ArticlePloS one2022
Choking injuries: Associated factors and error-producing conditions among acute hospital patients in Japan.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparison of physicians' and dentists' incident reports in open data from the Japan Council for Quality Health Care: a mixed-method study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Choking can lead to mortality and residual impairments. This study aimed to determine the factors associated with choking among acute hospital patients and examine error-producing conditions to suggest choking-prevention policies. Among 36,364 cases reported by hospital staff at an acute university hospital from 2012 to 2018 were examined using a retrospective study, 35,440 were analysis as the number of cases analysed for the study. We used descriptive statistics to present patient characteristics and conducted univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify factors associated with choking. Additionally, we conducted content analysis (root cause analysis) to examine error-producing conditions and prevention policies. Sixty-eight cases were related to choking injuries; of these, 43 patients (63.2%) were male, and 38 (55.9%) were aged 65 years and older. Choking cases had a high percent of adverse outcomes involving residual impairment or death (n = 23, 33.8%). Mental illness (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.14 [1.39-7.08]), and hospitalisation in the general wards (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.13 [1.70-5.76]) were associated with an increased probability of choking. Error production was caused by food (n = 25, 36.8%) and medical devices or supplies (n = 13, 19.1%). Almost all contributory factors were associated with inadequate checking (n = 66, 97.1%) and misperception of risk (n = 65, 95.6%). Choking poses a highly significant burden on patients, and hospital administrators should minimise the risk of choking to prevent related injuries. Hospital administrators should provide training and education to their staff and develop adequate protocols and procedures to prevent choking.
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.