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 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.

Risk Analysis for Patient Safety in Surgical Departments: Cross-Sectional Design Usefulness.

(1) Background: Identifying and measuring adverse events (AE) is a priority for patient safety, which allows us to define and prioritise areas for improvement and evaluate and develop solutions to improve health care quality. The aim of this work was to determine the prevalence of AEs in surgical and medical-surgical departments and to know the health impact of these AEs. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study determining the prevalence of AEs in surgical and medical-surgical departments was conducted and a comparison was made among both clinical areas. A total of 5228 patients were admitted in 58 hospitals in Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru, within the Latin American Study of Adverse Events (IBEAS), led by the Spanish Ministry of Health, the Pan American Health Organization, and the WHO Patient Safety programme. (3) Results: The global prevalence of AEs was 10.7%. However, the prevalence of AEs in surgical departments was 11.9%, while in medical-surgical departments it was 8.9%. The causes of these AEs were associated with surgical procedures (38.6%) and nosocomial infections (35.4%). About 60.6% of the AEs extended hospital stays by 30.7 days on average and 25.8% led to readmission with an average hospitalisation of 15 days. About 22.4% resulted in death, disability, or surgical reintervention. (4) Conclusions: Surgical departments were associated with a higher risk of experiencing AEs.

[Influenza vaccination coverages and related factors among splenectomy patients from a health sector in Zaragoza (Spain)]. / Cobertura de vacunación antigripal y factores asociados en pacientes esplenectomizados de un sector de salud de Zaragoza (España).

OBJECTIVE: Influenza vaccination coverage in risk groups has been put forward as a healthcare quality indicator. Our objective was to determine the vaccination rate in splenectomized patients. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional study that included splenectomized patients in the Zaragoza III Sector from January 2012 to December 2016. The patients were identified through the database of the Clinical Documentation and File Management Services of the Sector Hospital under code 41.5 of the ICD-9. The variables (sociodemographic and surgical variables, and having received information and advice regarding vaccination when they were admitted to the Immunization Unit) were obtained after a review of the patients' records in the Specialized and Primary Care Services. The association with being vaccinated during the campaign corresponding to the surgery date was studied with bivariate analysis and multiple logistic regression model. RESULTS: 81 patients were analyzed; 60.5% were men, with an average age of 56.3 years. Neoplasms and hematological diseases were the most common motives for surgery (64.2%). The vaccination rate was 58%. Having been advised to vaccinate (OR=6.53; 95%CI=1.88-22.69) and having been vaccinated in the previous season (OR=4.79; 95%CI= 1.48-15.57) were associated with vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The coverage rate ranks in an intermediate position when compared with other countries. It is necessary to improve the referral system of these patients to the Immunization Unit because the information obtained by this service leads to better results.

OBJETIVO: La cobertura vacunal antigripal en grupos de riesgo ha sido postulada como un indicador de la calidad asistencial. El objetivo de este estudio fue conocer dicha tasa de vacunación en esplenectomizados. METODOS: Se realizó un estudio transversal que incluyó a los esplenectomizados del sector Zaragoza III entre enero de 2012 y diciembre de 2016. La identificación de los pacientes se realizó a través de la base de datos del Servicio de Archivos y Documentación Clínica del hospital del sector, utilizando el código 41.5 de la Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades (9ª edición). Las variables (sociodemográficas, quirúrgicas y el haber recibido información y consejo para vacunarse al ser atendido en la consulta hospitalaria de vacunas) fueron obtenidas revisando las historias de atención especializada y primaria. Se analizó la asociación con la vacunación en la campaña correspondiente a la fecha de la cirugía mediante un análisis bivariado y un modelo de regresión logística múltiple. RESULTADOS: Fueron estudiados 81 pacientes. El 60,5% eran hombres, con una edad media de 56,3 años. Las neoplasias y las enfermedades hematológicas fueron los motivos más frecuentes de cirugía (64,2%). La tasa de vacunación fue del 58%. Recibir la recomendación de vacunación (OR=6,53; IC95%=1,88-22,69) y haber sido vacunado en la temporada anterior (OR=4,79; IC95%=1,48-15,57) se asociaron con la acción de vacunarse. CONCLUSIONES: La cobertura se encuentra en una posición intermedia comparada con otros países. Se ha de mejorar la sistemática de derivación de estos pacientes a la consulta hospitalaria de vacunas, dado que la información facilitada en ella contribuye a obtener mejores resultados.

