Las interrupciones al profesional de enfermería durante la preparación y administración de medicación: un problema de seguridad / Interrupting nurses while preparing and administering medication: a safety issue

Los errores de medicación y sus consecuencias negativas constituyen un problema de salud pública. Entre las causas que pueden favorecer su aparición se encuentran las interrupciones a las enfermeras durante la preparación y administración de medicación. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar la proporción de interrupciones necesarias e innecesarias según quien ocasiona la interrupción. Material y método: Estudio transversal, en el que participaron 52 enfermeras durante una semana, registrando las interrupciones que recibían y valorando si la interrupción debía considerarse necesaria o innecesaria. Resultados: Se registraron 485 interrupciones. La proporción de interrupciones fue superior preparando la medicación, en las unidades médicas, durante el turno de tarde entre las 15:30 y 16:30h. Se encontraron diferencias significativas entre la proporción de interrupciones innecesarias y necesarias según quién ocasiona la interrupción, el motivo y el horario de la misma. Conclusiones: Identificar quien ocasiona las interrupciones innecesarias, el origen de las mismas y la franja horaria en la que más se producen, permitirá implementar medidas para reducir las mismas

Medication errors and their negative consequences on patients constitute a serious public health problem. Among the causes we can find interruptions to the nurses during drug preparation and administration. The objective of this study is to analyse the reasons for the interruptions while preparing and administering medication, as well as their relevance. Materials and method: This is cross-sectional study, in which 52 nursing professionals participated, during a period of one week, recording the interruptions that occurred during the process and whether such interruptions were necessary or unnecessary. Results: A total of 485 interruptions were recorded, more proportion were recorded during drug preparation, in medical units reported, during afternoon between 15:30 and 16:30. There were significant differences between the proportion of unnecessary and necessary interruptions depending on who interrupted the reason for interruption and the time at which they occurred. Conclusions: Identifying causes of interruptions, origin and time in which they occur, will allow implementing measures to reduce them

[Adverse events in ambulatory surgical procedures]. / Efectos adversos en cirugía mayor ambulatoria.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of adverse events and patients with adverse events in ambulatory surgical procedures and to compare it with that of other studies. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Historical cohort study. The scope of the study was the ambulatory surgical procedures unit of a university hospital. All general surgery department patients seen in this unit during the year 2005 were included. RESULTS: The incidence of patients with adverse events directly related to hospital care was of 3% (95% CI, 0.9-5). Of the adverse events identified 5 were considered slight, 3 moderate and none were considered serious. All the moderate ones were considered unavoidable and of slight, only the one was avoidable. Six of the adverse events were associated to a procedure, one due to hospital infections and one with other causes. There was an increase in hospital stay due to 75% of the adverse events, and 25% of them affected admission. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of adverse events related to medical care in the Spanish hospitals is similar to those found in the studies carried out in American and European countries using the same methodology. The surgical area is considered a high risk unit. However, ambulatory surgical procedures reduce these risks, in such a way that the incidence is far below that of surgery department. Therefore, besides improving the technical efficiency of the clinical services, it is safer for the patients.

Efectos adversos en cirugía mayor ambulatoria / Adverse events in ambulatory surgical procedures

Objetivo. Determinar la incidencia de efectos adversos y de pacientes con efectos adversos en cirugía mayor ambulatoria y compararla con la incidencia encontrada en los servicios de cirugía general incluidos en el estudio ENEAS. Material y método. Estudio de cohortes históricas. El ámbito del estudio fue la unidad de cirugía mayor ambulatoria de un hospital universitario. Se incluyó a todos los pacientes atendidos en el servicio de cirugía general durante el año 2005. Resultados. La incidencia de pacientes con efectos adversos relacionados directamente con la asistencia sanitaria fue del 3% (intervalo de confianza del95%, 0,9-5). De los 8 efectos adversos detectados, 5se consideraron leves, 3 moderados y ninguno grave. Todos los moderados se consideraron inevitables y de los leves tan sólo uno era evitable. Entre los efectos adversos, 6 tuvieron relación con un procedimiento, uno con infección nosocomial y otro con otras causas. Tres cuartas partes de los efectos adversos tuvieron como consecuencia un incremento de la estancia y en una cuarta parte el efecto adverso condicionó el ingreso. Conclusiones. La incidencia de efectos adversos relacionados con la asistencia sanitaria en los hospitales españoles es similar a la de los estudios realizados en países americanos y europeos con similar metodología. Se considera que el área quirúrgica es de alto riesgo para desencadenarlos; sin embargo, la cirugía mayor ambulatoria reduce su incidencia. Por lo tanto, además de mejorar la eficiencia técnica de los servicios clínicos, es más segura para los pacientes (AU)

