: All health overuse implies an unnecessary risk of patients suffering adverse events (AEs). However, this hypothesis has not been corroborated by direct estimates for inappropriate hospital admission (IHA). The objectives of the study were the following: (1) to analyze the association between IHA and the development of subsequent AEs; (2) to explore the distinct clinical and economic implications of AEs subsequent IHA compared to appropriate admissions. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted on hospitalized patients in May 2019 in a high-complexity hospital in Madrid, Spain. The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol was used to measure IHA, and the methodologies of the Harvard Medical Practice Study and the European Point Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-associated Infections were used to detect and characterize AEs. The association between IHA and the subsequent. RESULTS: A total of 558 patients in the hospital ward were studied. IHA increased the risk of subsequent occurrence of AEs (OR [95% CI]: 3.54 [1.87 to 6.69], versus appropriate) and doubled the mean AEs per patient (coefficient [95% CI]: 0.19 [0.08 to 0.30] increase, versus appropriate) after adjusting for confounders. IHA was a predictive variable of subsequent AEs and the number of AEs per patient. AEs developed after IHA were associated with scheduled admissions (78.9% of AEs, versus 27.9% after appropriate admissions; p < 0.001). Compared with AEs developed after appropriate admissions, AEs after IHA added 2.4 additional days of stay in the intensive care unit and incurred an extra cost of €166,324.9 for the studied sample. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IHA have a higher risk of subsequent occurrence of AE. Due to the multifactorial nature of AEs, IHA is a possible contributing factor. AEs developed after IHA are associated with scheduled admissions, prolonged ICU stays, and resulted in significant cost overruns.

Is primary care a patient-safe setting? Prevalence, severity, nature, and causes of adverse events: numerous and mostly avoidable.

Knowing the frequency and characteristics of adverse events (AEs) is key to implementing actions that can prevent their occurrence. However, reporting systems are insufficient for this purpose and epidemiological studies are also required. Currently, the reviewing of clinical records is the gold standard method for knowing the frequency and characteristics of AEs. Research on AEs in a primary care setting has been limited and primarily focuses on specific types of events (medication errors, etc.) or patients. Large studies that search for any kind of AE in all patients are scarce. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of AEs in the primary care setting and their characteristics. SETTING: all 262 primary health-care centres in the Madrid region (Spain) during the last quarter of 2018. DESIGN: cross-sectional descriptive study. Eligible population: subjects over 18 years of age who attended medical consultation over the last year (N = 2 743 719); a randomized sample stratified by age. MAIN OUTCOMES: age, sex, occurrence of an AE, number of consultations in the study period, avoidability, severity, place of occurrence, type of event, and contributory factors. The clinical records were reviewed by three teams, each composed of one doctor and one nurse trained and with expertise in patient safety. The SPSS software package (version 26) was used for the statistical analyses. The evaluators reviewed 1797 clinical records. The prevalence of AEs over the study period was 5.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.0%‒6.0%], with higher values in women (5.7%; 95% CI: 4.6%‒6.8%;P = 0.10) and patients over 75 years of age (10.3%; 95% CI: 8.9%‒11.7%; P < 0.001). The overall occurrence per hundred consultations was estimated to be 1.58% (95% CI: 1.28%‒1.94%). Of the detected AEs, 71.3% (95% CI: 62.1%‒80.5%) were avoidable. Additionally, 60.6% (95% CI: 50.7%‒70.5%) were categorized as mild, 31.9% (95% CI: 22.4%‒41.4%) as moderate, and 7.4% (95% CI: 2.1%‒12.7%) as severe. Primary care was the occurrence setting in 76.6% (95% CI: 68.0%‒85.2%) of cases. The overall incidence of AEs related to medication was 53.2% (95% CI: 50.9%‒55.5%). The most frequent types of AEs were prescription errors (28.7%; 95% CI: 19.5%‒37.9%), followed by drug administration errors by patients (17.0%; 95% CI: 9.4%‒24.6%), and clinical assessment errors (11.7%; 95% CI: 5.2%‒18.2%). The most common contributory factors were those related to the patient (80.6%; 95% CI: 71.1%‒90.1%) and tasks (59.7%; 95% CI: 48.0%‒71.4%). A high prevalence of AEs (1 in 66 consultations) was observed, which was slightly higher than that reported in similar studies. About 3 out of 4 such events were considered to be avoidable and 1 out of 13 was severe. Prescription errors, drug administration errors by patients, and clinical assessment errors were the most frequent types of AEs. Graphical Abstract.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Inappropriate Use of the Emergency Department.

