Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2015
Cross-checking to reduce adverse events resulting from medical errors in the emergency department: study protocol of the CHARMED cluster randomized study.
Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02356926 (Cross Checking to Reduce Adverse Events Resulting From Medical Errors in the Emergency Department), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Cross Checking to Reduce Adverse Events Resulting From Medical Errors in the Emergency Department
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Systematic Physician Cross-checking on Reducing Adverse Events in the Emergency Department: The CHARMED Cluster Randomized Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Impact of I-PASS handover training on compliance and communication quality: a clinical audit at a teaching hospital.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Building Safe Emergency Medical Teams with Emergency Crisis Resource Management (E-CRM): An Interprofessional Simulation-Based Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Medication safety in emergency medical services: approaching an evidence-based method of verification to reduce errors.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical errors and preventable adverse events are a major cause of concern, especially in the emergency department (ED) where its prevalence has been reported to be roughly of 5-10% of visits. Due to a short length of stay, emergency patients are often managed by a sole physician - in contrast with other specialties where they can benefit from multiples handover, ward rounds and staff meetings. As some studies report that the rate and severity of errors may decrease when there is more than one physician involved in the management in different settings, we sought to assess the impact of regular systematic cross-checkings between physicians in the ED.
designThe CHARMED (Cross-checking to reduce adverse events resulting from medical errors in the emergency department) study is a multicenter cluster randomized study that aim to evaluate the reduction of the rate of severe medical errors with implementation of systematic cross checkings between emergency physician, compared to a control period with usual care. This study will evaluate the effect of this intervention on the rate of severe medical errors (i.e. preventable adverse events or near miss) using a previously described two-level chart abstraction. We made the hypothesis that implementing frequent and systematic cross checking will reduce the rate of severe medical errors from 10 to 6% - 1584 patients will be included, 140 for each period in each center. DISCUSSION: The CHARMED study will be the largest study that analyse unselected ED charts for medical errors. This could provide evidence that frequent systematic cross-checking will reduce the incidence of severe medical errors.
trial registrationClinical Trials, NCT02356926.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.