Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11230064›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2001

Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review.

C Vincent, G Neale, M Woloshynowych

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 425 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
425citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

425 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Learning from safety incidents in high-reliability organizations: a systematic review of learning tools that could be adapted and used in healthcare.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Observational

365 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

C VincentClinical Risk Unit, Department of Psychology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK. c.vincent@ucl.ac.uk
G Neale
M Woloshynowych

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the feasibility of detecting adverse events through record review in British hospitals and to make preliminary estimates of the incidence and costs of adverse events.

designRetrospective review of 1014 medical and nursing records.

settingTwo acute hospitals in Greater London area.

main outcome measureNumber of adverse events.

results110 (10.8%) patients experienced an adverse event, with an overall rate of adverse events of 11.7% when multiple adverse events were included. About half of these events were judged preventable with ordinary standards of care. A third of adverse events led to moderate or greater disability or death.

conclusionsThese results suggest that adverse events are a serious source of harm to patients and a large drain on NHS resources. Some are major events; others are frequent, minor events that go unnoticed in routine clinical care but together have massive economic consequences.

Indexed as

Hospitals, GeneralHospitals, StateMedical RecordsCosts and Cost AnalysisData CollectionFeasibility StudiesHumansIncidenceMedical ErrorsPilot ProjectsRetrospective StudiesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID11230064
PMCPMC26554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.