Comparison of two methods to estimate adverse events in the IBEAS Study (Ibero-American study of adverse events): cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) epidemiology is the first step to improve practice in the healthcare system. Usually, the preferred method used to estimate the magnitude of the problem is the retrospective cohort study design, with retrospective reviews of the medical records. However this data collection involves a sophisticated sampling plan, and a process of intensive review of sometimes very heavy and complex medical records. Cross-sectional survey is also a valid and feasible methodology to study AEs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare AEs detection using two different methodologies: cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design. SETTING: Secondary and tertiary hospitals in five countries: Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru. PARTICIPANTS: The IBEAS Study is a cross-sectional survey with a sample size of 11 379 patients. The retrospective cohort study was obtained from a 10% random sample proportional to hospital size from the entire IBEAS Study population. METHODS: This study compares the 1-day prevalence of the AEs obtained in the IBEAS Study with the incidence obtained through the retrospective cohort study. RESULTS: The prevalence of patients with AEs was 10.47% (95% CI 9.90 to 11.03) (1191/11 379), while the cumulative incidence of the retrospective cohort study was 19.76% (95% CI 17.35% to 22.17%) (215/1088). In both studies the highest risk of suffering AEs was seen in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Comorbid patients and patients with medical devices showed higher risk. CONCLUSION: The retrospective cohort design, although requires more resources, allows to detect more AEs than the cross-sectional design.

Impact on Morbidity, Mortality, and Length of Stay of Hospital-Acquired Infections by Resistant Microorganisms.

BACKGROUND: Infections by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are a global threat and are particularly common in hospitals. This study was performed to assess the impact of hospital-acquired infections caused by MDROs on morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. A sample of adults aged ≥18 years with a respiratory, urinary, bloodstream, or surgical site infection caused by a multidrug-resistant (cases) or -sensitive (controls) microorganism was selected. Measurements included hospital mortality from all causes (total and 30 days after infection), length of stay (LOS), and 5 indicators of morbidity: intensive care or surgery admissions, number of diagnostic tests after infection, and hospital readmissions or visits to the emergency department within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: The sample was composed of 324 cases and 676 control patients. Risk of hospital mortality from all causes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-2.32) and 30 day-mortality after infection (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.29-2.44) were higher in patients with an MDRO infection. Probability of readmission was also higher (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.36-3.46) in the case group. Emergency department visits were only significantly higher in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.65-4.74) and in Escherichia coli-resistant infections (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.32-3.96). Infections by MDRO were not associated with any other outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital infections caused by MDROs increase mortality, readmissions, and in some cases, visits to the emergency department compared with those produced by susceptible strains. They do not appear to influence LOS nor the need for hospital admission, intensive care, surgery, or diagnostic tests.

[Incidence of adverse events in a general surgery unit]. / Incidencia de efectos adversos en un servicio de cirugía general.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice is an activity accompanied by risks and uncertainties. The objectives are: to determine the incidence of patients with adverse events (AE) in a general surgery unit; to analyse the associated factors; to consider their impact and to identify the prevention possibilities. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Ambispective study in patients taken care of in a general surgery unit in a tertiary hospital. Every admission was prospectively reviewed using a screening guide, with all the clinical histories that fulfilled screening criteria being examined retrospectively using a modular questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 989 histories were reviewed, the positive predictive value (PPV) of the screening guide for AE was 53%. The accumulated incidence of patients with AE was 17.8% and the incidence density of AE was 1.92 for every 100 days of hospitalisation. Intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors were associated to greater risk of EA, the most frequent events being: nosocomial infections (54.4%), surgical problems (31.8%) and problems associated with medication (7.4%). A total of 66.8% of the AE were considered moderate, with 53.5% of all AE being preventable. CONCLUSIONS: The screening questionnaire was useful for the valuation of adverse events. AE are common in surgical patients which has an effect on the use of other hospital resources. The most important associated factors were: length of stay, surgical and extrinsic factors and surgical wound infection as the main AE. Two thirds of AE were considered moderate and half of all AE were considered avoidable.

