Are adverse events related to the completeness of clinical records? Results from a retrospective records review using the Global Trigger Tool

Assessment of the quality of oral squamous cell carcinoma clinical records in oral surgery with Surgical Tool for Auditing Records (STAR) scoring

BACKGROUND

The Surgical Tool for Auditing Records scoring system [STAR] focuses on surgical record auditing with promising outcomes. It offers a structured approach to evaluating the quality of surgical notes.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the STAR in evaluating oral surgical records and identifying areas for improvement in documentation practices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data was obtained from the Dental Information Archival Software (DIAS) of our institution. The sample size was determined using G*Power 3.1.9.4 software. Fifty consecutive oral surgery clinical records of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients were evaluated using STAR. Each record was reviewed for adherence to documentation standards including Initial Assessment (10 points), Follow-up Entries (8 points), Consent Documentation (7 points), Anesthesia Report (7 points), Surgical Log (9 points), and Discharge Synopsis (9 points). compiling a total STAR score (50 points). The data was tabulated in Google Sheets. The descriptive statistics with inter-observer agreement and the mean score were recorded.

RESULTS

We observed that each of the 50 records received a score of 49/50 points on the STAR. Deductions were necessary in the Operative record section due to the lack of information regarding the sutures used.

CONCLUSION

To summarize, this study emphasizes the effectiveness of the STAR scoring system in evaluating the quality of oral surgical records. Identifying deficiencies, particularly in documenting operative details, can improve the completeness and accuracy of patient records. It can ultimately enhance patient care and facilitate better communication among healthcare professionals.

Characterization of adverse events in injured patients at risk of hemorrhagic shock: a secondary analysis of three harmonized prehospital randomized clinical trials

Background

The reporting of adverse events (AEs) is required and well defined in the execution of clinical trials, but is poorly characterized particularly in prehospital trials focusing on traumatic injury. In the setting of prehospital traumatic injury trials, no literature currently exists analyzing the clinical implications of AEs and their associations with mortality and morbidity. We sought to analyze AEs from three prehospital hemorrhagic shock trials and characterize their time course, incidence, severity, associated clinical outcomes, and relatedness.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of three prehospital randomized clinical trials. We analyzed AEs at both the patient level as well as the individual AE level. We categorized patients who had no AEs, a single documented AE and those with multiple events (>1 AE). We characterized AE timing, severity, relatedness and attributable mortality outcomes.

Results

We included 1490 patients from the three harmonized clinical trials, with 299 (20.1%) individual patients having at least a single AE documented with 529 AEs documented overall as a proportion of patients had multiple events. Over 44% of patients had a death-related misclassified AE. Patients with at least a single documented AE had a significantly higher 28-day mortality (log-rank χ2=81.27, p<0.001) compared with those without an AE documented. Patients with a single AE had a significant higher mortality than those with multiple AEs, potentially due to survival bias (log-rank χ2=11.80, p=0.006). When relatedness of each individual AE was characterized, over 97% of AEs were classified as 'definitely not related' or 'probably not related' to the intervention.

Conclusions

AEs in hemorrhagic shock trials are common, occur early and are associated with mortality and survival bias. The potential for inaccurate reporting exists, and education and training remain essential for appropriate treatment arm comparison. The current results have important relevance to injury-related clinical trials.

Trial registration numbers

NCT01818427, NCT02086500 and NCT03477006.

Level of evidence

II.

Second Victim Symptoms and Desired Support Strategies Among Italian Health Care Workers in Friuli-Venezia Giulia: Cross-Sectional Survey and Latent Profile Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The second victim (SV) phenomenon concerns health care workers (HCWs) whose involvement in a medical error, as well as non-error patient safety events, has affected their well-being. Its prevalence ranges from 10% to 75% and can predispose HCWs to burnout, increasing the probability of committing errors. The primary aim of our study was to determine the prevalence of HCWs involved in an adverse patient safety event in Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (Italy). The secondary aims were to use latent profile analysis to identify profiles of SVs and factors influencing profile membership, and to evaluate the relationship between the severity of symptoms and desired support options.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey through the Italian version of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool tool was conducted in 5 local health authorities. Descriptive statistics were conducted for all variables. Associations and correlations were assessed with statistical tests, as appropriate. Latent profile analysis was based on the scores of dimensions measuring SVs' symptoms. Factors affecting profile membership were assessed through multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 733 HCWs participated. Of them, 305 (41.6%) experienced at least 1 adverse event. Among dimensions measuring SVs' symptoms, psychological distress had the highest percentage of agreement (30.2%). Three latent profiles were identified: mild (58.7%), moderate (24.3%), and severe (17.0%) symptoms. Severe symptoms profile was positively associated with the agreement for extraoccupational support and negatively associated with the agreement for organizational support. A respected colleague with whom to discuss the details of the incident (78.7%) and free counseling outside of work (71.2%) were the support options most desired by HCWs. The severity of symptoms was directly associated with the desire for support strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of HCWs involved in adverse events is consistent with the literature. Three latent profiles have been identified according to SV symptoms, and the higher the severity of symptoms, the greater the reliance on extraoccupational support.