Objective. To assess the incidence of adverse events and patients with adverse events in ambulatory surgical procedures and to compare it with that of other studies. Material and method. Historical cohort study. The scope of the study was the ambulatory surgical procedures unit of a university hospital. All general surgery department patients seen in this unit during the year 2005 were included. Results. The incidence of patients with adverse events directly related to hospital care was of 3% (95% CI, 0.9-5). Of the adverse events identified 5 were considered slight, 3 moderate and none were considered serious. All the moderate ones were considered unavoidable and of slight, only the one was avoidable. Six of the adverse events were associated to a procedure, one due to hospital infections an done with other causes. There was an increase in hospital stay due to 75% of the adverse events, and 25%of them affected admission. Conclusions. The incidence of adverse events related to medical care in the Spanish hospitals is similar to those found in the studies carried out in American and European countries using the same methodology. The surgical area is considered a high risk unit. However, ambulatory surgical procedures reduce these risks, in such a way that the incidence is far below that of surgery department. Therefore, besides improving the technical efficiency of the clinical services, itis safer for the patients (AU)

Mitos y miedos: las precauciones frente a la gripe aviar las justifica el mecanismo de transmisión / Myths and fears: precautions against avian influenza are justified by the mechanism of transmission

No disponible

[Health assistance as a risk factor: side effects related to clinical practice]. / La asistencia sanitaria como factor de riesgo: los efectos adversos ligados a la práctica clínica.

The increasingly complex health care systems, together with more vulnerable, highly informed and demanding patients, conform a clinical environment in where adverse effects (AE) related to health care practice appear. The incidence of AE in hospitalized patients has been estimated between a 4 and a 17%. Twenty-five per cent of them were serious and half were considered avoidable. Seventy per cent of the AE are due to technical failures, faults in the decision making process, inappropriate performance based on the available information, problems in the anamnesis, and absent or inadequate health care provision. The explanatory model of the causal chain of an adverse effect supports that systems failures are more important than people failures. The IDEA Project seeks to study the incidence of AE related to health care for the first time in Spain. To facilitate the necessary change from a punitive culture to a proactive culture, a multidisciplinary approach of the problem taking into account the point of view of health professionals, patients, community leaders and courts is needed.

La asistencia sanitaria como factor de riesgo: los efectos adversos ligados a la práctica clínica / Health assistance as a risk factor: side effects related to clinical practice

Los sistemas sanitarios cada vez más complejos, junto con pacientes más vulnerables y a la vez más informados y demandantes, conforman un entorno clínico en el que aparecen los efectos adversos (EA) ligados a la asistencia sanitaria. La incidencia de EA en pacientes hospitalizados se ha estimado entre el 4 y el 17%. Una cuarta parte fueron graves y el 50% se consideró evitables. El 70% de los EA se deben a fallos técnicos, defectos en la toma de decisiones, no actuación de la manera más apropiada en función de la información disponible, problemas en la anamnesis, y ausencia o prestación inadecuada de cuidados necesarios. El modelo explicativo de la cadena causal de un efecto adverso mantiene que son más importantes los fallos de sistema que los fallos de las personas. Para facilitar el necesario cambio de la cultura punitiva a la cultura proactiva es necesario el enfoque multidisciplinario del problema teniendo en cuenta el punto de vista de los profesionales, los pacientes, los líderes sociales y la magistratura (AU)

The increasingly complex health care systems, together with more vulnerable, highly informed and demanding patients, conform a clinical environment in where adverse effects (AE) related to health care practice appear. The incidence of AE in hospitalized patients has been estimated between a 4 and a 17%. Twenty-five per cent of them were serious and half were considered avoidable. Seventy per cent of the AE are due to technical failures, faults in the decision making process, inappropriate performance based on the available information, problems in the anamnesis, and absent or inadequate health care provision. The explanatory model of the causal chain of an adverse effect supports that systems failures are more important than people failures. The IDEA Project seeks to study the incidence of AE related to health care for the first time in Spain. To facilitate the necessary change from a punitive culture to a proactive culture, a multidisciplinary approach of the problem taking into account the point of view of health professionals, patients, community leaders and courts is needed (AU)

Siguiendo la pista de los efectos adversos: cómo detectarlos / Monitoring adverse events: how to detect them

