AIM To investigate the incidence of disadvantageous events by using the Global Trigger Tool in an intensive care unit(ICU).METHODS A retrospective descriptive study was performed in a 12-bed university ICU in the city...AIM To investigate the incidence of disadvantageous events by using the Global Trigger Tool in an intensive care unit(ICU).METHODS A retrospective descriptive study was performed in a 12-bed university ICU in the city of Medellin, Colombia. Clinical charts of hospitalized patients were reviewed, between January 1 and December 31, 2016, with the following inclusion criteria: subjects aged over 18 years, with at least 24 h of hospitalization and who had a complete medical history that could be accessed. Interventions: Trained reviewers conducted a retros pective examination of medical charts searching for clue events that elicit investigation, in order to detect an unfavorable event. Measurements: Information was processed through SPSS softwareversion 21; for numerical variables, the mean was reported with standard deviation(SD). Percentages were calculated for qualitative variables. RESULTS Two hundred and forty-four triggers occurred, with 82.4% of subjects having presented with at least one and an average of 3.37 (SD 3.47). A total of 178 adverse events (AEs) took place in 48 individuals, with an incidence of 52.1%. On average, four events per patient were recorded, and for each unfortunate event, 1.98 triggers were presented. The most frequent displeasing issues were: pressure ulcers(17.6%), followed by complications or reactions to medical devices(4.3%), and lacerations or skin defects(3.7%); the least frequent was delayed diagnosis or treatment (0.56%). Thirty-eight point four percent of mishap events caused temporary damage that required intervention, and 48.9% of AEs were preventable. Comparison between AEs and admission diagnoses found that hypertension and sepsis were the only diagnoses that had statistical significance (P = 0.042 and 0.022, respectively).CONCLUSION Almost half of the unfavorable issues were classified as avoidable, which leaves a very wide field of work in terms of preventative activities.展开更多
目的对触发工具在护理不良事件监测方面的应用现状和效果进行范围综述,为促进触发工具在国内的应用提供参考。方法以乔安娜布里格斯研究所范围综述指南为方法学框架,系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国知...目的对触发工具在护理不良事件监测方面的应用现状和效果进行范围综述,为促进触发工具在国内的应用提供参考。方法以乔安娜布里格斯研究所范围综述指南为方法学框架,系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国知网、万方数据、维普网及中国生物医学文献数据库中的相关文献,检索时限为建库至2024年5月。结果共纳入21篇文献。主要结局指标为住院患者不良事件发生率、每1000个住院日的不良事件发生率、每100例患者的不良事件发生率;研究对象主要包括一般住院患者、儿科患者、外科患者、急诊患者等;护理不良事件的主要类型有医疗保健相关感染、压力性损伤、跌倒、与输血或使用血液制品相关的不良事件等。结论触发工具是监测护理不良事件的可行方法,但目前在国内的发展仍处于初级阶段,未来应不断扩大研究范围,开发更专业、更高效的触发工具。展开更多
文摘AIM To investigate the incidence of disadvantageous events by using the Global Trigger Tool in an intensive care unit(ICU).METHODS A retrospective descriptive study was performed in a 12-bed university ICU in the city of Medellin, Colombia. Clinical charts of hospitalized patients were reviewed, between January 1 and December 31, 2016, with the following inclusion criteria: subjects aged over 18 years, with at least 24 h of hospitalization and who had a complete medical history that could be accessed. Interventions: Trained reviewers conducted a retros pective examination of medical charts searching for clue events that elicit investigation, in order to detect an unfavorable event. Measurements: Information was processed through SPSS softwareversion 21; for numerical variables, the mean was reported with standard deviation(SD). Percentages were calculated for qualitative variables. RESULTS Two hundred and forty-four triggers occurred, with 82.4% of subjects having presented with at least one and an average of 3.37 (SD 3.47). A total of 178 adverse events (AEs) took place in 48 individuals, with an incidence of 52.1%. On average, four events per patient were recorded, and for each unfortunate event, 1.98 triggers were presented. The most frequent displeasing issues were: pressure ulcers(17.6%), followed by complications or reactions to medical devices(4.3%), and lacerations or skin defects(3.7%); the least frequent was delayed diagnosis or treatment (0.56%). Thirty-eight point four percent of mishap events caused temporary damage that required intervention, and 48.9% of AEs were preventable. Comparison between AEs and admission diagnoses found that hypertension and sepsis were the only diagnoses that had statistical significance (P = 0.042 and 0.022, respectively).CONCLUSION Almost half of the unfavorable issues were classified as avoidable, which leaves a very wide field of work in terms of preventative activities.
文摘目的对触发工具在护理不良事件监测方面的应用现状和效果进行范围综述,为促进触发工具在国内的应用提供参考。方法以乔安娜布里格斯研究所范围综述指南为方法学框架,系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国知网、万方数据、维普网及中国生物医学文献数据库中的相关文献,检索时限为建库至2024年5月。结果共纳入21篇文献。主要结局指标为住院患者不良事件发生率、每1000个住院日的不良事件发生率、每100例患者的不良事件发生率;研究对象主要包括一般住院患者、儿科患者、外科患者、急诊患者等;护理不良事件的主要类型有医疗保健相关感染、压力性损伤、跌倒、与输血或使用血液制品相关的不良事件等。结论触发工具是监测护理不良事件的可行方法,但目前在国内的发展仍处于初级阶段,未来应不断扩大研究范围,开发更专业、更高效的触发工具。
