Exploring and Evaluating Patient Safety Culture in a Community-Based Primary Care Setting.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to measure patient safety culture in two home care services in Belgium (Flanders). In addition, variability based on respondents' profession was examined. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted by administering the SCOPE-Primary Care questionnaire in two home care service organizations. RESULTS: In total, 1875 valid questionnaires were returned from 2930 employees, representing a response rate of 64%. The highest mean patient safety culture score was found for "organizational learning" (mean [SD] = 3.81 [0.53]), followed by "support and fellowship" (mean [SD] = 3.76 [0.61]), "open communication and learning from error" (mean [SD] = 3.73 [0.64]), and "patient safety management" (mean [SD] = 3.71 [0.60]). The lowest mean scores were found for "handover and teamwork" (mean [SD] = 3.28 [0.58]) and "adequate procedures and working conditions" (mean [SD] = 3.30 [0.56]). Moreover, managers/supervisors scored significantly higher on the dimensions "open communication and learning from error," "adequate procedures and working conditions," "patient safety management," "support and fellowship," and "organizational learning" than clinical and nonclinical staff. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, organizational learning is perceived as most positive. However, large gaps remain in the continuity of care as "handover and teamwork" is perceived as the most negative safety culture dimension. With knowledge of the current patient safety culture, organizations can redesign processes or implement improvement strategies to avoid patient safety incidents and patient harm in the future.

Similarities and differences in the associations between patient safety culture dimensions and self-reported outcomes in two different cultural settings: a national cross-sectional study in Palestinian and Belgian hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationships between patient safety culture (PSC) dimensions and PSC self-reported outcomes across different cultures and to gain insights in cultural differences regarding PSC. DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Ninety Belgian hospitals and 13 Palestinian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2836 healthcare professionals matched for profession, tenure and working hours. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The validated versions of the Belgian and Palestinian Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture were used. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Reliability was tested using Cronbach's alpha (α). In this study, we examined the specific predictive value of the PSC dimensions and its self-reported outcome measures across different cultures and countries. Hierarchical regression and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Eight PSC dimensions and four PSC self-reported outcomes were distinguished in both countries. Cronbach's α was α≥0.60. Significant correlations were found between PSC dimensions and its self-reported outcome (p value range <0.05 to <0.001). Hierarchical regression analyses showed overall perception of safety was highly predicted by hospital management support in Palestine (ß=0.16, p<0.001) and staffing in Belgium (ß=0.24, p<0.001). The frequency of events was largely predicted by feedback and communication in both countries (Palestine: ß=0.24, p<0.001; Belgium: ß=0.35, p<0.001). Overall grade for patient safety was predicted by organisational learning in Palestine (ß=0.19, p<0.001) and staffing in Belgium (ß=0.19, p<0.001). Number of events reported was predicted by staffing in Palestine (ß=-0.20, p<0.001) and feedback and communication in Belgium (ß=0.11, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: To promote patient safety in Palestine and Belgium, staffing and communication regarding errors should be improved in both countries. Initiatives to improve hospital management support and establish constructive learning systems would be especially beneficial for patient safety in Palestine. Future research should address the association between safety culture and hard patient safety measures such as patient outcomes.

Seen through the patients' eyes: surgical safety and checklists.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore the views patients have towards surgical safety and checklists. As a secondary aim, we explored if previous experience of error or other patient characteristics influence these views. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey study design was applied. PARTICIPANTS: The Flemish Patients' Platform network and social media were used to recruit participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): An 11-item questionnaire was designed to assess the following constructs: perception of surgical safety, attitudes towards the WHO surgical safety checklist and attitudes regarding checklist usage. RESULTS: Respondents' view (N = 444) on the risk of an adverse event showed considerable variation. Respondents were positive towards the checklist, strongly agreeing that it would impact positively on their safety. However, this positive perception did not translate into an attitude where patients will actively inform themselves whether a checklist is used. The majority of respondents have no difficulty with repetitive verification of identity, procedure and location of the surgery. Respondents with a clinical background were the least anxious. Views were divided regarding hearing discussions around blood loss or airway problems. CONCLUSIONS: Patients perceive the checklist as a reliable safety tool. They do not mind repetitive verification of identity and procedure. However, hearing staff discussing specific, explicit, risks could cause anxiousness in some patients. Building a supportive and collaborative environment is needed to involve and empower patients to contribute in the realization of a safe hospital environment.

