Revisión sistemática de la literatura acerca de la seguridad de los pacientes hospitalizados en servicios médicos / Systematic literature review on patient safety in medical departments

La seguridad del paciente es un tema de alto interés. En todos los escenarios de la atención sanitaria existe riesgo de eventos adversos (EA) y la determinación de su incidencia se ha descrito prácticamente en todas las especialidades médicas. Objetivo. Conocer la incidencia reportada en la literatura médica de eventos adversos en servicios médicos. Diseño y metodología. Búsqueda exhaustiva en bases de datos biomédicas con diversas estrategias, en revista de impacto y en artículos relacionados. Resultados. Se revisaron 17.437 entradas. Después de la lectura de resúmenes y artículos, y de aplicar criterios de inclusión y exclusión previamente definidos, se seleccionaron 10 artículos que registraban la incidencia de eventos adversos en servicios médicos. La mayoría de los estudios correspondió a cohortes históricas, con identificación de EA por cribado y análisis de registro clínico por revisión estructurada. Ninguno de ellos tenía como objetivo final notificar la incidencia de eventos adversos o caracterizarlos. La incidencia reportada en servicios médicos fue de 3,6% hasta 21,7%. Las definiciones de eventos adversos y las formas de detección fueron similares pero las pocas diferencias encontradas pusieron en riesgo la comparabilidad. Conclusión. No hay estudios dirigidos a la cuantificación de los eventos adversos en servicios médicos ni a su caracterización. Ninguno define lo que es un servicio médico, aunque los resultados que notifican están dentro de los valores publicados para los sistemas sanitarios. Es necesaria una mayor investigación en este área(AU)

Patient safety is an issue of interest. All scenarios of health care have a risk of adverse events (AE) and determination of its incidence has been reported in virtually all medical specialties. Objective. To determine the incidence reported in the medical literature of adverse events in medical departments. Design and methods. An exhaustive search of biomedical databases using different strategies, search in high impact journals and a manual search of related articles. Results. We reviewed 17,437 entries. After reading the abstracts and articles, and applying previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected 10 articles that reported the incidence of adverse events in medical departments. Most studies corresponded to a historical cohort, had used an AE screening to identify high risk patients, and had used a structured review to check clinical records. None of them had as their ultimate objective to report on the impact of adverse events or characterize them. The incidence reported in medical departments ranged from 3.6% to 21.7%. The definitions of adverse events and forms of detection were similar; however the few differences put the comparability at risk. Conclusion. No studies were aimed at quantifying or characterising the adverse events in health care. None of them defined what constitutes a medical department, although the results reported are within the published values for health systems. Further research is needed in this area(AU)

Factores que contribuyen a la infección relacionada con la asistencia sanitaria: cómo evitarlos / Factors that contribute to health care associated infections: how to prevent them

Objetivo. Identificar las características de los pacientes y de la asistencia asociadas con la infección relacionada con la atención sanitaria (IRAS) y determinar si existen diferencias entre las evitables (IRASE) y las que no lo son. Método. Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo basado en tres estudios españoles de eventos adversos ligados a la hospitalización. Se revisaron las historias clínicas valorando si la asistencia era la causante de IRAS e IRASE. Resultados. El 2,3% de los pacientes del estudio presentó una o más IRAS. El 60,2% fueron IRASE. Los que presentaron IRAS eran mayores que el resto, y presentaron mayor número de factores de riesgo intrínseco y extrínseco. Se observaron diferencias entre los pacientes que presentaron IRAS o IRASE en la presencia de algún factor de riesgo intrínseco. Los factores que mejor explicaron IRAS fueron distintos para cada una de las localizaciones más frecuentes. En el caso de las IRAS: catéter urinario (OR=2,4), catéter venoso central (OR=1,8) y sonda nasogástrica (OR=1,9); servicio de ingreso quirúrgico (OR=1,6) y estancia hospitalaria >1 semana (OR=7,5). Las estrategias identificadas para evitar IRAS fueron: técnica aséptica adecuada (25,5%), correcto seguimiento de los protocolos de sondaje vesical (20%) y de los cuidados y la valoración de vulnerabilidad de los pacientes (16,5%). Conclusiones. Entre los pacientes que presentaron IRAS y los que no presentaron se encontraron características diferenciadas. La evitabilidad es un juicio de valor independiente del de causalidad y se relaciona con si se han aplicado de forma correcta o no los protocolos. Identificar estos puntos en la asistencia permite establecer estrategias de mejora de la asistencia(AU)