Objetivos: Comparar la efectividad, la validez y la aceptabilidad al estimar tasas de efectos adversos y su carácter evitable al utilizar 3 métodos diferentes: transversal, prospectivo y retrospectivo. Diseño: Valoración independiente de los métodos sobre una misma muestra. Participantes: Un total de 778 pacientes en 37 unidades clínicas en Francia. Medidas principales: Efectividad: proporción de casos identificados por cada método comparados con una lista de la referencia de casos confirmados por el personal del servicio y proporción de casos evitables. Otras medidas secundarias: fiabilidad en el cribado e identificación interobservador, carga de trabajo percibida y validez percibida de los resultados. Resultados: Los métodos prospectivo y retrospectivo identificaron un número similar de casos médicos y quirúrgicos (el 70 y el 66% del total, respectivamente), pero el prospectivo identificó más casos evitables (el 64 y el 40%, respectivamente). El método transversal mostró muchos falsos positivos y no identificó ninguno de los efectos adversos más graves. Ninguno de los métodos resultó apropiado para las unidades obstétricas. La carga de trabajo fue percibida como similar para los métodos prospectivo y transversal, y menor para el retrospectivo. Conclusión: En este estudio se han encontrado diferencias en la efectividad de identificación de estos métodos por tipo de servicio pero, globalmente, el método retrospectivo es igual de eficaz que el prospectivo para la identificación de efectos adversos. El papel que han de desempeñar los métodos epidemiológicos en el estudio de los efectos adversos podría resumirse en que el método transversal tiene un interesante coste de oportunidad en nuestro medio, el estudio de cohortes retrospectivo sigue siendo el método de referencia para evaluar la aparición de los efectos adversos; el prospectivo ha destacado por sus virtudes pedagógicas y comunicativas, y su buena apreciación de las cadenas de efectos y sus consecuencias y el estudio de casos y controles se podría utilizar para la evaluación del impacto de los efectos adversos

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness, reliability, and acceptability of estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events using three methods: cross sectional, prospective, and retrospective. Design: Independent assessment of three methods applied to the same sample. Participants: A total of 778 patients in 37 wards in France. Main outcome measures: Effectiveness: the proportion of cases identified by each method compared with a reference list of cases confirmed by ward staff and the proportion of preventable cases. Secondary outcome measures were inter-rater reliability in screening and identification, perceived workload, and the perceived validity of the results. Results: The prospective and retrospective methods identified similar numbers of medical and surgical cases (70% and 66% of the total, respectively), but the prospective method identified a greater number of preventable events (64% and 40%, respectively). The cross sectional method showed a large number of false positives and identified none of the most serious adverse events. None of the methods was appropriate for obstetrics. The workload for the prospective and cross sectional methods was perceived as similar and that for the retrospective method was perceived as lower. Conclusion: In this study, differences in the effectiveness of the three methods were found according to ward type; however, the overall effectiveness of the retrospective and prospective methods in identifying adverse events was similar. The role of epidemiological methods in the study of adverse events can be summarized as follows: the cross sectional method can be useful in certain circumstances; the retrospective cohort study continues to be the reference method to evaluate the incidence of adverse events; the prospective method has notable pedagogic and communicative properties and is effective in appraising chains of events and consequences, and the case-control study could be used to evaluate the impact of adverse events

Incidencia e impacto de los efectos adversos en dos hospitales / Incidence and impact of adverse events in two hospitals

Objetivos: Presentar los resultados preliminares del proyecto IDEA relativos a la incidencia e impacto de los efectos adversos (EA) en dos de los hospitales incluidos en el estudio. Material y método: Diseño: estudio de cohortes prospectivo realizado durante el primer trimestre de 2004 en dos servicios de dos hospitales de la Comunidad Valenciana. Muestreo consecutivo. Sujetos: pacientes de más de 14 años, ingresados más de 24 h en los servicios seleccionados, en total, 673 sujetos. Medidas principales: proporción de alerta de EA (formulario de cribado positivo) e incidencia acumulada de EA identificados (cuestionario modular para su confirmación y caracterización). Resultados: La incidencia de alertas fue de un 34,7% para el hospital A (servicio de cirugía general) y de un 31% en el hospital B (servicio de medicina interna). La incidencia de EA fue del 16,1 y el 5,6%, respectivamente. El 42,1% de los EA del hospital A y el 16,7% del hospital B fueron considerados evitables, independientemente de la gravedad de sus consecuencias. Conclusiones: Los sistemas de vigilancia de alerta de los EA se han mostrado muy diferentes en los servicios estudiados. La variabilidad en la práctica clínica condiciona la identificación de los EA al revisar las historias clínicas

Objectives: To present the preliminary results of the IDEA project relating to the effect and impact of adverse events in two of the hospitals included in the study. Material and method: Design: prospective cohort study carried out in the first quarter of 2004 in two wards of two hospitals of the Autonomous Community of Valencia (Spain). Sampling: consecutive. Subjects: patients more than 14 years old, hospitalized for more than 24 hours in the selected wards. The total number of subjects was 673. Main measurements: proportion of adverse event alerts (positive detection questionnaire) and the accumulated incidence of identified adverse events (modular questionnaire for confirmation of AE and their characterization). Results: The incidence of alerts was 34.7% in hospital A (general surgery ward) and 31% in hospital B (internal medicine ward). The incidence of adverse events was 16.1% and 5.6% respectively. A total of 42.1% of the adverse events in hospital A and 16.7% of those in hospital B were avoidable, independently of the seriousness of their consequences. Conclusions: The adverse event surveillance systems differed between the two wards studied. Variability in clinical practice affects identification of adverse events on reviewing medical records