Observational studyJMIR formative research2025
Estimating the Frequency of Inpatient Adverse Events Using a 2-Step Retrospective Chart Review: Initial Observational Cohort Study.
Observational study in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLower- and middle-income countries bear a disproportionate share of the global burden of adverse events in health care. Despite this, patient safety research is predominantly conducted in high-income countries with well-developed health care systems, resulting in evidence and methodologies that have limited applicability in resource-constrained settings.
objectiveThis pilot study primarily aimed to identify the most suitable methodology for a full-scale study to detect inpatient adverse events at a tertiary care hospital in a lower- to middle-income country. Second, we aimed to use our experience with this study to further adapt the selected methodology to our setting.
methodsThis external pilot study used a 2-step retrospective chart review methodology. Two separate screening tools, tools 1A and 1B, were compared to identify which performed better in our setting. We reviewed the medical records of patients who were discharged between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, from a tertiary care hospital in a lower- to middle-income country in South Asia. The main outcome of interest was the rate of adverse events among hospitalized patients reported as the total number of adverse events experienced per 100 admissions.
resultsA total of 100 medical records were screened using tool 1A, with the mean patient age being 39.2 (SD 27.7) years and the mean length of stay being 3.3 (SD 2.8) days. Only 1 adverse event was identified using tool 1A, resulting in an adverse event rate of 1 event per 100 hospital admissions. Tool 1B was also used to screen a total of 100 medical records. The mean patient age was found to be 39.8 (SD 28.4) years, with the mean length of stay being 3.5 (SD 3.4) days. A total of 30 adverse events were identified across 22 patient files, with 18 (60%) considered preventable, resulting in an adverse event rate of 30 events per 100 hospital admissions.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that tool 1B, adapted from the Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events, represents an appropriate and sensitive methodology to identify adverse events among hospitalized patients in a lower- to middle-income country. Furthermore, the findings and experiences of this study were used to improve the design and procedures of our research methodology before implementation in a full-scale study. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076971.
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.