An Exploration of Contributing Factors to Patient Safety

Abstract

One in 3 patients is estimated to experience health care-related harm during hospitalization. This descriptive, cross-sectional study used the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire to measure interprofessional staff perceptions of safety and teamwork climate and a retrospective, modified Global Trigger Tool chart review methodology to measure unit-level patient outcomes. Safety climate and teamwork did not have a statistically significant relationship with the frequency of adverse events identified by the Global Trigger Tool. Researchers may consider the Global Trigger Tool for detecting unit-level adverse events.

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“… Ordered by sample size [ 5 , 10 , 15 , 17 – 22 , 34 , 37 – 39 , 45 , 46 , 50 – 54 , 56 – 69 , 71 – 79 , 82 – 91 , 93 , 95 – 102 ]. In Wilson et al 2012, countries were not further specified.…”

“… * = pooled estimate, • = mean estimate, ‡ = calculated total number of AEs, ~ = calculated total number of patient days [ 5 , 15 , 17 – 22 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 45 , 46 , 50 – 52 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 – 65 , 67 , 68 , 72 , 73 , 76 – 79 , 82 , 84 – 87 , 89 – 91 , 93 , 95 , 96 , 98 – 100 , 102 ]. …”

“… AE, adverse events; N studies, number of studies; CI, confidence interval [ 5 , 10 , 15 , 17 – 22 , 34 , 37 – 39 , 45 , 46 , 50 – 54 , 56 – 69 , 71 – 79 , 82 – 91 , 93 , 95 – 102 ]. …”