Systematic psychometric review of self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care.

AIMS: To give an overview of empirical studies using self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care and to synthesize psychometric properties of these instruments. BACKGROUND: A key condition for improving patient safety is creating a supportive safety culture to identify weaknesses and to develop improvement strategies so recurrence of incidents can be minimized. However, most tools to measure and strengthen safety culture have been developed and tested in hospitals. Nevertheless, primary care is facing greater risks and a greater likelihood of causing unintentional harm to patients. DESIGN: A systematic literature review of research evidence and psychometric properties of self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care. DATA SOURCES: Three databases until November 2016. REVIEW METHODS: The review was carried out according to the protocol for systematic reviews of measurement properties recommended by the COSMIN panel and the PRISMA reporting guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 1.229 records were retrieved from multiple database searches (Medline = 865, Web of Science = 362 and Embase = 2). Resulting from an in-depth literature search, 14 published studies were identified, mostly originated from Western high-income countries. As these studies come with great diversity in tools used and outcomes reported, comparability of the results is compromised. Based on the psychometric review, the SCOPE-Primary Care survey was chosen as the most appropriate instrument to measure patient safety culture in primary care as the instrument had excellent internal consistency with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.70-0.90 and item factor loadings ranging from 0.40-0.96, indicating a good structural validity. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present review suggest that the SCOPE-Primary Care survey is the most appropriate tool to assess patient safety culture in primary care. Further psychometric techniques are now essential to ensure that the instrument provides meaningful information regarding safety culture.

A Factorial Survey on Safety Behavior Providing Opportunities to Improve Safety.

OBJECTIVES: To realize safe, high-quality treatment, employees should behave according to patient safety standards. Periodic measurement of safety behavior could provide management-relevant information to adjust the implementation of interventions and maximize improvement. Therefore, we constructed a factorial survey measuring safety awareness and intentions for behavior. METHODS: Cross-sectional results of the factorial survey were compared with results from the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, distributed in MAASTRO radiotherapy in 2010 to 2011. Respondents were presented 20 scenarios about incidents, randomly varying on work pressure, person causing incident, whether patient level was reached, severity of harm, notification by patient, and management support. After each scenario, questions were asked about safety awareness and behavior. χ and multilevel regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Response rates were 64% (n = 54) for the culture survey and 62% (n = 52) for the factorial survey on intentions. The culture survey reflected positive opinions regarding nonpunitive response and incident reporting, in accordance with high scores (factorial survey) on safety awareness (9.0; scale, 1-10) and reporting intentions (8.7). Whether an incident reached the patient level predicted safety awareness and intentions for safety behavior (ß = -1.3/-3.08) most strongly. Severity of harm showed minimal additional effects (ß = -0.24/-0.42). CONCLUSIONS: The factorial survey presented practical information on safety awareness and intentions for behavior. Therefore, it created additional opportunities for improving safety interventions. Because behavior is expected to change before values, one could hypothesize that factorial surveys would be more sensitive to change than culture surveys. Longitudinal research should further study the surveys' sensitivity to measure changes.

The SCOPE-PC instrument for assessing patient safety culture in primary care: a psychometric evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Primary healthcare differs from hospitals in terms of - inter alia - organisational structure. Therefore, patient safety culture could differ between these settings. Various instruments have been developed to measure collective attitudes of personnel within a primary healthcare organisation. However, the number of valid and reliable instruments is limited. OBJECTIVES: Psychometric properties of the SCOPE-Primary Care instrument were tested to examine the instrument's applicability in home care services in Belgium. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted by administering the SCOPE-PC questionnaire in a single home care organisation with more than 1000 employees, including nurses, midwives, healthcare assistants, diabetes educators and nursing supervisors. First, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test whether the observed dataset fitted to the proposed seven-factor model of the SCOPE-PC instrument. Second, Cronbach's alphas were calculated to examine internal consistency reliability. Finally, the instrument's validity was also examined. RESULTS: In total, 603 questionnaires were retained for further analysis, representing an overall response rate of 43.9%. Most respondents were nursing staff, followed by healthcare assistants and nursing supervisors. The results of the confirmatory factor analyses satisfied the chosen cut-offs, indicating an acceptable to good model fit. With the exception of the dimension 'organizational learning' (0.58), Cronbach's alpha scores of the SCOPE-PC scales indicated a good level of internal consistency: 'open communication and learning from error' (0.86), 'handover and teamwork' (0.78), 'adequate procedures and working conditions' (0.73), 'patient safety management' (0.81), 'support and fellowship' (0.75), and 'intention to report events (0.85). Moreover, inter-correlations between the seven dimensions as well as with the patient safety grade were moderate to good. CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicated that the SCOPE-Primary Care instrument has good psychometric properties for home care services in Belgium. No modifications are required to the original questionnaire in order to allow benchmarking between primary healthcare settings.

Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of surgical safety checklists: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to obtain a better understanding of the user-related barriers against, and facilitators for, the implementation of surgical safety checklists. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for articles describing stakeholders' perspectives regarding, and experiences with, the implementation of surgical safety checklists. The quality of the papers was assessed by means of the Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument. Thematic synthesis was used to integrate the emergent descriptive themes into overall analytical themes. RESULTS: The synthesis of 18 qualitative studies indicated that implementation requires change in the workflow of healthcare professionals as well as in their perception of the checklist and the perception of patient safety in general. The factors impeding or advancing the required change concentrated around the checklist, the implementation process and the local context. We found that the required safety checks disrupt operating theatre staffs' routines. Furthermore, conflicting priorities and different perspectives and motives of stakeholders complicate checklist implementation. When approaching the checklist as a simple technical intervention, the expectation of cooperation between surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses is often not addressed, reducing the checklist to a tick-off exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The complex reality in which the checklist needs to be implemented requires an approach that includes more than eliminating barriers and supporting facilitating factors. Implementation leaders must facilitate team learning to foster the mutual understanding of perspectives and motivations, and the realignment of routines. This paper provides a pragmatic overview of the user-related barriers and facilitators upon which theories, hypothesising potential change strategies and interactions, can be developed and tested empirically.

Measuring safety culture in belgian psychiatric hospitals: validation of the dutch and French translations of the hospital survey on patient safety culture.

OBJECTIVES: To measure safety culture in Belgian psychiatric hospitals on 12 dimensions and to examine the psychometric properties of the Dutch and French translations of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC) for use in psychiatric hospitals. METHODS: The authors analyzed 6,658 completed questionnaires (70.5% response rate) from a baseline measurement (2007-2009) in 44 psychiatric hospitals and 8,353 questionnaires (71.5% response rate) from a follow-up measurement (2011) in 46 psychiatric hospitals. Psychometric properties of the questionnaire were evaluated using item analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability analysis (Cronbach's alpha), and analysis of composite scores and inter-correlations. RESULTS: For both translations, CFA showed an acceptable fit with the original 12-dimensional model. For the Dutch and French translations, EFA showed a 10-factor and a 9-factor optimal measurement model, respectively. Cronbach's alpha indicated an acceptable level of reliability (≥ 0.70) for 7 of 12 dimensions. Most pair-wise correlations were significant and <0.5, implying good construct validity. CONCLUSION: The Dutch and French translations of the HSPSC were found tobe valid and reliable for measuring patient safety culture in psychiatric hospitals. Our results also suggest the use of combinations of specific dimensions as recommended in previous research.

One fourth of unplanned transfers to a higher level of care are associated with a highly preventable adverse event: a patient record review in six Belgian hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to determine the prevalence and preventability of adverse events requiring an unplanned higher level of care, defined as an unplanned transfer to the ICU or an in-hospital medical emergency team intervention, and to assess the type and the level of harm of each adverse event. DESIGN: A three-stage retrospective review process of screening, record review, and consensus judgment was performed. SETTING: Six Belgian acute hospitals. PATIENTS: During a 6-month period, all patients with an unplanned need for a higher level of care were selected. INTERVENTIONS: The records 6-month period, the records of all patients with an unplanned need for a higher level of care were assessed by a trained clinical team consisting of a research nurse, a physician, and a clinical pharmacist. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Adverse events were found in 465 of the 830 reviewed patient records (56%). Of these, 215 (46%) were highly preventable. The overall incidence rate of patients being transferred to a higher level of care involving an adverse event was 117.6 (95% CI, 106.9-128.3) per 100,000 patient days at risk, of which 54.4 (95% CI, 47.15-61.65) per 100,000 patient days at risk involving a highly preventable adverse event. This means that 25.9% of all unplanned transfers to a higher level of care were associated with a highly preventable adverse event. The adverse events were mainly associated with drug therapy (25.6%), surgery (23.7%), diagnosis (12.4%), and system issues (12.4%). The level of harm varied from temporary harm (55.7%) to long-term or permanent impairment (19.1%) and death (25.2%). Although the direct causality is often hard to prove, it is reasonable to consider these adverse events as a contributing factor. CONCLUSION: Adverse events were found in 56% of the reviewed records, of which almost half were considered highly preventable. This means that one fourth of all unplanned transfers to a higher level of care were associated with a highly preventable adverse event.

