Journal of healthcare quality research · 2020
[Detection of adverse events in thyroid and parathyroid surgery using trigger tool and Minimum Basic Data Set (MBDS)].
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kaibel Val R, Ruiz López P, Pérez Zapata A I, Gómez de la Cámara A, de la Cruz Vigo F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of the trigger tool) and the Minimum Basic Data Set (MBDS) in detecting adverse events (AE) in hospitalized surgical patients with thyroid and parathyroid disease.
METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional observational study, retrospective and cross-sectional study was conducted from May 2014 to April 2015 analysing retrospectively data on of patients submitted to thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy in order to detect AE through the identification of triggers (an event often associated to an AE) and the MBDS. triggers and AE were located by systematic review of clinical documentation. The MBDS was got from the data base. Once an AE was detected, it was characterized.
RESULTS: 203 AE were identified in 251 patients, being the 90.04% detected by trigger tool and 10.34% by MBDS. 126 patients had at least one AE (50.2%). Without the cases in which uncontrolled pain was the only AE, the percentage of patients that suffering AE was 38.65%. 187 AE were considered preventable and 16 AE were considered unpreventable. The trigger tool and the MBDS demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.27 and 13.49%, a specificity of 4.8 and 100%, a positive predictive value of 49,15 and 100%, and a negative predictive value of 35.29 and 53.42%, respectively. The triggers with more predictive power in AE detection were «antiemetic administration» and «calcium administration».
CONCLUSIONS: Trigger tool shows higher sensitivity for detecting AE than the MBDS. All the detected AE were considered low severity and most of them were preventable.
METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional observational study, retrospective and cross-sectional study was conducted from May 2014 to April 2015 analysing retrospectively data on of patients submitted to thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy in order to detect AE through the identification of triggers (an event often associated to an AE) and the MBDS. triggers and AE were located by systematic review of clinical documentation. The MBDS was got from the data base. Once an AE was detected, it was characterized.
RESULTS: 203 AE were identified in 251 patients, being the 90.04% detected by trigger tool and 10.34% by MBDS. 126 patients had at least one AE (50.2%). Without the cases in which uncontrolled pain was the only AE, the percentage of patients that suffering AE was 38.65%. 187 AE were considered preventable and 16 AE were considered unpreventable. The trigger tool and the MBDS demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.27 and 13.49%, a specificity of 4.8 and 100%, a positive predictive value of 49,15 and 100%, and a negative predictive value of 35.29 and 53.42%, respectively. The triggers with more predictive power in AE detection were «antiemetic administration» and «calcium administration».
CONCLUSIONS: Trigger tool shows higher sensitivity for detecting AE than the MBDS. All the detected AE were considered low severity and most of them were preventable.