Bed 13 is not worse than any other. A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Risk management and patient safety are closely related, following this premise some industries have adopted measures to omit number 13. Healthcare is not left behind, in some hospital the day of surgery's or bed numbering avoid number 13. The objective was to assess whether it is necessary to redesign the safety policies implemented in hospitals based on avoiding 13 in the numbering of rooms/beds. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Mortality and the number of adverse events suffered by patients admitted to rooms/beds numbering 13 (bad chance) or 7 (fair chance) over a two-year period to Intensive Care Unit, Medicine, Gastroenterology, Surgery, and Paediatric service were registered and compared. RESULTS: A total of 8553 admissions were included. They had similar length-of-stay and Charlson Index scores (p-value=0.435). Mortality of bed 13 was 268 (6.2%, 95% CI 5.5-6.9) and 282 in bed 7 (6.7%, 95% CI 5.9-7.5) (p-value=0.3). A total of 422 adverse events from 4342 admissions (9.7%, 95% CI 8.9-10.6) occurred in bed 13, while in bed 7 the count of adverse events was 398 in 4211 admissions (9.4%, 95% CI 8.6-10.4) (p-value=0.6). Odds Ratio for mortality was equal to 0.9 (95% CI 0.8-1.1) and suffering adverse events when admitted to bed 13 versus bed 7 was 1.03 (95% CI 0.9-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Bed 13 is not a risk factor for patient safety. Hospitals should pay attention to causes and interventions to avoid adverse events based on evidence rather than beliefs or myths.

[Absenteeism and associated factors in scheduled visits to a Preventive Medicine outpatient clinic]. / Absentismo, y factores asociados, en las citas programadas de una consulta externa de Medicina Preventiva.

BACKGROUND: Patient absenteeism in outpatient clinics represents a significant obstacle to the cost-effectiveness of healthcare. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of absence of patients and its associated factors in scheduled visits to a Preventive Medicine department. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The cross-sectional study was carried out in the Service of Preventive Medicine of the Lozano Blesa University Clinical Hospital of Zaragoza. It included all the visits scheduled from 3 January to 31 March 2017. For each visit, the date and time were registered, together with the type (first or consecutive appointments), age, gender, town of residence, country of birth, and underlying disease. The Chi-squared test was used to determine the association between the variables and making the visit, with a multiple logistic regression analysis being performed on the variables in which a significant association was found. RESULTS: Of the total of 582 appointments studied, the absenteeism rate was 12.5% (73 out of 582; 13.7% for first appointments and 11.7% for consecutive appointments). Variables that revealed a significant association with patients not attending were: time (9.00-11:15 a. m.; OR=1.84; 95%CI: 1.10-3.08), day of the week (Mondays-Thursdays; OR=3.19; 95%CI: 1.12-9.07), country of birth (outside of Spain; OR=2.09; 95%CI:1.09-3.99), vaccination group (chronic kidney disease during pre-dialysis or dialysis; OR=3.59; 95%CI: 1.57-8.18), and age group (under 52 years old; OR=1.85; 95%CI: 1.08-3.19). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of absenteeism is at an intermediate position compared to the outpatient visits for other departments. The detection of associated factors makes it possible to plan specific measures for improvements that may reduce absences.

[Research on patient safety: needs and perspectives]. / La investigación sobre seguridad del paciente: necesidades y perspectivas.

A safe health care system requires applying procedures and practices that have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing errors, faults and adverse events in health care, but it also needs to update its knowledge on the factors that contribute to improve patient safety. Adverse events and patient safety are two sides of the same coin, clinical risk. We must ensure that the priority of health managers and providers is aimed at patient safety more than adverse events. They are some fundamental areas of research in patient safety: to estimate the magnitude and features of the clinical risk, to understand the factors contributing to the appearance of adverse events, to evaluate the impact of adverse events on health care system and to identify effective, feasible and sustainable solutions to achieve a safe health care. Key points of patient safety research projects are: aims of research, priority, data and information quality, available resources and methodology. The study of the patient safety and adverse events needs two complementary perspectives: a collective one, based on epidemiological methods and aimed at quantifying the risks in healthcare, and an individual one, based on qualitative methods, to analyze causes and factors contributing to adverse events. Several things are required to improve the patient safety research: better data and information systems, greater collaboration in training between developed and transitional countries, and wider dissemination of experiences and results of the projects. Key points of patient safety research projects are: aims of research, priority, data and information quality, available resources and methodology. The study of the patient safety and adverse events needs two complementary perspectives: a collective, based on epidemiological method and guided to quantifying the risks of healthcare, and another individual, based on qualitative methods, to analyze causes and contributing factors of adverse events. To improve the patient safety research are necessary: better data and information systems, bigger collaboration between developed and transitional countries training and wide dissemination of experiences and results of the projects.

Validación de un instrumento para evaluar el funcionamiento y repartir incentivos entre los servicios de un hospital / Validation of an instrument to assess functioning and distribute incentives among the services of a hospital

Objetivo: Diseñar y examinar la fiabilidad de una herramienta para evaluar los resultados y distribuir incentivos entre los servicios del hospital. Material y Métodos: Se definieron de forma explícita las características de la herramienta de evaluación (representatividad, transparencia, claridad, pertinencia, accesibilidad, veracidad, carácter reproducible, sensibilidad, especificidad, estabilidad, eficiencia y aceptación) y se utilizaron dichos criterios para seleccionar indicadores y desarrollar los modelos de evaluación específicos de cada servicio. Para validar el método se midió su precisión (coherencia intra e interobservador, coeficiente de variación y bondad de ajuste a la normal) y su validez de contenido, de construcción y de criterio con respecto a una encuesta de opinión previa entre el equipo directivo (correlación de Pearson e índice Kappa). Resultados: La herramienta desarrollada constaba de 15 modelos de evaluación elaborados a partir de 49 indicadores (31 de actividad, cuatro de costes y 14 de calidad asistencial). Se evaluaron 56 unidades aistenciales, cuya calificación media fue de 73,5 ñ 18,1 puntos, con un mínimo de 29 y un máximo de 100. En Actividad la puntuación media fue de 52,1 ñ 14,7 sobre 70, en Costes de 13,7 ñ 7,4 sobre 20 y en Calidad de 7,6 ñ 2,1 sobre 10. El modelo se ajustaba a una distribución normal, con un CV de 0,25, un error intraobsevador de 0,25 por ciento e interobservador del 0,48 por ciento. La correlación con la opinión del equipo directivo era positiva (r = 0,43 p = 0,004), pero los índices de concordancia kappa eran bajos (0,21). Conclusiones: El método de evaluación probado es preciso, está bien construido y tiene una aparente validez de criterio. Queda ahora por demostrar si sirve para mejorar los resultados y la calidad de la asistencia prestada (AU)