Does lean management improve patient safety culture? An extensive evaluation of safety culture in a radiotherapy institute.

PURPOSE: The importance of a safety culture to maximize safety is no longer questioned. However, achieving sustainable culture improvements are less evident. Evidence is growing for a multifaceted approach, where multiple safety interventions are combined. Lean management is such an integral approach to improve safety, quality and efficiency and therefore, could be expected to improve the safety culture. This paper presents the effects of lean management activities on the patient safety culture in a radiotherapy institute. METHODS: Patient safety culture was evaluated over a three year period using triangulation of methodologies. Two surveys were distributed three times, workshops were performed twice, data from an incident reporting system (IRS) was monitored and results were explored using structured interviews with professionals. Averages, chi-square, logistical and multi-level regression were used for analysis. RESULTS: The workshops showed no changes in safety culture, whereas the surveys showed improvements on six out of twelve dimensions of safety climate. The intention to report incidents not reaching patient-level decreased in accordance with the decreasing number of reports in the IRS. However, the intention to take action in order to prevent future incidents improved (factorial survey presented ß: 1.19 with p: 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Due to increased problem solving and improvements in equipment, the number of incidents decreased. Although the intention to report incidents not reaching patient-level decreased, employees experienced sustained safety awareness and an increased intention to structurally improve. The patient safety culture improved due to the lean activities combined with an organizational restructure, and actual patient safety outcomes might have improved as well.

Variability of patient safety culture in Belgian acute hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to measure differences in safety culture perceptions within Belgian acute hospitals and to examine variability based on language, work area, staff position, and work experience. METHODS: The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture was distributed to hospitals participating in the national quality and safety program (2007-2009). Hospitals were invited to participate in a comparative study. Data of 47,136 respondents from 89 acute hospitals were used for quantitative analysis. Percentages of positive response were calculated on 12 dimensions. Generalized estimating equations models were fitted to explore differences in safety culture. RESULTS: Handoffs and transitions, staffing, and management support for patient safety were considered as major problem areas. Dutch-speaking hospitals had higher odds of positive perceptions for most dimensions in comparison with French-speaking hospitals. Safety culture scores were more positive for respondents working in pediatrics, psychiatry, and rehabilitation compared with the emergency department, operating theater, and multiple hospital units. We found an important gap in safety culture perceptions between leaders and assistants within disciplines. Administration and middle management had lower perceptions toward patient safety. Respondents working less than 1 year in the current hospital had more positive safety culture perceptions in comparison with all other respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Large comparative databases provide the opportunity to identify distinct high and low scoring groups. In our study, language, work area, and profession were identified as important safety culture predictors. Years of experience in the hospital had only a small effect on safety culture perceptions.

Design of a medical record review study on the incidence and preventability of adverse events requiring a higher level of care in Belgian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events are unintended patient injuries that arise from healthcare management resulting in disability, prolonged hospital stay or death. Adverse events that require intensive care admission imply a considerable financial burden to the healthcare system. The epidemiology of adverse events in Belgian hospitals has never been assessed systematically. FINDINGS: A multistage retrospective review study of patients requiring a transfer to a higher level of care will be conducted in six hospitals in the province of Limburg. Patient records are reviewed starting from January 2012 by a clinical team consisting of a research nurse, a physician and a clinical pharmacist. Besides the incidence and the level of causation and preventability, also the type of adverse events and their consequences (patient harm, mortality and length of stay) will be assessed. Moreover, the adequacy of the patient records and quality/usefulness of the method of medical record review will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the rationale for a retrospective review study of adverse events that necessitate a higher level of care. More specifically, we are particularly interested in increasing our understanding in the preventability and root causes of these events in order to implement improvement strategies. Attention is paid to the strengths and limitations of the study design.