Objective. To determine the patient and medical care characteristics of Health Care-Associated Infections (HCAI) and to determine whether or not there are any differences between those that may be avoidable. Method. A retrospective cohort study, based on three Spanish cohort studies of Adverse Events associated with hospitalization. The medical records were reviewed to assess whether or not the health care was the causing factor of the HCAI. We carried out the analyses using the same methodology as the National Study on the Adverse Effects associated with hospitalization (ENEAS). After reviewing the patient medical records to identify the HCAI associated factors, the reviewers gave a valued judgment on how likely the health care was the cause of the infection (HCAI) and whether there was evidence that they could have been avoided. Results. A total of 2.3% the patients in the study had one or more HCAI, with 60.2% of them being avoidable. The patients who had an HCAI were older and had a greater number of intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors. There was a significant difference in the presence of some intrinsic risk factor between patients who had an HCAI and those with an avoidable HCAI, but there were no differences as regards medical care extrinsic risk factors. The factors that best explained the HCAI were different for each one of the most common infection locations. Generally, the factors which best explained the HCAI were: urinary catheter (OR=2.4), nasogastric tube (OR=1.9) or central venous catheter (OR=1.8). Similarly, hospital admissions through a surgery department or a hospital stay longer than a week were identified as main factors, (OR=1.6), (OR=7.5), respectively. The best strategies to avoid an HCAI were: proper management of any aseptic technique and use of catheter (25.5%), a proper follow-up of the bladder catheterisation protocols (20%) and a proper health care follow-up of vulnerable patients (16.5%). Conclusion. Patients with an HCAI showed significant different characteristics from those who did not have an HCAI. The preventability is an independent valued judgment from the causality, and is associated to whether the proper protocol has been implemented or not. To identify these weaknesses enables us to establish strategies to improve the quality of medical care(AU)

[Systematic literature review on patient safety in medical departments]. / Revisión sistemática de la literatura acerca de la seguridad de los pacientes hospitalizados en servicios médicos.

UNLABELLED: Patient safety is an issue of interest. All scenarios of health care have a risk of adverse events (AE) and determination of its incidence has been reported in virtually all medical specialties. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence reported in the medical literature of adverse events in medical departments. DESIGN AND METHODS: An exhaustive search of biomedical databases using different strategies, search in high impact journals and a manual search of related articles. RESULTS: We reviewed 17,437 entries. After reading the abstracts and articles, and applying previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected 10 articles that reported the incidence of adverse events in medical departments. Most studies corresponded to a historical cohort, had used an AE screening to identify high risk patients, and had used a structured review to check clinical records. None of them had as their ultimate objective to report on the impact of adverse events or characterize them. The incidence reported in medical departments ranged from 3.6% to 21.7%. The definitions of adverse events and forms of detection were similar; however the few differences put the comparability at risk. CONCLUSION: No studies were aimed at quantifying or characterising the adverse events in health care. None of them defined what constitutes a medical department, although the results reported are within the published values for health systems. Further research is needed in this area.

[Factors that contribute to health care associated infections: how to prevent them]. / Factores que contribuyen a la infección relacionada con la asistencia sanitaria: cómo evitarlos.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the patient and medical care characteristics of Health Care-Associated Infections (HCAI) and to determine whether or not there are any differences between those that may be avoidable. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study, based on three Spanish cohort studies of Adverse Events associated with hospitalization. The medical records were reviewed to assess whether or not the health care was the causing factor of the HCAI. We carried out the analyses using the same methodology as the National Study on the Adverse Effects associated with hospitalization (ENEAS). After reviewing the patient medical records to identify the HCAI associated factors, the reviewers gave a valued judgment on how likely the health care was the cause of the infection (HCAI) and whether there was evidence that they could have been avoided. RESULTS: A total of 2.3% the patients in the study had one or more HCAI, with 60.2% of them being avoidable. The patients who had an HCAI were older and had a greater number of intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors. There was a significant difference in the presence of some intrinsic risk factor between patients who had an HCAI and those with an avoidable HCAI, but there were no differences as regards medical care extrinsic risk factors. The factors that best explained the HCAI were different for each one of the most common infection locations. Generally, the factors which best explained the HCAI were: urinary catheter (OR=2.4), nasogastric tube (OR=1.9) or central venous catheter (OR=1.8). Similarly, hospital admissions through a surgery department or a hospital stay longer than a week were identified as main factors, (OR=1.6), (OR=7.5), respectively. The best strategies to avoid an HCAI were: proper management of any aseptic technique and use of catheter (25.5%), a proper follow-up of the bladder catheterisation protocols (20%) and a proper health care follow-up of vulnerable patients (16.5%). CONCLUSION: Patients with an HCAI showed significant different characteristics from those who did not have an HCAI. The preventability is an independent valued judgment from the causality, and is associated to whether the proper protocol has been implemented or not. To identify these weaknesses enables us to establish strategies to improve the quality of medical care.