Introduction:Adverse events in hospitals constitute a serious problem with grave consequences. Many studies have been conducted to gain an insight into this problem, but a general overview of the data is lacking. We performed a systematic review of the literature on in-hospital adverse events.Methods:A formal search of Embase, Cochrane and Medline was performed. Studies were reviewed independently for methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and endpoints. Primary endpoints were incidence of in-hospital adverse events and percentage of preventability. Secondary endpoints were adverse event outcome and subdivision by provider of care, location and type of event.Results:Eight studies including a total of 74 485 patient records were selected. The median overall incidence of in-hospital adverse events was 9.2%, with a median percentage of preventability of 43.5%. More than half (56.3%) of patients experienced no or minor disability, whereas 7.4% of events were lethal. Operation- (39.6%) and medication-related (15.1%) events constituted the majority. We present a summary of evidence-based interventions aimed at these categories of events.Conclusions:Adverse events during hospital admission affect nearly one out of 10 patients. A substantial part of these events are preventable. Since a large proportion of the in-hospital events are operation- or drug-related, interventions aimed at preventing these events have the potential to make a substantial difference.

Implementation of this comprehensive checklist was associated with a reduction in surgical complications and mortality in hospitals with a high standard of care. (Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR1943.).

A brief course of subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin favorably influences the survival in patients with advanced malignancy and deserves additional clinical evaluation.

IntroductionPatients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk for prescribing errors and related adverse drug events (ADEs). An effective intervention to decrease this risk, based on studies conducted mainly in North America, is on-ward participation of a clinical pharmacist in an ICU team. As the Dutch Healthcare System is organized differently and the on-ward role of hospital pharmacists in Dutch ICU teams is not well established, we conducted an intervention study to investigate whether participation of a hospital pharmacist can also be an effective approach in reducing prescribing errors and related patient harm (preventable ADEs) in this specific setting.MethodsA prospective study compared a baseline period with an intervention period. During the intervention period, an ICU hospital pharmacist reviewed medication orders for patients admitted to the ICU, noted issues related to prescribing, formulated recommendations and discussed those during patient review meetings with the attending ICU physicians. Prescribing issues were scored as prescribing errors when consensus was reached between the ICU hospital pharmacist and ICU physicians.ResultsDuring the 8.5-month study period, medication orders for 1,173 patients were reviewed. The ICU hospital pharmacist made a total of 659 recommendations. During the intervention period, the rate of consensus between the ICU hospital pharmacist and ICU physicians was 74%. The incidence of prescribing errors during the intervention period was significantly lower than during the baseline period: 62.5 per 1,000 monitored patient-days versus 190.5 per 1,000 monitored patient-days, respectively (P < 0.001). Preventable ADEs (patient harm, National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention severity categories E and F) were reduced from 4.0 per 1,000 monitored patient-days during the baseline period to 1.0 per 1,000 monitored patient-days during the intervention period (P = 0.25). Per monitored patient-day, the intervention itself cost €3, but might have saved €26 to €40 by preventing ADEs.ConclusionsOn-ward participation of a hospital pharmacist in a Dutch ICU was associated with significant reductions in prescribing errors and related patient harm (preventable ADEs) at acceptable costs per monitored patient-day.Trial registration numberISRCTN92487665

No abstract

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

IntroductionThe influence of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and other anticoagulants on the spread of cancer has been reported since the early 1960s.1 However, clinical studies investigating the use of heparins in cancer patients have not produced consistent results.2 Intravenous, adjusted-dose UFH for 5 to 10 days has been the standard initial treatment for venous thrombosis. More recently, subcutaneous, fixed-dose, low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), which are fractions of the parent compound, have been shown to be safe and effective alternatives to UFH in the initial treatment for venous thromboembolism.3-5 In one of our randomized clinical trials comparing LMWH and UFH in the initial treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), we observed an unexpected difference in 6-month mortality among cancer patients in favor of LMWH, which could not be attributed to a difference in the incidence of thrombotic or bleeding complications.6 A similar observation in favor of LMWH was reported in a subsequent study and in a meta-analysis of trials.7,8 The number of cancer patients included in these studies was small, and adjustment of the observed effect for the baseline characteristics of the cancer patients was not possible. However, these findings suggested an inhibitory effect of LMWH on tumor growth or metastasis, which is less apparent or absent for UFH, resulting in a beneficial effect on the survival of cancer patients. This hypothesis is supported by the observations, in experimental studies, that LMWH and low molecular weight heparan sulfate, in comparison to UFH, effectively suppressed angiogenesis, a process necessary for tumor growth and metastasis.9,10 On the other hand, animal studies that investigated the effect of chemically-modified heparins on the spread of cancer did not detect a superior anti-tumor effect of LMWH compared to UFH; both were found to inhibit metastasis.11,12 To date, the effect of LMWH on cancer survival in humans has not been investigated as a primary objective. If a consistent and beneficial effect of LMWH on mortality is indeed present, such a study would be warranted.We performed a meta-analysis of all available randomized clinical trials where LMWH was compared with UFH in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) to estimate the crude treatment effect of LMWH on mortality in cancer patients compared to UFH. Subsequently, we adjusted this treatment effect for age, gender, and primary malignancy site by reanalyzing data from three of those trials.3-5 This effect was further adjusted for other prognostic factors, including cancer histology, tumor stage, presence of metastases, duration of cancer, and concomitant use of cancer treatment, by analyzing individual patient data from the largest randomized trial.5

In this study, introduction of nationwide implementation of rapid response systems was associated with a decrease in the composite endpoint of cardiopulmonary arrests, unplanned ICU admissions, and mortality in patients in general hospital wards. These findings support the implementation of rapid response systems in hospitals to reduce severe adverse events.