Molina FJ, Rivera PT, Cardona A, Restrepo DC, Monroy O, Rodas D, Barrientos JG. Adverse events in critical care: Search and active detection through the Trigger Tool.
World J Crit Care Med 2018;
7:9-15. [PMID:
29430403 PMCID:
PMC5797974 DOI:
10.5492/wjccm.v7.i1.9]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2017] [Revised: 11/17/2017] [Accepted: 12/04/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM
To investigate the incidence of disadvantageous events by using the Global Trigger Tool in an intensive care unit (ICU).
METHODS
A retrospective descriptive study was performed in a 12-bed university ICU in the city of Medellin, Colombia. Clinical charts of hospitalized patients were reviewed, between January 1 and December 31, 2016, with the following inclusion criteria: subjects aged over 18 years, with at least 24 h of hospitalization and who had a complete medical history that could be accessed. Interventions: Trained reviewers conducted a retrospective examination of medical charts searching for clue events that elicit investigation, in order to detect an unfavorable event. Measurements: Information was processed through SPSS software version 21; for numerical variables, the mean was reported with standard deviation (SD). Percentages were calculated for qualitative variables.
RESULTS
Two hundred and forty-four triggers occurred, with 82.4% of subjects having presented with at least one and an average of 3.37 (SD 3.47). A total of 178 adverse events (AEs) took place in 48 individuals, with an incidence of 52.1%. On average, four events per patient were recorded, and for each unfortunate event, 1.98 triggers were presented. The most frequent displeasing issues were: pressure ulcers (17.6%), followed by complications or reactions to medical devices (4.3%), and lacerations or skin defects (3.7%); the least frequent was delayed diagnosis or treatment (0.56%). Thirty-eight point four percent of mishap events caused temporary damage that required intervention, and 48.9% of AEs were preventable. Comparison between AEs and admission diagnoses found that hypertension and sepsis were the only diagnoses that had statistical significance (P = 0.042 and 0.022, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Almost half of the unfavorable issues were classified as avoidable, which leaves a very wide field of work in terms of preventative activities.
Collapse