ArticleBMJ open2017
Exploring similarities and differences in hospital adverse event rates between Norway and Sweden using Global Trigger Tool.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive values of trigger tools for identifying adverse events in hospitalized patients using a medical record review: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Pooled it
- Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Mitigating risk in psychiatric hospital care for older adults by identifying adverse events with Global Trigger Tool for psychiatric patients.The International journal of risk & safety in medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Adverse Events in Mexico Using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement-Global Trigger Tool Method: A Retrospective Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Implementing Learning from Excellence in a postanaesthesia care unit: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' experiences after six months.BMC health services research · 2025Observational
- Establishing a trigger tool based on global trigger tools to identify adverse drug events in obstetric inpatients in China.BMC health services research · 2024Review
- Using the Global Trigger Tool in surgical and neurosurgical patients: A feasibility study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Looking for the "Little Things": A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Medicines Monitoring for Older People Using the ADRe Resource.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Adverse Drug Reactions in Norway: A Systematic Review.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Observational
- Contribution of adverse events to death of hospitalised patients.BMJ open quality · 2019Article
- Adverse Drug Reactions, Power, Harm Reduction, Regulation and the ADRe Profiles.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Incidence of adverse events in Sweden during 2013-2016: a cohort study describing the implementation of a national trigger tool.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Patient and hospital characteristics that influence incidence of adverse events in acute public hospitals in Portugal: a retrospective cohort study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn this paper, we explore similarities and differences in hospital adverse event (AE) rates between Norway and Sweden by reviewing medical records with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT).
designAll acute care hospitals in both countries performed medical record reviews, except one in Norway. Records were randomly selected from all eligible admissions in 2013. Eligible admissions were patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing care with an in-hospital stay of at least 24 hours, excluding psychiatric and care and rehabilitation. Reviews were done according to GTT methodology.
settingSimilar contexts for healthcare and similar socioeconomic and demographic characteristics have inspired the Nordic countries to exchange experiences from measuring and monitoring quality and patient safety in healthcare. The co-operation has promoted the use of GTT to monitor national and local rates of AEs in hospital care.
participants10 986 medical records were reviewed in Norway and 19 141 medical records in Sweden.
resultsNo significant difference between overall AE rates was found between the two countries. The rate was 13.0% (95% CI 11.7% to 14.3%) in Norway and 14.4% (95% CI 12.6% to 16.3%) in Sweden. There were significantly higher AE rates of surgical complications in Norwegian hospitals compared with Swedish hospitals. Swedish hospitals had significantly higher rates of pressure ulcers, falls and 'other' AEs. Among more severe AEs, Norwegian hospitals had significantly higher rates of surgical complications than Swedish hospitals. Swedish hospitals had significantly higher rates of postpartum AEs.
conclusionsThe level of patient safety in acute care hospitals, as assessed by GTT, was essentially the same in both countries. The differences between the countries in the rates of several types of AEs provide new incentives for Norwegian and Swedish governing bodies to address patient safety issues.
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.