ArticleAtencion primaria2020
[Avoidable adverse events in primary care. Retrospective cohort study to determine their frequency and severity].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2020. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of SINERGIAPS, an intervention to improve patient safety in primary healthcare centers in Spain based on patients' perceptions and experiences: a protocol for a hybrid type I randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Is primary care a patient-safe setting? Prevalence, severity, nature, and causes of adverse events: numerous and mostly avoidable.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023Article
- Professional burnout and patient safety culture in Primary Health Care.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2023Article
- Spanish Version of the Scale "Eventos Adversos Associados às Práticas de Enfermagem" (EAAPE): Validation in Nursing Students.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 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
12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the frequency of avoidable adverse events (AAEs) in Primary Care (PC).
designRetrospective cohort study. LOCATION: Family medicine and paediatric clinics in Andalusia, Aragon, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalonia, Madrid, Navarre, and Valencia.
participantsA review was performed on a designated sample of 2,397 medical records (95% confidence level and 2% accuracy). The sample was stratified by age group as regards the frequency of physician consultations and considering equal distribution of male and female patients. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Number and severity of identified AAEs from February 2018 to September 2019.
resultsA total of 2,557 medical records were reviewed (1,928, 75.4% of adult patients, and 629, 24.6% paediatrics). A total of 182 (7.1%, 95% CI 6.1-8.1%) AAEs that affected 168 patients were identified, which included 7.6% (95% CI 6.4-8.8%) in adults and 5.7% (95% CI 3.9-7.5%) in paediatric patients. The number of AAEs in women was higher than in men (P = 0.006). The incidence of AAEs in boys and girls was similar (P = 0.3). Permanent damage was caused by AAEs in 6 (4.1%) adult patients.
conclusionsSeeking formulas to increase patient safety in PC should remain a priority objective, particularly in female patients and in paediatrics. One in 24 AAEs causes serious and permanent damage in adults.
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.