ArticleBMC psychiatry2020
Adverse events in psychiatry: a national cohort study in Sweden with a unique psychiatric trigger tool.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 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
- Prevalence and solving strategies of drug-related problems in adult psychiatric inpatients - a systematic review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Incidence and characteristics of adverse events in paediatric inpatient care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ quality & safety · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- 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
- Evaluation of Prescription Patterns of Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia Patients-A Single-Center Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- "Trying to Do No Harm": exploring clinician concerns towards the use of AI for risk prediction in psychiatry.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Classification of Psychiatric Data Associated with Compensation Claims for Patient Injuries.Methods of information in medicine · 2023Article
- Patient Safety and Mental Health-A Growing Quality Gap in Canada.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2022Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe vast majority of patient safety research has focused on somatic health care. Although specific adverse events (AEs) within psychiatric healthcare have been explored, the overall level and nature of AEs is sparsely investigated.
methodsCohort study using a retrospective record review based on a two-step trigger tool methodology in the charts of randomly selected patients 18 years or older admitted to the psychiatric acute care departments in all Swedish regions from January 1 to June 30, 2017. Hospital care together with corresponding outpatient care were reviewed as a continuum, over a maximum of 3 months. The AEs were categorised according to type, severity and preventability.
resultsIn total, the medical records of 2552 patients were reviewed. Among the patients, 50.4% were women and 49.6% were men. The median (range) age was 44 (18-97) years for women and 44.5 (18-93) years for men. In 438 of the reviewed records, 720 AEs were identified, corresponding to the AEs identified in 17.2% [95% confidence interval, 15.7-18.6] of the records. The majority of AEs resulted in less or moderate harm, and 46.2% were considered preventable. Prolonged disease progression and deliberate self-harm were the most common types of AEs. AEs were significantly more common in women (21.5%) than in men (12.7%) but showed no difference between age groups. Severe or catastrophic harm was found in 2.3% of the records, and the majority affected were women (61%). Triggers pointing at deficient quality of care were found in 78% of the records, with the absence of a treatment plan being the most common.
conclusionsAEs are common in psychiatric care. Aside from further patient safety work, systematic interventions are also warranted to improve the quality of psychiatric care.
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.