Background: Inappropriate use of the emergency department (IEDU)-consisting of the unnecessary use of the resource by patients with no clinical need-is one of the leading causes of the loss of efficiency of the health system. Specific contexts modify routine clinical practice and usage patterns. This study aims to analyse the influence of COVID-19 on the IEDU and its causes. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study conducted in the emergency department of a high-complexity hospital. The Hospital Emergency Suitability Protocol (HESP) was used to measure the prevalence of IEDU and its causes, comparing three pairs of periods: (1) March 2019 and 2020; (2) June 2019 and 2020; and (3) September 2019 and 2020. A bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models, adjusted for confounding variables, were utilized. Results: In total, 822 emergency visits were included (137 per period). A total prevalence of IEDU of 14.1% was found. There was a significant decrease in IEDU in March 2020 (OR: 0.03), with a prevalence of 0.8%. No differences were found in the other periods. A mistrust in primary care was the leading cause of IEDU (65.1%). Conclusions: The impact of COVID-19 reduced the frequency of IEDU during the period of more significant population restrictions, with IEDU returning to previous levels in subsequent months. Targeted actions in the field of population education and an improvement in primary care are positioned as strategies that could mitigate its impact.

Prediction of significant coronary artery disease in acute chest pain without infarction in emergency department: MAPAC Cardio-PreTest model.

Acute nontraumatic chest pain is a frequent reaso n for consultation in emergency departments and represents a diagnostic challenge. The objective is to estimate the risk of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with cardiogenic acute chest pain for whom the diagnosis of infarction was ruled out in the emergency department with a nondiagnostic ECG and negative high-sensitivity troponins. We prospectively recruited 1625 patients from emergency departments of seven Spanish hospitals. The outcome was presence of significant CAD determined by presence of ischaemia in functional tests or more than 70% stenosis in imaging tests. In this study, we developed a predictive model and evaluated its performance and clinical utility. The prevalence of significant CAD was 14% [227/1625; 95% confidence interval (CI), 12-16]. MAPAC Cardio-PreTest model included seven predictors: age, sex, smoking, history of hypertension, family history of CAD, history of hyperuricaemia, and type of chest pain. The optimism-adjusted model discrimination was C-statistic 0.654 (95% CI, 0.618-0.693). Calibration plot showed good agreement between the predicted and observed risks, and calibration slope was 0.880 (95% CI, 0.731-1.108) and calibration-in-the-large -0.001 (95% CI, -0.141 to 0.132). The model increased net benefit and improved risk classification over the recommended approach by the European Society of Cardiology [Net Reclassification Index (NRI) of events = 5.3%, NRI of nonevents = 7.0%]. MAPAC Cardio-PreTest model is an online prediction tool to estimate the individualised probability of significant CAD in patients with acute chest pain without a diagnosis of infarction in emergency department. The model was more useful than the current alternatives in helping patients and clinicians make individually tailored choices about the intensity of monitoring or additional coronary tests.

Adverse events: an expensive and avoidable hospital problem.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse healthcare-related events (AE) entail reduced patient safety. Estimating their frequency, characteristics, avoidability and impact is a means to identify targets for improvement in the quality of care. METHODS: This was a descriptive observational study conducted within the Patient Safety Incident Study in Hospitals in the Community of Madrid (ESHMAD). The study was conducted in a high-complexity hospital in May 2019 through a two-phase electronic medical record review: (1) AE screening and epidemiological and clinical data collection and (2) AE review and classification and analysis of their impact, avoidability, and associated costs. RESULTS: A total of 636 patients were studied. The prevalence of AE was 12.4%. Death during the stay was associated with the presence of AE (OR [CI95%]: 2.15 [1.07 to 4.52]) versus absence and emergency admission (OR [CI95%]: 17.11[6.63 to 46.26]) versus scheduled. A total of 70.2% of the AEs were avoidable. Avoidable AEs were associated with the presence of pressure ulcers (OR [CI95%]: 2.77 [1.39 to 5.51]), central venous catheter (OR [CI95%]: 2.58 [1.33 to 5.00]) and impaired mobility (OR [CI95%]: 2.24[1.35 to 3.71]), versus absences. They were associated too with the stays in the intensive care unit (OR [CI95%]: 2.75 [1.07 to 7.06]) versus medical service. AEs were responsible for additional costs of €909,716.8 for extra days of stay and €12,461.9 per patient with AE. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AEs was similar to that found in other studies. AEs led to worse patient outcomes and were associated with the patient's death. Although avoidable AEs were less severe, their higher frequency produced a greater impact on the patient and healthcare system.Key messagesAdverse events are one of the main problems in healthcare delivery and patients who suffer from at least one AE are double as likely to die during hospitalization.Avoidable adverse events are the most frequent in health care and they are a good target where achieve improvement areas that allow getting optimal patient safety and quality of care levels.Patients hospitalized in the ICU, with the previous presence of pressure ulcers, central venous catheter, or impaired mobility were associated with the development of avoidable AE, so optimal management of these patients would reduce the impact of AE.

How Does Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 Affect Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19?

(1) Background: The development of effective COVID-19 vaccines has reduced the impact of COVID-19 on the general population. Our study aims to analyze how vaccination modifies the likelihood of death and length of stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 1927 hospitalized patients infected with COVID-19 was conducted. Information was gathered on vaccination status, hospitalization episode, and clinical profile of the patients. The effect of vaccination on mortality was analyzed using a multiple logistic regression model, and length of stay was analyzed using linear regression. The performance and fit of the models were evaluated; (3) Results: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the risk of dying during admission in vaccinated patients was half that of non-vaccinated (OR: 0.45; CI 95%: 0.25 to 0.84). In patients who were discharged due to improvement, the reduction in hospital stay in vaccinated patients was 3.17 days (CI 95%: 5.88 to 0.47); (4) Conclusions: Patients who, despite having been vaccinated, acquire the infection by SARS-CoV-2, have a significant reduction of the risk of death during admission and a reduction of hospital stay compared with unvaccinated patients.

