Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24878871›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2014

Paediatric critical incident analysis: lessons learnt on analysis, recommendations and implementation.

Cynthia van der Starre, Monique van Dijk, Ada van den Bos, Dick Tibboel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Tools for the investigation of adverse events: scoping review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Cynthia van der StarreIntensive Care Unit, Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, c.vanderstarre@erasmusmc.nl.
Monique van Dijk
Ada van den Bos
Dick Tibboel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe objectives of this study were to identify causal and contributing factors of serious patient safety incidents in a paediatric university hospital, to report on ensuing recommendations and to assess the extent of implementation of the recommendations. The possible causal and contributing factors identified in 17 incidents were classified by a system devised by Vincent et al. Proposed recommendations were classified by the same system, and degrees of implementation were established. A median of 5 causal and contributing factors per incident were identified. Twenty-two percent of all factors were related to teamwork and 22 % to task factors. A median of 5 recommendations per analysis were formulated. Most recommendations were related to task factors (36 %). The time load of each analysis was a mean of 27 h. One third of the recommendations have been acted upon, mostly those related to task and team factors.

conclusionIncident analysis is time-consuming but yields indispensable information on causal and contributing factors, presenting numerous opportunities for quality improvement. The value of these analyses could be improved by appointing responsibilities and setting up time frames for implementation. A bottom-up approach with managerial support appears to be a key to turning incident analysis and quality improvement into an ongoing process.

Indexed as

DocumentationPatient SafetyCritical CareData CollectionHospitals, UniversityHumansIntensive Care UnitsIntensive Care Units, PediatricMedical ErrorsNetherlandsQuality Assurance, Health CareRetrospective StudiesSafety Management

Identifiers

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.