MedElevator
Войти в исследования Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025
Frequency and content analysis of adverse event reports in surgical centers: a cross-sectional study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Almeida Ítalo Lennon Sales de, Alencar Ana Paula Agostinho, Poveda Vanessa de Brito, Carvalho Rhanna Emanuela Fontenele Lima de
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: to identify the frequency of adverse events reported in surgical centers and analyze the content of the reports made.
METHODS: a cross-sectional study analyzed reports from January 2019 to March 2023 in eight hospitals, with a sample of 163 reports. The quantitative analysis considered variables such as type and degree of damage, while the qualitative analysis used similarity analysis in Iramuteq.
RESULTS: sixteen never events were identified, including pressure injuries (stages three and four), loss of biopsy material, incorrect surgical procedures, and unintentional retention of a foreign body. The qualitative analysis highlighted terms such as "failures in care", "failure", "surgical procedure", and "pressure injury".
CONCLUSIONS: pressure injuries, burns, organ damage, and surgical site infection were the most frequent reports. There is underreporting of adverse events in surgical centers and limitations in the quality of records, including unspecified adverse events and lack of standardization in reporting.
METHODS: a cross-sectional study analyzed reports from January 2019 to March 2023 in eight hospitals, with a sample of 163 reports. The quantitative analysis considered variables such as type and degree of damage, while the qualitative analysis used similarity analysis in Iramuteq.
RESULTS: sixteen never events were identified, including pressure injuries (stages three and four), loss of biopsy material, incorrect surgical procedures, and unintentional retention of a foreign body. The qualitative analysis highlighted terms such as "failures in care", "failure", "surgical procedure", and "pressure injury".
CONCLUSIONS: pressure injuries, burns, organ damage, and surgical site infection were the most frequent reports. There is underreporting of adverse events in surgical centers and limitations in the quality of records, including unspecified adverse events and lack of standardization in reporting.