The identification of adverse events in hip fracture patients using the Global Trigger Tool: A prospective observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fracture is common in the elderly and is associated with high comorbidity, mortality and complication rates. There has been an increase in the investigation of healthcare-related adverse events (AEs) in some patient groups but there is limited knowledge about hip fracture patients. The aim was to explore the incidence, preventability and nature of AEs in hip fracture patients. METHODS: One hundred and sixty three hip fracture patients participated. A record review was conducted of prospectively collected data using Global Trigger Tool methodology to identify AEs up to 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: Sixty two (38.0%) of 163 patients had at least one AE (range 1-7). One hundred and two AEs were identified and 62 (60.8%) were deemed preventable. Healthcare-associated infections e.g. pneumonia, urinary tract infections and pressure ulcers were common. AEs were more common in older patients and those with pre-existing health conditions. Fifty eight (56.9%) AEs caused temporary harm and 4 (3.9%) contributed to patient death. CONCLUSION: AEs are common in hip fracture patients and most are preventable. If the focus is on improving healthcare for these patients, we should be concentrating our efforts on reducing the number of these preventable AEs, with a particular emphasis on improving the care of older patients with pre-existing health conditions.

The influence of depression on patient-reported outcomes for hip-fracture patients 1 year after surgery: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in elderly hip-fracture patients and together with cognitive impairment is associated with increased risk of mortality. AIM: We aimed to examine the influence depression has on patient-reported outcome up to 1 year after acute hip fracture. METHODS: 162 hip-fracture patients participated in the prospective observational cohort study and were followed up at baseline, and 3 and 12 months using patient-reported outcome scores. Patients with cognitive impairment were excluded. Depression was defined as a score ≥ 8 on the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS D), having a diagnosis of depression or being treated with anti-depressant medication. Hip function was assessed using Harris Hip Score (HHS), EQ-5D was used to assess health status and Quality of life, and the Pain Numerical Rating Scale (PRNS) was used to assess pain levels. A linear regression model adjusted for group, age, sex, and ASA class was used to identify risk factors for functional outcome 12 months after fracture. RESULTS: 35 patients were included in the depression group versus 127 in the control group. No statistical differences were found in the demographic data (age, sex, ASA class, fracture type, operation method, living situation, activities of daily living ADL and clinical pathway) between the groups. In the regression model, we found no correlation between depression and the patient-reported outcome. CONCLUSION: In young elderly hip fracture patients without cognitive dysfunction, depression may not be of major importance for the rehabilitation of hip function in the short term.

Revision for Symptomatic Pseudotumor After Primary Metal-on-Polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Standard Femoral Stem.

BACKGROUND: Pseudotumor formation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a well-known complication mainly associated with metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings and taper corrosion on modular-neck femoral stems. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of revision surgery for symptomatic pseudotumors in a large cohort of patients treated with primary THA with a standard stem and a non-MoM articulation. METHODS: We included 2,102 patients treated with a total of 2,446 THAs from 1999 until May 2016 in a prospective, observational cohort study. All patients underwent THA with the same uncemented, non-modular-neck femoral stem and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) (n = 2,409) or ceramic-on-polyethylene (n = 37) articulation. All patients were followed by means of a combination of surgical and medical chart review, follow-up visits, and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MARS MRI) was used for diagnosis of the pseudotumors, and serum metal ion levels and inflammatory marker levels were measured for all patients who underwent a revision due to pseudotumor. RESULTS: The prevalence of revision for symptomatic pseudotumor formation was 0.5% (13 cases) at a mean follow-up time of 7 years. The incidence rate was 0.9 case per 1,000 person-years. All 13 revisions were done in patients with an MoP articulation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a 0.5% prevalence of revision due to symptomatic pseudotumor formation in a cohort of patients who underwent THA with a non-MoM construct. Surgeons should be aware that symptomatic pseudotumor formation requiring revision surgery is a tangible complication even after standard MoP THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Retrospective record review in proactive patient safety work - identification of no-harm incidents.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to other safety critical industries, well-developed systems to monitor safety within the healthcare system remain limited. Retrospective record review is one way of identifying adverse events in healthcare. In proactive patient safety work, retrospective record review could be used to identify, analyze and gain information and knowledge about no-harm incidents and deficiencies in healthcare processes. The aim of the study was to evaluate retrospective record review for the detection and characterization of no-harm incidents, and compare findings with conventional incident-reporting systems. METHODS: A two-stage structured retrospective record review of no-harm incidents was performed on a random sample of 350 admissions at a Swedish orthopedic department. Results were compared with those found in one local, and four national incident-reporting systems. RESULTS: We identified 118 no-harm incidents in 91 (26.0%) of the 350 records by retrospective record review. Ninety-four (79.7%) no-harm incidents were classified as preventable. The five incident-reporting systems identified 16 no-harm incidents, of which ten were also found by retrospective record review. The most common no-harm incidents were related to drug therapy (n = 66), of which 87.9% were regarded as preventable. CONCLUSIONS: No-harm incidents are common and often preventable. Retrospective record review seems to be a valuable tool for identifying and characterizing no-harm incidents. Both harm and no-harm incidents can be identified in parallel during the same record review. By adding a retrospective record review of randomly selected records to conventional incident-reporting, health care providers can gain a clearer and broader picture of commonly occurring, no-harm incidents in order to improve patient safety.

Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? an evaluation of the "Harvard Medical Practice Study" method and the "Global Trigger Tool".

BACKGROUND: There has been a theoretical debate as to which retrospective record review method is the most valid, reliable, cost efficient and feasible for detecting adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and capability of two common retrospective record review methods, the "Harvard Medical Practice Study" method and the "Global Trigger Tool" in detecting adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients. METHODS: We performed a three-stage structured retrospective record review process in a random sample of 350 orthopaedic admissions during 2009 at a Swedish university hospital. Two teams comprised each of a registered nurse and two physicians were assigned, one to each method. All records were primarily reviewed by registered nurses. Records containing a potential adverse event were forwarded to physicians for review in stage 2. Physicians made an independent review regarding, for example, healthcare causation, preventability and severity. In the third review stage all adverse events that were found with the two methods together were compared and all discrepancies after review stage 2 were analysed. Events that had not been identified by one of the methods in the first two review stages were reviewed by the respective physicians. RESULTS: Altogether, 160 different adverse events were identified in 105 (30.0%) of the 350 records with both methods combined. The "Harvard Medical Practice Study" method identified 155 of the 160 (96.9%, 95% CI: 92.9-99.0) adverse events in 104 (29.7%) records compared with 137 (85.6%, 95% CI: 79.2-90.7) adverse events in 98 (28.0%) records using the "Global Trigger Tool". Adverse events "causing harm without permanent disability" accounted for most of the observed difference. The overall positive predictive value for criteria and triggers using the "Harvard Medical Practice Study" method and the "Global Trigger Tool" was 40.3% and 30.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: More adverse events were identified using the "Harvard Medical Practice Study" method than using the "Global Trigger Tool". Differences in review methodology, perception of less severe adverse events and context knowledge may explain the observed difference between two expert review teams in the detection of adverse events.

Healthcare processes must be improved to reduce the occurrence of orthopaedic adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Many nonhealth industries have decades of experiences working with safety systems. Similar systems are also needed in healthcare to improve patient safety. Clinical incident reporting systems in healthcare identify adverse events but seriously underestimate the incidence of adverse events. A wide range of information sources and monitoring techniques are needed to understand and mitigate healthcare risks. AIM: The purpose of this study was to identify patient safety risk factors that can lead to adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients. DESIGN: A three-stage structured retrospective patient record review of consecutively admitted patients to the inpatient service of a large, urban Swedish hospital. METHOD: Records for all orthopaedic inpatients admitted during a 2-month period (n = 395) were screened using 12 criteria. Positive records were then reviewed in two stages by orthopaedic surgeons using a standardized protocol. Data were collected from the index admission and from subsequent visits or readmissions within 28 days of discharge. RESULTS: Sixty patients experienced 65 healthcare associated adverse events. Affected patients had a length of hospital stay double that of patients without adverse events. Adverse events were more common in patients undergoing surgical procedures and patients with risk factors for anaesthesia. Although 59 of the adverse events occurred in patients who underwent surgery, only nine of the adverse events were due to deficiencies in surgical/anaesthesia technique. The others were related to deficiencies in healthcare processes. The most common adverse events were hospital acquired infections (n = 20) and delayed detection of urinary retention (n = 13). Six adverse drug events involved elderly patients (≥65 years). CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic care is a high risk activity for its typically elderly, often debilitated patients. Reducing adverse events in orthopaedic patients will require more multidisciplinary, interdepartmental teamwork strategies that focus on healthcare processes outside the operating room.