ArticleBMC health services research2016
A framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes arising during hospitalization.
Article in BMC health services research, 2016. 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 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Adverse Outcome Metrics Into Quality Assurance Strategies for Improved Patient Outcomes.Journal of dental education · 2025Article
- Effect of Rural Trauma Team Development on the Outcomes of Motorcycle Accident-Related Injuries (Motor Registry Project): Protocol for a Multicenter Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Civil Lawsuits as an Indicator of Adverse Outcomes in Healthcare.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Patient recalls associated with resident-to-attending radiology report discrepancies: predictive factors for risky discrepancies.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Impact of diagnostic errors on adverse outcomes: learning from emergency department revisits with repeat CT or MRI.Insights into imaging · 2021Article
- How to practice person-centred care: A conceptual framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Review
- Erratum to: A framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes arising during hospitalization.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- ACSC Indicator: testing reliability for hypertension.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment of adverse events from a patient-centered view includes patient-reported adverse outcomes. An adverse outcome refers to any suboptimal outcome experienced by the patient; when adverse outcomes are identified through a patient interview these are called patient-reported adverse outcomes. An adverse event is an adverse outcome that is more likely due to the processes of medical care rather than to the mere progression of disease. In the context of a large-scale study assessing post-hospitalization adverse events, we developed a conceptual framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes (PRAOs). This methodological manuscript describes this conceptual framework.
methodsThe PRAO framework builds on a validated adverse event ascertainment method including three phases: Phase 1 involves an inquiry to ascertain the occurrence of any patient-reported adverse outcome. It is completed by a structured telephone interview to obtain details - from a patient perspective - on symptoms that developed and/or worsened after hospitalization. Phase 2 involves the classification of PRAOs by physicians not involved in the patient care. Physician-reviewers then rate the PRAOs using well-adopted scales to determine whether the occurrence was the natural progression of the underlying illness or due to medical care. When the PRAO is rated as "due to medical care", it is then classified as an "adverse event". Phase 3 involves the classification of adverse events as preventable or ameliorable.
resultsOut of the 1347 patients contacted at 1-month post-discharge, 469 reported AOs and after reviewing 369 cases, 29 were classified as AEs. Observed agreement levels between raters were 87.3, 85.5, and 85.2 % respectively displaying a good agreement (k > 0.60).
conclusionThe framework incorporates PRAOs as a way to identify cases that need to be evaluated for adverse events. Further validation of this framework is warrant with the final aim of implementation at larger scale. The implementation of this framework will enable clinicians, researchers and healthcare institutions to compare outcome rates across providers and over time.
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.