Validation of a Reduced Set of High-Performance Triggers for Identifying Patient Safety Incidents with Harm in Primary Care: TriggerPrim Project.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to construct and validate a reduced set of high-performance triggers for identifying adverse events (AEs) via electronic medical records (EMRs) review in primary care (PC). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study for validating a diagnostic test. The study included all 262 PC centers of Madrid region (Spain). Patients were older than 18 years who attended their PC center over the last quarter of 2018. The randomized sample was n = 1797. Main measurements were as follows: ( a ) presence of each of 19 specific computer-identified triggers in the EMR and ( b ) occurrence of an AE. To collect data, EMR review was conducted by 3 doctor-nurse teams. Triggers with statistically significant odds ratios for identifying AEs were selected for the final set after adjusting for age and sex using logistic regression. RESULTS: The sensitivity (SS) and specificity (SP) for the selected triggers were: ≥3 appointments in a week at the PC center (SS = 32.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 22.8%-41.8%]; SP = 92.8% [95% CI, 91.6%-94.0%]); hospital admission (SS = 19.4% [95% CI, 11.4%-27.4%]; SP = 97.2% [95% CI, 96.4%-98.0%]); hospital emergency department visit (SS = 31.2% [95% CI, 21.8%-40.6%]; SP = 90.8% [95% CI, 89.4%-92.2%]); major opioids prescription (SS = 2.2% [95% CI, 0.0%-5.2%]; SP = 99.8% [95% CI, 99.6%-100%]); and chronic benzodiazepine treatment in patients 75 years or older (SS = 14.0% [95% CI, 6.9%-21.1%]; SP = 95.5% [95% CI, 94.5%-96.5%]).The following values were obtained in the validation of this trigger set (the occurrence of at least one of these triggers in the EMR): SS = 60.2% (95% CI, 50.2%-70.1%), SP = 80.8% (95% CI, 78.8%-82.6%), positive predictive value = 14.6% (95% CI, 11.0%-18.1%), negative predictive value = 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.2%), positive likelihood ratio = 3.13 (95% CI, 2.3-4.2), and negative likelihood ratio = 0.49 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7). CONCLUSIONS: The set containing the 5 selected triggers almost triples the efficiency of EMR review in detecting AEs. This suggests that this set is easily implementable and of great utility in risk-management practice.

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 hypertension diagnosis on morbidity and mortality: a retrospective cohort study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is responsible for a huge burden of disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of newly diagnosed hypertension on the occurrence of kidney or cardiovascular events (K/CVEs) and on mortality among community dwellers. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study, conducted from January, 2007, to December, 2018. All patients (age > 18) newly diagnosed with hypertension and no previous K/CVEs in 2007 and 2008, in the primary care centers of Madrid (Spain) (n = 71,770), were enrolled. The control group (n = 72,946) included patients without hypertension, matched by center, sex and age. The occurrence of kidney or CV events, including mortality from these causes and total mortality were evaluated using Cox regression and multistate models. Data were collected from three sources: personal data from administrative records, clinical data from medical records, and mortality data from regional and national databases. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 138.61 months (IQR: 124.68-143.97 months). There were 32,896 K/CVEs (including 3,669 deaths from these causes) and 12,999 deaths from other causes. Adjusted for sex, smoking, diabetes and socioeconomic status, K/CVEs HR was 4.36 (95% CI: 3.80-5.00) for diagnoses before 45 years of age, 2.45(95% CI: 2.28- 2.63) for diagnosis between 45 to 54 years, and HR decreased to 1.86 (95% CI: 1.64-210) for diagnoses over age 85. Total mortality risk was only higher for hypertension diagnosed before 55 years of age (HR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.90-3.19 for ages 18 to 44; and HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.28 for ages 45 to 54). CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of hypertension in the community environment, in patients without evidence of previous kidney or CV disease, is associated with a large increase in the risk of K/CVEs, but especially in individuals diagnosed before the age of 55. This diagnosis is only associated with an increase in kidney or cardiovascular mortality or overall mortality when it occurs before age 55.

