ObjectivesTo estimate the incidence, nature and consequences of adverse events and preventable adverse events in Swedish hospitals.DesignA three-stage structured retrospective medical record review based on the use of 18 screening criteria.SettingTwenty-eight Swedish hospitals.PopulationA representative sample (n = 1967) of the 1.2 million Swedish hospital admissions between October 2003 and September 2004.Main Outcome MeasuresProportion of admissions with adverse events, the proportion of preventable adverse events and the types and consequences of adverse events.ResultsIn total, 12.3% (n = 241) of the 1967 admissions had adverse events (95% CI, 10.8–13.7), of which 70% (n = 169) were preventable. Fifty-five percent of the preventable events led to impairment or disability, which was resolved during the admission or within 1 month from discharge, another 33% were resolved within 1 year, 9% of the preventable events led to permanent disability and 3% of the adverse events contributed to patient death. Preventable adverse events led to a mean increased length of stay of 6 days. Ten of the 18 screening criteria were sufficient to detect 90% of the preventable adverse events. When extrapolated to the 1.2 million annual admissions, the results correspond to 105 000 preventable adverse events (95% CI, 90 000–120 000) and 630 000 days of hospitalization (95% CI, 430 000–830 000).ConclusionsThis study confirms that preventable adverse events were common, and that they caused extensive human suffering and consumed a significant amount of the available hospital resources.

BackgroundA Swedish version of the USA Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality “Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture” (S-HSOPSC) was developed to be used in both hospitals and primary care. Two new dimensions with two and four questions each were added as well as one outcome measure. This paper describes this Swedish version and an assessment of its psychometric properties which were tested on a large sample of responses from personnel in both hospital and primary care.MethodsThe questionnaire was mainly administered in web form and 84215 forms were returned (response rate 60%) between 2009 and 2011. Eleven per cent of the responses came from primary care workers and 46% from hospital care workers. The psychometric properties were analyzed using both the total sample and the hospital and primary care subsamples by assessment of construct validity and internal consistency. Construct validity was assessed by confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory factor (EFA) analyses and internal consistency was established by Cronbachs’s α.ResultsCFA of the total, hospital and primary care samples generally showed a good fit while the EFA pointed towards a 9-factor model in all samples instead of the 14-dimension S-HSOPSC instrument. Internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach’s α values above 0.7 in a major part of the dimensions.ConclusionsThe S-HSOPSC, consisting of 14 dimensions, 48 items and 3 single-item outcome measures, is used both in hospitals and in primary care settings in Sweden for different purposes. This version of the original American instrument has acceptable construct validity and internal consistency when tested on large datasets of first-time responders from both hospitals and primary care centres. One common instrument for measurements of patient safety culture in both hospitals and primary care settings is an advantage since it enables comparisons between sectors and assessments of national patient safety improvement programs. Future research into this version of the instrument includes comparing results from patient safety culture measurements with other outcomes in relation to safety improvement strategies.

ObjectivesTo describe the implementation of a trigger tool in Sweden and present the national incidence of adverse events (AEs) over a 4-year period during which an ongoing national patient safety initiative was terminated.DesignCohort study using retrospective record review based on a trigger tool methodology.Setting and participantsPatients ≥18 years admitted to all somatic acute care hospitals in Sweden from 2013 to 2016 were randomised into the study.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was the incidence of AEs, and secondary measures were type of injury, severity of harm, preventability of AEs, estimated healthcare cost of AEs and incidence of AEs in patients cared for in another type of unit than the one specialised for their medical needs (‘off-site’).ResultsIn a review of 64 917 admissions, the average AE rates in 2014 (11.6%), 2015 (10.9%) and 2016 (11.4%) were significantly lower than in 2013 (13.1%). The decrease in the AE rates was seen in different age groups, in both genders and for preventable and non-preventable AEs. The decrease comprised only the least severe AEs. The types of AEs that decreased were hospital-acquired infections, urinary bladder distention and compromised vital signs. Patients cared for ‘off-site’ had 84% more preventable AEs than patients cared for in the appropriate units. The cost of increased length of stay associated with preventable AEs corresponded to 13%–14% of the total cost of somatic hospital care in Sweden.ConclusionsThe rate of AEs in Swedish somatic hospitals has decreased from 2013 to 2016. Retrospective record review can be used to monitor patient safety over time, to assess the effects of national patient safety interventions and analyse challenges to patient safety such as the increasing care of patients ‘off-site’. It was found that the economic burden of preventable AEs is high.

This pilot study reveals that AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators can be applied to international hospital data. However, the analyses suggest that certain indicators (e.g. 'birth trauma', 'complications of anesthesia') may be too unreliable for international comparisons. Data quality varies across countries; undercoding may be a systematic problem in some countries. Efforts at international harmonization of hospital discharge data sets as well as improved accuracy of documentation should facilitate future comparative analyses of routine databases.

ObjectivesIn this paper, we explore similarities and differences in hospital adverse event (AE) rates between Norway and Sweden by reviewing medical records with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT).DesignAll acute care hospitals in both countries performed medical record reviews, except one in Norway. Records were randomly selected from all eligible admissions in 2013. Eligible admissions were patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing care with an in-hospital stay of at least 24 hours, excluding psychiatric and care and rehabilitation. Reviews were done according to GTT methodology.SettingSimilar contexts for healthcare and similar socioeconomic and demographic characteristics have inspired the Nordic countries to exchange experiences from measuring and monitoring quality and patient safety in healthcare. The co-operation has promoted the use of GTT to monitor national and local rates of AEs in hospital care.Participants10 986 medical records were reviewed in Norway and 19 141 medical records in Sweden.ResultsNo significant difference between overall AE rates was found between the two countries. The rate was 13.0% (95% CI 11.7% to 14.3%) in Norway and 14.4% (95% CI 12.6% to 16.3%) in Sweden. There were significantly higher AE rates of surgical complications in Norwegian hospitals compared with Swedish hospitals. Swedish hospitals had significantly higher rates of pressure ulcers, falls and ‘other’ AEs. Among more severe AEs, Norwegian hospitals had significantly higher rates of surgical complications than Swedish hospitals. Swedish hospitals had significantly higher rates of postpartum AEs.ConclusionsThe level of patient safety in acute care hospitals, as assessed by GTT, was essentially the same in both countries. The differences between the countries in the rates of several types of AEs provide new incentives for Norwegian and Swedish governing bodies to address patient safety issues.