A nationwide hospital survey on patient safety culture in Belgian hospitals: setting priorities at the launch of a 5-year patient safety plan.

OBJECTIVE: To measure patient safety culture in Belgian hospitals and to examine the homogeneous grouping of underlying safety culture dimensions. METHODS: The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture was distributed organisation-wide in 180 Belgian hospitals participating in the federal program on quality and safety between 2007 and 2009. Participating hospitals were invited to submit their data to a comparative database. Homogeneous groups of underlying safety culture dimensions were sought by hierarchical cluster analysis. RESULTS: 90 acute, 42 psychiatric and 11 long-term care hospitals submitted their data for comparison to other hospitals. The benchmark database included 55 225 completed questionnaires (53.7% response rate). Overall dimensional scores were low, although scores were found to be higher for psychiatric and long-term care hospitals than for acute hospitals. The overall perception of patient safety was lower in French-speaking hospitals. Hierarchical clustering of dimensions resulted in two distinct clusters. Cluster I grouped supervisor/manager expectations and actions promoting safety, organisational learning-continuous improvement, teamwork within units and communication openness, while Cluster II included feedback and communication about error, overall perceptions of patient safety, non-punitive response to error, frequency of events reported, teamwork across units, handoffs and transitions, staffing and management support for patient safety. CONCLUSION: The nationwide safety culture assessment confirms the need for a long-term national initiative to improve patient safety culture and provides each hospital with a baseline patient safety culture profile to direct an intervention plan. The identification of clusters of safety culture dimensions indicates the need for a different approach and context towards the implementation of interventions aimed at improving the safety culture. Certain clusters require unit level improvements, whereas others demand a hospital-wide policy.

Incidence and preventability of adverse events requiring intensive care admission: a systematic review.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Adverse events are unintended patient injuries or complications that arise from health care management resulting in death, disability or prolonged hospital stay. Adverse events that require critical care are a considerable financial burden to the health care system, but also their global impact on patients and society is probably underestimated. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the estimates of the incidence and preventability of adverse events that necessitate intensive care admission, to determine the type and consequences [mortality, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and costs] of these adverse events. METHODS: MEDLINE (from 1966 to present), EMBASE (from 1974 to present) and CENTRAL (version 1-2010) were searched for studies reporting on unplanned admissions on ICUs. Several other sources were searched for additional studies. Only quantitative studies that used chart review for the detection of adverse events requiring intensive care admission were considered for eligibility. For the purposes of this systematic review, ICUs were defined as specialized hospital facilities which provide continuous monitoring and intensive care for acutely ill patients. Studies that were published in the English, Dutch, German, French or Spanish language were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were reviewed. Meta-analysis of the data was not appropriate because of methodological and statistical heterogeneity between studies; therefore, results are presented in a descriptive way. The percentage of surgical and medical adverse events that required ICU admission ranged from 1.1% to 37.2%. ICU readmissions varied from 0% to 18.3%. Preventability of the adverse events varied from 17% to 76.5%. Preventable adverse events are further synthesized by type of event. Consequences of the adverse events included a mean length of ICU stay that ranged from 1.5 days to 10.4 days for the patient's first stay in ICU and mortality percentages between 0% and 58%. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events are an important reason for (re)admission to the ICU and a considerable proportion of these are preventable. It was not possible to estimate an overall incidence and preventability rate of these events as we found considerable heterogeneity. To decrease adverse events that necessitate ICU admission, several systems are recommended such as early detection of patients with clinical instability on general wards and the implementation of rapid response teams. Step-down or intermediate care units could be a useful strategy for patients who require monitoring to avoid ICU readmissions. However, the effectiveness of such systems needs to be investigated.