Impacto del control de la tensión arterial sobre la morbimortalidad en pacientes hipertensos mayores de 65 años en el ámbito comunitario / Impact of blood pressure control on morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients aged 65 years and over in the community setting

Objetivo: evaluar el impacto del control de la tensión arterial (TA) sobre la morbimortalidad en > 65 años, sin patología cardiovascular previa, en el ámbito comunitario. Métodos: estudio de cohortes retrospectivas. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes (≥ 65 años) con diagnóstico de hipertensión arterial (HTA) (01/01/2007-31/12/2008), sin eventos cardiovasculares previos de los centros de salud de la Comunidad de Madrid, con al menos dos registros de TA el primer año de seguimiento (n = 17.150). Se evaluaron la aparición de eventos cardiovasculares (incluida mortalidad cardiovascular) y la mortalidad total, mediante regresión de Cox. Resultados: la mediana de seguimiento para mortalidad fue de 129,58 meses (rango intercuartil [RIC]: 120,41-136,94 meses). Se produjeron 8.641 eventos cardiovasculares y 4.073 muertes por cualquier causa. Ajustado por género, grado de hipertensión, tabaquismo, diabetes e hipercolesterolemia, el buen control (TA < 140/90 mmHg) no se asociaba con una disminución de eventos cardiovasculares, pero sí con una disminución de mortalidad del 14,41% (hazard ratio [HR] 0,8559; intervalo de confianza [IC] 95%: 0,7776-0,9421%) entre 75 y 84 años. Cuando se utilizan las cifras de 130/80 mmHg para definir el buen control, este se asociaba con un exceso de mortalidad del 43,58% (IC 95%: 19,60-72,36%) entre 65 y 74 años y del 61,22% (IC 95%: 22,99-111,35%) en sujetos de 85 y más años. Conclusión: el control de la TA en sujetos >65 años se asocia con una disminución ligera de la mortalidad entre 75 y 84 años. Cifras de control más estrictas se relacionan con mayor ocurrencia de evento cardiovascular y de mortalidad, especialmente en el grupo de mayor edad.(AU)

Objective: to assess the impact of blood pressure (BP) control on morbidity and mortality in over 65-year-olds, without previous cardiovascular pathology, in a community setting. Methods: retrospective cohort study. All patients (≥65 years) with a diagnosis of HT (01/01/2007-31/12/2008), without previous cardiovascular events (CVD), with at least two BP recordings in the first year of follow-up) from every health centres in the Community of Madrid were included (n = 17,150). The occurrence of CVD (including CV mortality) and total mortality were assessed using Cox regression. Results: the median follow-up for mortality was 129.58 months (IQR: 120.41-136.94 months). There were 8,641 CVDs and 4,073 deaths from any cause. Adjusted for gender, hypertension severity, smoking, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia, good control (BP < 140/90 mmHg) was not associated with a decrease in CVD, but was associated with a 14.41% decrease in mortality (HR 0.8559, 95% CI: 0.7776- 0.9421) between 75 and 84 years. When threshold of 130/80 mmHg is used to define good control, this was associated with an excess mortality of 43.58% (95% CI 19.60-72.36%) between 65 and 74 years and 61.22% (95% CI 22.99-111.35%) in subjects aged 85 and over. Conclusion: BP control in people over 65 years of age is associated with a slight decrease in mortality between 75 and 84 years of age. Tighter control figures are associated with a higher incidence of CVD and mortality, especially in the older age group.(AU)

Occupational and work-related disease underestimated and linked to temporary disability through Primary Health Care Services.

AIM: To estimate the occupational disease linked to temporary incapacity (not work-related illness). BACKGROUND: The under-reporting of occupational disease is a recognized problem in Europe. METHODS: Cross-sectional study conducted in Spanish adult population using periods of temporary incapacity recorded in primary care during 2015. Rates of occupational disease were estimated using the García & Gadea study. RESULTS: A total of 130,771 episodes of temporary incapacity were studied from 91,448 people, and 56,092 were women (61.3%). The overall prevalence rate was 2,096 and was higher in women (2,504) than in men (1,665) (p < 0.001). It was estimated that 6,580 (7.2%) could be suffering from an occupational disease. Musculoskeletal complaints were the commonest, affecting 75,165 people (82.2%). For the binary logistic regression, the dependent variable was the existence or lack of incapacity due to a musculoskeletal pathology. Age acts as a protective factor (adjusted OR = 0.978). The periods off work due to musculoskeletal complaints are lower in the first quarter of the year [OR > 1; p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: 7.2% of the population was estimated to be off work due to an occupational disease. This estimate reflects the well-known under-reporting of occupational diseases which are dealt with by the Public Health System instead of specialized clinics. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: The interdisciplinary role of the occupational health nurse makes it an adequate professional to detect the cases of occupational diseases in primary care settings. Occupational Health Nursing has been recognized by the managers as the most suitable professionals to carry out the screening of occupational diseases in Primary Care.