Logo do repositório
 
Publicação

Comparison of two methods to estimate adverse events in the IBEAS Study (Ibero-American study of adverse events)

2017-10-01Artigo científico Acesso aberto
Ver registo simples
dc.contributor.authorAranaz Andrés, Jesus Maria
dc.contributor.authorLimón Ramírez, Ramon
dc.contributor.authorAibar Remón, Carlos
dc.contributor.authorGea-Velázquez De Castro, Maria Teresa
dc.contributor.authorBolúmar, Francisco
dc.contributor.authorHernández-Aguado, Ildefonso
dc.contributor.authorLópez Fresneña, Nieves
dc.contributor.authorDíaz-Agero Pérez, Cristina
dc.contributor.authorTerol García, Enrique
dc.contributor.authorMichel, Philippe
dc.contributor.authorSousa, Paulo
dc.contributor.authorLarizgoitia Jauregui, Itziar
dc.contributor.institutionCentro de Investigação em Saúde Pública (CISP/PHRC)
dc.contributor.institutionEscola Nacional de Saúde Pública (ENSP)
dc.contributor.pblBMJ Publishing Group
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-02T23:13:27Z
dc.date.available2018-02-02T23:13:27Z
dc.date.issued2017-10-01
dc.description.abstractBackground Adverse events (AEs) epidemiology is the first step to improve practice in the healthcare system. Usually, the preferred method used to estimate the magnitude of the problem is the retrospective cohort study design, with retrospective reviews of the medical records. However this data collection involves a sophisticated sampling plan, and a process of intensive review of sometimes very heavy and complex medical records. Cross-sectional survey is also a valid and feasible methodology to study AEs. Objectives The aim of this study is to compare AEs detection using two different methodologies: cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design. Setting Secondary and tertiary hospitals in five countries: Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru. Participants The IBEAS Study is a cross-sectional survey with a sample size of 11 379 patients. The retrospective cohort study was obtained from a 10% random sample proportional to hospital size from the entire IBEAS Study population. Methods This study compares the 1-day prevalence of the AEs obtained in the IBEAS Study with the incidence obtained through the retrospective cohort study. Results The prevalence of patients with AEs was 10.47% (95% CI 9.90 to 11.03) (1191/11 379), while the cumulative incidence of the retrospective cohort study was 19.76% (95% CI 17.35% to 22.17%) (215/1088). In both studies the highest risk of suffering AEs was seen in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Comorbid patients and patients with medical devices showed higher risk. Conclusion The retrospective cohort design, although requires more resources, allows to detect more AEs than the cross-sectional design.en
dc.description.versionpublishersversion
dc.description.versionpublished
dc.format.extent1566831
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016546
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 3252710
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 7ff07208-c59c-4165-bd41-f2a095ac71f5
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85031128719
dc.identifier.otherPubMed: 28993382
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000422617500086
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0001-9502-6075/work/130929443
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031128719&partnerID=8YFLogxK
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85031128719
dc.language.isoeng
dc.peerreviewedyes
dc.subjectadverse events
dc.subjectpatient safety
dc.subjectquality in health care
dc.subjectGeneral Medicine
dc.titleComparison of two methods to estimate adverse events in the IBEAS Study (Ibero-American study of adverse events)en
dc.title.subtitleCross-sectional versus retrospective cohort designen
dc.typejournal article
degois.publication.issue10
degois.publication.titleBMJ Open
degois.publication.volume7
dspace.entity.typePublication
rcaap.rightsopenAccess

Ficheiros

Principais
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nome:
Aranaz_Andres_BMJ_Open_2017_7_10_e016546.pdf
Tamanho:
1.49 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Ver/Abrir

Coleções

Home collection (ENSP)