[Adverse events in general and digestive surgery departments in Spanish hospitals]. / Sucesos adversos en cirugía general y de aparato digestivo en los hospitales españoles.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of patients with adverse events (AE) in Spanish general surgery units, describe the immediate causes of AE, identify avoidable AE, and determine the impact of these events. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We performed a retrospective cohort study of a randomized stratified sample of 24 hospitals. Six of the hospitals were small (fewer than 200 beds), 13 were medium-sized (between 200 and 499 beds) and five were large (500 or more beds). Patients admitted for more than 24 hours to the selected hospitals and who were discharged between the 4th and 10th of June 2005 were included. AE detected during hospitalization and those occurring as a consequence of previous admissions in the same hospital were analyzed. RESULTS: The incidence of patients with AE associated with medical care was 10.5% (76/735; 95%CI: 8.1%-12.5%). The presence of intrinsic risk factors increased the risk of AE (14.8% vs 7.2%; P=.001). Likewise, 16.2% of patients with an extrinsic risk factor had an AE compared with 7.0% of those without these risk factors (P< .001). Comorbidity influenced the occurrence of AE (33.7% of AE vs. 2.2% without comorbidity; P< .001). The severity of the AE was related to ASA risk (P=.036). AE were related to nosocomial infection (41.7%), procedures (27.1%) and medication (24%). A total of 31.3% of the AE were mild, 39.6% were moderate, and 29.2% were severe. Preventable AE accounted for 36.5%. AE caused an additional 527 days of stay (6.3 additional days of stay per patient), of which 216 were due to preventable AE. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in general and digestive surgery units have an increased risk of AE. Risk factors for these events are age, comorbidity, and the use of external devices. A substantial number of AE are related to nosocomial infection (especially surgical wound infection) and to surgical procedures. AE have an important impact on patients and a considerable proportion of these events are preventable. AE have strong health, social and economic repercussions and until recently have constituted a silent epidemic in Spain. Consequently, study of these events should be a public health priority.

[Characteristics of 107 Spanish healthcare registries and evaluation of the utilization thereof]. / Características de 107 registros sanitarios españoles y valoración de su utilización.

BACKGROUND: The information concerning the currently existing healthcare registries in our country is not readily accessible, is scarce and some are not well-known, possibly being underused in comparison to their many potential uses. This study is aimed at evaluating the characteristics of the Spanish Healthcare registries and the utilization thereof, especially in Healthcare technology assessment. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study of the Spanish Healthcare registries within the 1997-2002 period. These registries were identified by means ofa bibliographic databases search and by way of a survey of Scientific Societies and Central and Autonomic Healthcare Administration. Another bibliographic databases search was conducted of the publications which use data from the healthcare registries included and have been evaluated by applying the scientific evidence quality criteria. RESULTS: A total of 107 healthcare registries were identified, most of which of local or regional coverage (71%), preferably were under Autonomic government authority (64.5%). The areas showing the largest number of registries identified were those related to death statistics (16.8%) and cancer (15.9%). A total of 298 publications were retrieved which analyze data produced by the registries identified, most of which are devoted to the study of the frequency and distribution of the events recorded (58.1%) and less frequently to the conducting of healthcare technology assessment studies (24.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The critical evaluation of the publications made it possible to identify some elements related to the analysis methodology and design which would heighten the quality of the healthcare technology assessment. Healthcare registries in Spain have developed recently and to differing degrees. Important areas without any records and improvement elements related to the use of healthcare registries for healthcare technology assessment were detected. It would be advisable to avail of a register of registries which would provide relevant, up-dated information thereon.