Análisis de eventos adversos en los servicios de cirugía general y aparato digestivo. Estudio multicéntrico / Analysis of adverse events in general surgery: A multicenter study

Introducción: El conocimiento de los eventos adversos (EA) en los hospitales de agudos es un aspecto de especial relevancia en la seguridad del paciente. Su incidencia oscila entre un 3-17% y la cirugía se relaciona con la aparición de entre un 46-65% de todos los EA. Material y métodos: Se realiza un estudio observacional, descriptivo, retrospectivo y multicéntrico, con la participación de 31 hospitales de agudos españoles, para la determinación y análisis de los EA en los servicios de cirugía general. Resultados: La prevalencia de EA fue del 31,53%. Los tipos de EA más frecuentes fueron de tipo infeccioso (35%). Los pacientes con mayores grados de ASA, mayor complejidad y un tipo de ingreso urgente son factores asociados a la presencia de EA. A la mayoría de los pacientes se les atribuyó una categoría de daño F (daño temporal al paciente que requiera iniciar o prolongar la hospitalización) (58,42%). El 14,69% de los EA son considerados graves. El 34,22% de los EA se consideraron evitables. Conclusiones: La prevalencia de EA en los pacientes de cirugía general y del aparato digestivo (CGAD) es elevada. La mayor parte de los EA fueron de tipo infeccioso. El EA más frecuente fue la infección de herida o sitio quirúrgico. Los pacientes con mayores grados de ASA, mayor complejidad y un tipo de ingreso urgente son factores asociados a la presencia de EA. La mayoría de los EA detectados han supuesto un daño leve o moderado sobre los pacientes. Alrededor de un tercio de EA fueron evitables.(AU)

Introduction: Knowledge of adverse events (AE) in acute care hospitals is a particularly relevant aspect of patient safety. Its incidence ranges from 3% to 17%, and surgery is related to the occurrence of 46%-65% of all AE. Material and methods: An observational, descriptive, retrospective, multicenter study was conducted with the participation of 31 Spanish acute-care hospitals to determine and analyze AE in general surgery services. Results: The prevalence of AE was 31.53%. The most frequent types of AE were infectious (35%). Higher ASA grades, greater complexity and urgent-type admission are factors associated with the presence of AE. The majority of patients (58.42%) were attributed a category F event (temporary harm to the patient requiring initial or prolonged hospitalization); 14.69% of AE were considered severe, while 34.22% of AE were considered preventable. Conclusions: The prevalence of AE in General and GI Surgery (GGIS) patients is high. Most AE were infectious, and the most frequent AE was surgical site infection. Higher ASA grades, greater complexity and urgent-type admission are factors associated with the presence of AE. Most detected AE resulted in mild or moderate harm to the patients. About one-third of AE were preventable.(AU)

Analysis of adverse events in general surgery. Multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge of adverse events (AE) in acute care hospitals is a particularly relevant aspect of patient safety. Its incidence ranges from 3% to 17%, and surgery is related to the occurrence of 46%-65% of all AE. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational, descriptive, retrospective, multicenter study was conducted with the participation of 31 Spanish acute-care hospitals to determine and analyze AE in general surgery services. RESULTS: The prevalence of AE was 31.53%. The most frequent types of AE were infectious (35%). Higher ASA grades, greater complexity and urgent-type admission are factors associated with the presence of AE. The majority of patients (58.42%) were attributed a category F event (temporary harm to the patient requiring initial or prolonged hospitalization); 14.69% of AE were considered severe, while 34.22% of AE were considered preventable. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AE in General and GI Surgery (GGIS) patients is high. Most AE were infectious, and the most frequent AE was surgical site infection. Higher ASA grades, greater complexity and urgent-type admission are factors associated with the presence of AE. Most detected AE resulted in mild or moderate harm to the patients. About one-third of AE were preventable.

Value-Based Healthcare Project Implementation in a Hierarchical Tertiary Hospital: Lessons Learned.

An important innovation in healthcare is the value-based healthcare (VBHC) framework, a way to solve health services' sustainability problems and ensure continuous improvement of healthcare quality. The Quality and Safety Unit at the Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre has been since May 2018 coordinating the implementation of several healthcare innovation projects within the paradigm of VBHC. Implementing innovations in a complex institution, such as a tertiary hospital, is a challenge; we present here the lessons learned in the last 4 years of work. We detail exclusively the aspects related to continuous improvement and value addition to the process. In summary, for any VBHC project implementation, we found that there are five main issues: (1) adequate data quality; (2) development of data recording and visualization tools; (3) minimizing healthcare professional's effort to record data; (4) centralize governance, coordination, and transparency policies; (5) managerial's implication and follow-up. We described six steps key to ensure a successful implementation which are the following: testing the feasibility and complexities of the entry process; establishing leadership and coordination of the project; developing patient-reported outcomes and experience measurements; developing and adapting the data recording and data analysis tools; piloting in one or more medical conditions and evaluating the results and project management. The implementation duration can vary depending on the complexity of the Medical Condition Clinical Process and Patient Pathways. However, we estimate that the implementing phase will last a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 24 months. During this period, the institution should be capable of designing and implementing the proposed innovations. The implementation costs vary as well depending on the complexity, ranging from 90,000 euros to 250,000 euros. Implementation problems included the resistance to change of institutions and professionals. To date, there are few successful, published implementations of value-based healthcare. Our quality of care and patient safety methodological approach to the implementation has provided a particular advantage.

Impact of the implementation of electronic health records on the quality of discharge summaries and on the coding of hospitalization episodes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the implementation and use of the electronic health records (EHR) modifies the quality, readability and/or the length of the discharge summaries (DS) and the average number of coded diagnosis and procedures per hospitalization episode. DESIGN: A pre-post-intervention descriptive study conducted between 2010 and 2014. SETTING: The 'Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre' (H12O) of Madrid (Spain). A tertiary University Hospital of up to 1200 beds. INTERVENTION: Implementation and systematic use of the EHR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality, length and readability of the DS and the number of diagnosis and procedures codes by raw and risk-adjusted data. RESULTS: A total of 200 DS were included in the present work. After the implementation of the EHR the DS had better quality per formal requirements, although were longer and harder to read (P < 0.001). The average number of coded diagnoses and procedures was increased, 9.48 in the PRE-INT and 10.77 in the POST-INT, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001) in both raw and risk-adjusted data. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of EHR improves the formal quality of DS, although poor use of EHR functionalities might reduce its understandability. Having more clinical information immediately available due to EHR increases the number of diagnosis and procedure codes enhancing their utility for secondary uses.