ArticleAtencion primaria2018
[Description of contributing factors in adverse events related to patient safety and their preventability].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care: Comparing APEAS-2007 (Spanish Patient Safety Adverse Events Study in Primary Care) with Data from a Health Area in Catalonia (Spain) in 2019.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Tools for the investigation of adverse events: scoping review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2022Article
- [Patient safety incidents reported before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Primary Care in Tarragona].Atencion primaria · 2021Article
- Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the extent of healthcare related adverse events (AEs), their effect on patients, and their seriousness. To analyse the factors leading to the development of AEs, their relationship with the damage caused, and their degree of preventability.
designRetrospective descriptive study. LOCATION: Porriño, Pontevedra, Spain, Primary Care Service, from January-2014 to April-2016. PARTICIPANTS AND/OR CONTEXT: Reported AEs were entered into the Patient Safety Reporting and Learning System (SiNASP).
methodThe variables measured were: Near Incident (NI) an occurrence with no effect or harm on the patient; Adverse Event (AE) an occurrence that affects or harms a patient. The level of harm is classified as minimal, minor, moderate, critical, and catastrophic. Preventability was classified as little evidence of being preventable, 50% preventable, and sound evidence of being preventable. DATA ANALYSIS: percentages and Chi-squared test for qualitative variables; P<.05 with SPSS.15. DATA SOURCE: SiNASP. Ethical considerations: approved by the Research Ethics Committee (2016/344).
resultsThere were 166 recorded AEs (50.6% in males, and 46.4% in women. The mean age was 60.80years). Almost two-thirds 62.7% of AEs affected the patient, with 45.8% causing minimal damage, while 2.4% caused critical damages. Healthcare professionals were a contributing factor in 71.7% of the AEs, with the trend showing that poor communication and lack of protocols were related to the damage caused. Degree of preventability: 96.4%.
conclusionsMost AEs affected the patient, and were related to medication, diagnostic tests, and laboratory errors. The level of harm was related to communication problems, lack of, or deficient, protocols and a poor safety culture.
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.