Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35909351›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical investigation2022

Prevalence, characteristics, and impact of Adverse Events in 34 Madrid hospitals. The ESHMAD study.

J L Valencia-Martín, J Vicente-Guijarro, D San Jose-Saras, P Moreno-Nunez, A Pardo-Hernández, J M Aranaz-Andrés, ESHMAD Director Group and external advisers

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical investigation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
  15. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

J L Valencia-Martín *Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain.
J Vicente-Guijarro *Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, 28034 Madrid, Spain. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.
D San Jose-SarasServicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal. IRYCIS, 28034 Madrid, Spain. Universidad de Alcalá, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Departamento de Biología de Sistemas, Alcalá de Henares, Spain.
P Moreno-NunezServicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, 28034 Madrid, Spain. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.
A Pardo-HernándezSubdirección General de Calidad Asistencial y Cooperación Sanitaria, Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad de Madrid, 28013 Madrid, Spain. Departamento de Especialidades Médicas y Salud Pública, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
J M Aranaz-AndrésServicio de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal. IRYCIS. CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), 28034 Madrid, Spain. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Logroño, La Rioja, Spain.
ESHMAD Director Group and external advisers
Universidad Internacional De La Rioja · ESHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESUniversidad de Alcalá · ESUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdverse Events (AE) are one of the main problems in healthcare. Therefore, many policies have been developed worldwide to mitigate their impact. The Patient Safety Incident Study in Hospitals in the Community of Madrid (ESHMAD) measures the results of them in the region.

methodsCross-sectional study, conducted in May 2019, in hospitalised patients in 34 public hospitals using the Harvard Medical Practice Study methodology. A logistic regression model was carried out to study the association of the variables with the presence of AE, calibrated and adjusted by patient.

resultsA total of 9,975 patients were included, estimating a prevalence of AE of 11.9%. A higher risk of AE was observed in patients with surgical procedures (OR[CI95%]: 2.15[1.79 to 2.57], vs. absence), in Intensive Care Units (OR[CI95%]: 1.60[1.17 to 2.17], vs. Medical), and in hospitals of medium complexity (OR[CI95%]: 1.45[1.12 to 1.87], vs. low complexity). A 62.6% of AE increased the length of the stay or it was the cause of admission, and 46.9% of AE were considered preventable. In 11.5% of patients with AE, they had contributed to their death.

conclusionsThe prevalence of AE remains similar to the previously estimated in studies developed with the same methodology. AE keep leading to longer hospital stays, contributing to patient's death, showing that it is necessary to put focus on patient safety again. A detailed analysis of these events has enabled the detection of specific areas for improvement according to the type of care, centre, and patient.

Identifiers

PMID35909351
PMCPMC9787492
OpenAlexW4289173419

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.