Monitoring Preventable Adverse Events and Near Misses: Number and Type Identified Differ Depending on Method Used.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate how many preventable adverse events (PAEs) and near misses are identified through the methods structured record review, Web-based incident reporting (IR), and daily safety briefings, and to distinguish the type of events identified by each method. METHODS: One year of retrospective data from 2017 were collected from one patient cohort in a 422-bed acute care hospital. Preventable adverse events and near misses were collected from the hospital's existing resources and presented descriptively as number per 1000 patient-days. RESULTS: The structured record review identified 19.9 PAEs; the IR system, 3.4 PAEs; and daily safety briefings, 5.4 PAEs per 1000 patient-days. The most common PAEs identified by the record review method were drug-related PAEs, pressure ulcers, and hospital-acquired infections. The most common PAEs identified by the IR system and daily safety briefings were fall injury and pressure ulcers, followed by skin/superficial vessel injuries for the IR system and hospital-acquired infections for the daily safety briefings. Incident reporting and daily safety briefings identified 7.8 and 31.9 near misses per 1000 patient-days, respectively. The most common near misses were related to how care is organized. CONCLUSIONS: The different methods identified different amounts and types of PAEs and near misses. The study supports that health care organizations should adopt multiple methods to get a comprehensive review of the number and type of events occurring in their setting. Daily safety briefings seem to be a particularly suitable method for assessing an organization's inherent security and may foster a nonpunitive culture.

Predictive validity of 4 risk assessment scales for prediction of pressure ulcer development in a hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to examine and compare the predictive validity of 4 risk assessment scales used for the prediction of pressure ulcer (PrU) development and to identify risk factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. SETTING: A general hospital in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (all aged ≥18 years) admitted to medical, surgical, orthopedic, oncology, and rehabilitation wards. Of 412 patients available, a total of 346 patients participated in the study. METHOD: Data were collected using the Swedish version of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel minimum data set as well as the Norton, Modified Norton, Braden, and Risk Assessment Pressure Sore (Ulcer) (RAPS) scales. The predictive validity was estimated by measuring sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors associated with PrUs. RESULTS: The RAPS scale reached best balance between sensitivity and specificity at the recommended cutoff level of ≤29, followed by the Braden scale and the Norton scale at recommended cutoff levels ≤18 versus ≤16, respectively. The modified Norton scale also reached an acceptable balance between sensitivity and specificity but at the cutoff level of ≤23, which is a higher cutoff level than recommended. General physical condition, physical activity, moisture, friction, and shear emerged as significant risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The results support that the recommended cutoff levels of the RAPS, Norton, and Braden scales are valid in a general hospital setting. However, the recommended cutoff level of the modified Norton scale (≤20) has to be increased when used in this care context.