Detection of Adverse Events With the Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-22 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001235
Marten Schmied, Wolfgang Buchberger, Dieter Perkhofer, Irma Kvitsaridze, Wolfgang Brunner, Oliver Kapferer, Uwe Siebert
{"title":"Detection of Adverse Events With the Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators.","authors":"Marten Schmied, Wolfgang Buchberger, Dieter Perkhofer, Irma Kvitsaridze, Wolfgang Brunner, Oliver Kapferer, Uwe Siebert","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Indicators based on routine data are considered a readily available and cost-effective method for assessing health care quality and safety. The Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators (A-IQI) have been introduced in all Austrian public hospitals as a mandatory quality measurement. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of conspicuous A-IQI in predicting the presence of adverse events (AEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an exploratory study comparing all indicator-positive patient cases contributing to 18 conspicuous A-IQI indicators to randomly selected indicator-negative control cases regarding the prevalence and severity of AEs. Structured medical record review using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool was used as the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 421 chart reviews, we identified 158 AEs. 70.9% (n = 112) of the AEs were found in cases with a positive indicator. The relative risk of an AE occurring was 3.47 (95% confidence interval: 2.30, 5.24) in indicator-positive cases compared to indicator-negatives. The proportion of severe events (National Coordination Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index categories H and I) was 54.5% (n = 61) in indicator-positive cases and only 15.3% (n = 7) in indicator-negative cases. Overall sensitivity of the A-IQI was 68.2%, specificity 69.4%, positive predictive value 36.0%, and negative predictive value 89.6%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study shows that significantly more AEs and more severe AEs were found in cases with positive A-IQI than in indicator-negative control cases. However, studies with larger numbers of cases and with larger numbers of conspicuous indicators are needed for the validation of the entire A-IQI indicator set.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001235","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Indicators based on routine data are considered a readily available and cost-effective method for assessing health care quality and safety. The Austrian Inpatient Quality Indicators (A-IQI) have been introduced in all Austrian public hospitals as a mandatory quality measurement. The purpose of this study was to assess the value of conspicuous A-IQI in predicting the presence of adverse events (AEs).

Methods: We conducted an exploratory study comparing all indicator-positive patient cases contributing to 18 conspicuous A-IQI indicators to randomly selected indicator-negative control cases regarding the prevalence and severity of AEs. Structured medical record review using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool was used as the gold standard.

Results: In 421 chart reviews, we identified 158 AEs. 70.9% (n = 112) of the AEs were found in cases with a positive indicator. The relative risk of an AE occurring was 3.47 (95% confidence interval: 2.30, 5.24) in indicator-positive cases compared to indicator-negatives. The proportion of severe events (National Coordination Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index categories H and I) was 54.5% (n = 61) in indicator-positive cases and only 15.3% (n = 7) in indicator-negative cases. Overall sensitivity of the A-IQI was 68.2%, specificity 69.4%, positive predictive value 36.0%, and negative predictive value 89.6%.

Conclusions: Our study shows that significantly more AEs and more severe AEs were found in cases with positive A-IQI than in indicator-negative control cases. However, studies with larger numbers of cases and with larger numbers of conspicuous indicators are needed for the validation of the entire A-IQI indicator set.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用奥地利住院病人质量指标检测不良事件。
目标:基于常规数据的指标被认为是评估医疗质量和安全的一种现成且经济有效的方法。奥地利住院病人质量指标(A-IQI)已被引入奥地利所有公立医院,作为一项强制性质量测量指标。本研究的目的是评估显性 A-IQI 在预测不良事件(AEs)方面的价值:我们进行了一项探索性研究,比较了所有指标阳性病例与随机选择的指标阴性对照病例在 18 项明显 A-IQI 指标方面的不良事件发生率和严重程度。使用医疗保健改进研究所的全球触发工具进行结构化病历审查作为金标准:在 421 份病历审查中,我们发现了 158 例 AE。70.9%(n=112)的AE发生在具有阳性指标的病例中。与指标阴性的病例相比,指标阳性病例发生 AE 的相对风险为 3.47(95% 置信区间:2.30, 5.24)。指标阳性病例中严重事件(国家用药错误报告与预防协调委员会指数 H 类和 I 类)的比例为 54.5%(n = 61),而指标阴性病例中严重事件的比例仅为 15.3%(n = 7)。A-IQI的总体灵敏度为68.2%,特异性为69.4%,阳性预测值为36.0%,阴性预测值为89.6%:我们的研究表明,与指标阴性的对照病例相比,A-IQI 阳性的病例中发现的 AEs 明显更多,且更严重。然而,要验证整个 A-IQI 指标集,还需要进行更多病例和更多明显指标的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
期刊最新文献
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Cioccari et al. Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support for Apixaban Dosing in a Community Teaching Hospital. Patient Harm Events and Associated Cost Outcomes Reported to a Patient Safety Organization. Advancing Patient Safety: Harnessing Multimedia Tools to Alleviate Perioperative Anxiety and Pain. Translation and Comprehensive Validation of the Hebrew Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS 2.0).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1