Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32910036›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient safety2022

Potentially Severe Incidents During Interhospital Transport of Critically Ill Patients, Frequently Occurring But Rarely Reported: A Prospective Study.

Helge Eiding, Olav Røise, Ulf E Kongsgaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Helge Eiding
Olav Røise
Ulf E Kongsgaard

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe out-of-hospital environment can pose significant challenges to the quality and safety of interhospital transport of critically ill patients. Because we lack knowledge of the occurrence of incidents, their potential consequences, and whether they are actually reported, this study was initiated.

methodsTwo different services in Norway were asked to self-report incidents after every interhospital transport of critically ill patients. Sampling lasted for 12 and 8 months, respectively. An expert group evaluated each incident for severity and demand for reporting into the hospital's electronic incident reporting system. One year later, the hospital's reporting system was scrutinized to determine the number of incidents actually reported.

resultsA total of 455 transports of critically ill patients were performed, resulting in 294 unique incidents reported: medical (15%), technical (25%), missing equipment (17%), and personal failures and communication difficulties (42%). Only 3 (1%) of the 294 unique incidents were actually reported in the hospital's electronic incident reporting system. The experts were inconsistent in which incidents should have been reported and to what degree checklists, standard operating procedures, simulation, and training could have prevented the incidents.

conclusionsThis study of interhospital transports of critically ill patients reveals a very high number of incidents. Despite this fact, these incidents are severely underreported in the hospital's electronic incident reporting system. This suggests that learning is lost and errors with predominant probability are repeated. These results emphasize the existing challenges in regard to the quality and safety of interhospital transport of critically ill patients.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessRisk ManagementChecklistCommunicationHumansProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32910036
PMCPMC8719502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.