A I Pérez Zapata1, M Gutiérrez Samaniego2, E Rodríguez Cuéllar3, A Gómez de la Cámara4, P Ruiz López5. 1. Servicio de Cirugía General, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, España. Electronic address: zgzana83@hotmail.com. 2. Servicio de Cirugía General, Hospital Universitario Torrejón, Torrejón de Ardoz, España. 3. Servicio de Cirugía General, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España. 4. Unidad de Investigación Clínica, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, CIBER-Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, España. 5. Unidad de Calidad, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Surgery is a high risk for the occurrence of adverse events (AE). The main objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the Trigger tool with the Hospital National Health System registration of Discharges, the minimum basic data set (MBDS), in detecting adverse events in patients admitted to General Surgery and undergoing surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational and descriptive retrospective study of patients admitted to general surgery of a tertiary hospital, and undergoing surgery in 2012. The identification of adverse events was made by reviewing the medical records, using an adaptation of "Global Trigger Tool" methodology, as well as the (MBDS) registered on the same patients. Once the AE were identified, they were classified according to damage and to the extent to which these could have been avoided. The area under the curve (ROC) were used to determine the discriminatory power of the tools. The Hanley and Mcneil test was used to compare both tools. RESULTS: AE prevalence was 36.8%. The TT detected 89.9% of all AE, while the MBDS detected 28.48%. The TT provides more information on the nature and characteristics of the AE. The area under the curve was 0.89 for the TT and 0.66 for the MBDS. These differences were statistically significant (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Trigger tool detects three times more adverse events than the MBDS registry. The prevalence of adverse events in General Surgery is higher than that estimated in other studies.
INTRODUCTION: Surgery is a high risk for the occurrence of adverse events (AE). The main objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the Trigger tool with the Hospital National Health System registration of Discharges, the minimum basic data set (MBDS), in detecting adverse events in patients admitted to General Surgery and undergoing surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational and descriptive retrospective study of patients admitted to general surgery of a tertiary hospital, and undergoing surgery in 2012. The identification of adverse events was made by reviewing the medical records, using an adaptation of "Global Trigger Tool" methodology, as well as the (MBDS) registered on the same patients. Once the AE were identified, they were classified according to damage and to the extent to which these could have been avoided. The area under the curve (ROC) were used to determine the discriminatory power of the tools. The Hanley and Mcneil test was used to compare both tools. RESULTS: AE prevalence was 36.8%. The TT detected 89.9% of all AE, while the MBDS detected 28.48%. The TT provides more information on the nature and characteristics of the AE. The area under the curve was 0.89 for the TT and 0.66 for the MBDS. These differences were statistically significant (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Trigger tool detects three times more adverse events than the MBDS registry. The prevalence of adverse events in General Surgery is higher than that estimated in other studies.
Authors: Ana Isabel Pérez Zapata; Elías Rodríguez Cuéllar; Marta de la Fuente Bartolomé; Cristina Martín-Arriscado Arroba; María Teresa García Morales; Carmelo Loinaz Segurola; Manuel Giner Nogueras; Ángel Tejido Sánchez; Pedro Ruiz López; Eduardo Ferrero Herrero Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2022-02-08
Authors: Luisa C Eggenschwiler; Anne W S Rutjes; Sarah N Musy; Dietmar Ausserhofer; Natascha M Nielen; René Schwendimann; Maria Unbeck; Michael Simon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 3.752