Surgery Is in Itself a Risk Factor for the Patient.

(1) Background: Adverse events (AE) affect about 1 in 10 hospitalised patients, and almost half are related to surgical care. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of AE in operated and non-operated patients in surgical departments in order to determine whether surgical treatment is a risk factor for AE. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional design that included 3123 patients of 34 public hospitals in the Community of Madrid determining the prevalence of AEs in operated and non-operated patients in surgical departments. (3) Results: The prevalence of AE in non-operated patients was 8.7% and in those operated was 15.8%. The frequency of AE was higher in emergency surgery (20.6% vs. 12.4%). The 48.3% of AEs led to an increase in hospital stay, and surgery was involved in 92.4% of cases. The most frequent AEs were related to hospital-acquired infection (42.63%), followed by those related to a procedure (37.72%). In the multivariate analysis, being operated on represented 2.3 times the risk of developing an AE. (4) Conclusions: Surgical sites are particularly vulnerable to AE. Surgical intervention alone is a risk factor for AE, and we must continue to work to improve the safety of both patient care and the working environment of surgical professionals.

[Apropriateness of hospital admissions due to COVID-19 in the 2nd and 5th phase of the pandemic.] / Adecuación de ingresos hospitalarios por COVID-19 en la 2ª y 5ª fase de la pandemia.

OBJECTIVE: The increase in the demand for healthcare caused by COVID-19 implies a lower availability of health resources and influences the appropriateness of their use. Due to the variability of demand during the pandemic, the study aimed to compare the appropriateness of hospital admissions between the 2nd and 5th phases of the pandemic according to the criteria of the Hospital Emergency Service (CiHRyC). These results were compared with those obtained according to the Pneumonity Severity Index (FINE) and the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP). As a secondary objective, the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of the patients studied were described. METHODS: 80 patients hospitalized from the Emergency Department were randomly selected in two study periods (2nd and 5th pandemic phase) obtained from the registry of hospitalizations of the Preventive Medicine service of Hospital Ramon y Cajal. Prevalences of inappropriateness were estimated according to the CiHRyC, FINE and AEP and an analysis was performed using univariate logistic regression between epidemiological variables of both periods collected through the electronical medical records. RESULTS: Inappropriateness of admissions were 35% and 45% in the 2nd and 5th phase of the pandemic according with CiHRyC, 25% and 5/% according with FINE and 0% and 5% according with AEP. Median age was 71.4 and 50.0 years in 2nd and 5th phase (p=0.02). 72.5% and 17.5% of the patients in the 2nd and 5th phases had at least one risk factor for COVID-19 severe illness (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The measurement tools used identified more inappropriately cases in the 5th phase of the pandemic than in the 2nd one. CiHRyC coincided with FINE and AEP in the result of their evaluation.

OBJETIVO: El aumento de la demanda asistencial hospitalaria producida por la COVID-19 supone una menor disponibilidad de recursos sanitarios e influye en la adecuación de su utilización. Debido a la variabilidad de la demanda durante la pandemia, el objetivo del estudio fue comparar la adecuación de los ingresos hospitalarios entre la 2ª y 5ª fase de la pandemia según los criterios del servicio de Urgencias del Hospital (CiHRyC). Se compararon estos resultados con los obtenidos según el Pneumonity Severity Index (FINE) y el Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP). Como objetivo secundario se describieron las características clínicas y sociodemográficas de los pacientes estudiados. METODOS: Se seleccionaron aleatoriamente 80 pacientes hospitalizados desde Urgencias en dos periodos de estudio (2ª y 5ª fase pandémica) obtenidos del registro de hospitalizaciones del servicio de Medicina Preventiva del Hospital Ramón y Cajal. Se estimaron las prevalencias de inadecuación según los CiHRyC, el FINE y el AEP para admisiones y se realizó un análisis mediante regresión logística univariante entre las variables epidemiológicas de ambos periodos recogidas mediante la Historia Clínica Electrónica (HCE). RESULTADOS: La inadecuación de la hospitalización fue del 35% y 45% en la 2ª y 5ª fase de la pandemia con los CiHRyC, del 25% y 57% con el FINE y del 0% y 5% con el AEP. La mediana de edad fue de 71,4 y 50 años en la 2ª y 5ª fase (p=0,02). El 72,5% y el 17,5% de los pacientes de la 2ª y 5ª fase tuvieron al menos un factor de riesgo de complicaciones de COVID-19 (p<0,01). CONCLUSIONES: Los instrumentos de medida empleados (CiHRyC, el FINE y el AEP) identificaron más casos inadecuadamente ingresados en la 5ª fase de la pandemia que en la 2ª, coincidiendo el CiHRyC con el FINE y el AEP en el resultado de su evaluación.