IntroductionMonitoring hospital mortality rates is widely recommended. However, the number of preventable deaths remains uncertain with estimates in England ranging from 840 to 40 000 per year, these being derived from studies that identified adverse events but not whether events contributed to death or shortened life expectancy of those affected.MethodsRetrospective case record reviews of 1000 adults who died in 2009 in 10 acute hospitals in England were undertaken. Trained physician reviewers estimated life expectancy on admission, to identified problems in care contributing to death and judged if deaths were preventable taking into account patients' overall condition at that time.ResultsReviewers judged 5.2% (95% CI 3.8% to 6.6%) of deaths as having a 50% or greater chance of being preventable. The principal problems associated with preventable deaths were poor clinical monitoring (31.3%; 95% CI 23.9 to 39.7), diagnostic errors (29.7%; 95% CI 22.5% to 38.1%), and inadequate drug or fluid management (21.1%; 95% CI 14.9 to 29.0). Extrapolating from these figures suggests there would have been 11 859 (95% CI 8712 to 14 983) adult preventable deaths in hospitals in England. Most preventable deaths (60%) occurred in elderly, frail patients with multiple comorbidities judged to have had less than 1 year of life left to live.ConclusionsThe incidence of preventable hospital deaths is much lower than previous estimates. The burden of harm from preventable problems in care is still substantial. A focus on deaths may not be the most efficient approach to identify opportunities for improvement given the low proportion of deaths due to problems with healthcare.
the use of a core care plan targeting risk factor reduction in older hospital in-patients was associated with a reduction in the relative risk of recorded falls.
This paper describes the largest retrospective study of hospital falls incidents and draws on data from almost 500 institutions of varying types. It describes wide variations in falls recording and reporting, and in recorded falls rates between institutions of different types and between institutions of ostensibly similar case-mix. As falls are the commonest reported patient safety incident, there is a pressing need for improvements in local reporting, recording and focused analysis of incident data, and for these data to be used at local and national level better to inform and target falls prevention, as well as to explore the reasons for large apparent differences in falls rates between institutions.
The purpose of this review was to (1) identify areas of agreement and disagreement in guidelines/recommendations to distinguish between gastric and pulmonary placement of nasogastric tube and (2) summarize factors that affect choices made by clinicians regarding which method(s) to use in specific situations. Systematic searches were conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus databases using a combination of keywords and data-specific subject headings. Searches were limited to guidelines/recommendations from national level specialty groups and governmental sources published in the English language between January 1, 2015 and September 20, 2018. Fourteen guidelines that described methods to distinguish between gastric and pulmonary placement of nasogastric tubes were identified from a variety of geographic locations. Tube placement testing methods included in the review were: radiography, respiratory distress, aspirate appearance, aspirate pH, auscultation, carbon dioxide detection and enteral access devices. All fourteen guidelines agreed that radiography is the most accurate testing method. Of the nonradiographic methods, pH testing was most favored; least favored was auscultation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.