Evaluation of time- and cost-saving modifications of HFMEA: an experimental approach in radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: : This study aimed to evaluate different shortcuts of Healthcare Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) in a radiotherapy setting. DESIGN: : A 2 × 2 study design was set up, in which 4 similar groups analyzed separately the possible risks of the same process by using different versions of HFMEA. SETTING: : In the Maastricht Radiation Oncology clinic, a radiotherapy institute in the Netherlands, treatment of cancer patients is organized within 3 different units, each focusing on a specific area (thorax, abdomen, and neck-head). The institute plans to treat all radiation areas in one generalized unit (Linac-pool). PARTICIPANTS: : All 4 teams were composed of 3 radiation technologists (1 from each working unit), 1 manager radiation technologist, and 1 facilitator. INTERVENTIONS: : Prospective risk analyses were completed in parallel within 1 month. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : Time investment and cost data on the different steps of the HFMEAs were registered from the organizations' perspective. Each team suggested a number of corrective actions for the Linac-pool. The quality and feasibility of the proposed actions were assessed by an expert panel (managers and safety staff). RESULTS: : The HFMEA analyses resulted in direct costs varying from 1028.6 to 1701.6 euros. In total, the expert panel assessed 86 corrective actions, of which 43 (50%) were relevant to implement before the start of the Linac-pool. Many of these actions related to the compliance, control, and education of standard operating procedures in daily practice of radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: : On the basis of the results of this case study, it seems feasible to develop less time- and cost-consuming versions of HFMEA, which would increase even more the added value of prospective risk analysis tools for health care organizations.

Exploring unplanned ICU admissions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events are unintended patient injuries or complications that arise from healthcare management resulting in death, disability or prolonged hospital stay. Adverse events that require critical care are a considerable financial burden to the healthcare system. Medical record review seems to be a reliable method for detecting adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the best available evidence regarding the estimates of the incidence and preventability of adverse events that necessitate intensive care admission; to determine the type and consequences (patient harm, mortality, length of ICU stay and direct medical costs) of these adverse events. METHODS: MEDLINE (from 1966 to present), EMBASE (from 1974 to present) and CENTRAL (version 1-2010) were searched for studies reporting on unplanned admissions to intensive care units (ICUs). Databases of reports, conference proceedings, grey literature, ongoing research, relevant patient safety organizations and two journals were searched for additional studies. Reference lists of retrieved papers were searched and authors were contacted in an attempt to find any further published or unpublished work. Only quantitative studies that used chart review for the detection of adverse events requiring intensive care admission were considered for eligibility. Studies that were published in the English, Dutch, German, French or Spanish language were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: 28 studies in the English language and one study in French were included. Of these, two were considered duplicate publications and therefore 27 studies were reviewed. Meta-analysis of the data was not appropriate due to statistical heterogeneity between studies; therefore, results are presented in a descriptive way. Studies were categorized according to the population and the providers of care. 1) The majority of the included studies investigated unplanned intensive care admissions after anesthetic procedures (UIA). 2) Only a few studies examined patients on general wards being at risk for clinical deterioration. The overall incidence of surgical and medical adverse events compared with ICU admissions ranged from 1.1% to 37.2%. 3) The third category of studies examined patients that were readmitted on ICUs. ICU readmission rates varied from 0% to 18.3%. Nine studies explicitly reported on the preventability of adverse outcomes. The preventability rates of the adverse events varied from 17% to 76.5%. Preventable adverse events are further synthesized by type of event and patterns of preventability are being formulated. Consequences of the adverse events included a mean length of ICU stay that ranged from 1.5 days to 10.4 days for the patient's first stay in ICU. Mortality rates varied between 0% and 58%. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events are a persistent and an important reason for admission to the ICU. However, there is relatively weak evidence to estimate an overall incidence and preventability rate of these events. In addition, estimates on preventability are prone to subjective judgments. Variability in methodology and definitions, and poor reporting in studies may be the main reasons for study heterogeneity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Unplanned intensive care admission within 24 hours of a procedure with an anesthetist in attendance (UIA) is a recommended clinical indicator in surgical patients. Several authors recommend early detection of patients with clinical instability on general wards and the implementation of rapid response teams. Step-down or intermediate care units could be a useful strategy for patients that require monitoring to avoid ICU readmissions. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: There is a need for further studies on the detection of adverse events. The poor quality of current research evidence and the heterogeneity across studies requires that planning of future studies should aim to standardize measures of outcomes to allow for comparisons across studies. This area of research is important in order to identify and explain failure of healthcare systems leading to patient harm, with the ultimate aim to improve the quality and safety of care.