ArticleBMC health services research2024
A retrospective analysis of adverse events reported by Tunisian intensive care units' professionals.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient safety incident reporting systems and reporting practices in African healthcare organisations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open quality · 2025Pooled it
- Deep Learning for Early Prediction of Adverse Events in Intensive Care Units Using Electronic Health Records: A Methodological Review.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Review
- Impact of an educational intervention on patient safety culture among gynecology-obstetrics' healthcare professionals.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdverse events (AEs) that occur in hospitals remain a challenge worldwide, and especially in intensive care units (ICUs) where they are more likely to occur. Monitoring of AEs can provide insight into the status and advances of patient safety. This study aimed to examine the AEs reported during the 20 months after the implementation of the AE reporting system.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of a voluntary ICU AE reporting system. Incidents were reported by the staff from ten ICUs in the Sahloul University Hospital (Tunisia) between February 2020 and September 2021.
resultsA total of 265 reports were received, of which 61.9% were deemed preventable. The most frequently reported event was healthcare-associated infection (30.2%, n = 80), followed by pressure ulcers (18.5%, n = 49). At the time of reporting, 25 patients (9.4%) had died as a result of an AE and in 51.3% of cases, the event had resulted in an increased length of stay. Provider-related factors contributed to 64.2% of the events, whilst patient-related factors contributed to 53.6% of the events. As for criticality, 34.3% of the events (n = 91) were unacceptable (c3) and 36.3% of the events (n = 96) were 'acceptable under control' (c2).
conclusionsThe reporting system provided rich information on the characteristics of reported AEs that occur in ICUs and their consequences and may be therefore useful for designing effective and evidence-based interventions to reduce the occurrence of AEs.
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.