Does increasing the size of bi-weekly samples of records influence results when using the Global Trigger Tool? An observational study of retrospective record reviews of two different sample sizes

Source at http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010700.Objectives - To investigate the impact of increasing sample of records reviewed bi-weekly with the Global Trigger Tool method to identify adverse events in hospitalised patients. Design - Retrospective observational study. Setting - A Norwegian 524-bed general hospital trust. Participants - 1920 medical records selected from 1 January to 31 December 2010. Primary outcomes - Rate, type and severity of adverse events identified in two different samples sizes of records selected as 10 and 70 records, bi-weekly. Results - In the large sample, 1.45 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.97) times more adverse events per 1000 patient days (39.3 adverse events/1000 patient days) were identified than in the small sample (27.2 adverse events/1000 patient days). Hospital-acquired infections were the most common category of adverse events in both the samples, and the distributions of the other categories of adverse events did not differ significantly between the samples. The distribution of severity level of adverse events did not differ between the samples. Conclusions - The findings suggest that while the distribution of categories and severity are not dependent on the sample size, the rate of adverse events is. Further studies are needed to conclude if the optimal sample size may need to be adjusted based on the hospital size in order to detect a more accurate rate of adverse events

Quality of obstetric care in the sparsely populated sub-arctic area of Norway 2009-2011

Background: It is challenging to obtain high quality obstetric care in a sparsely populated area. In the subarctic region of Norway, significant distances, weather conditions and seasonable darkness have called for a decentralized care model. We aimed to explore the quality of this care. Methods: A retrospective study employing data (2009–11) from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway was initiated. Northern Norwegian and Norwegian figures were compared. Midwife administered maternity units, departments at local and regional specialist hospitals were compared. National registry data on post-caesarean wound infection (2009–2010) was added. Quality of care was measured as rate of multiple pregnancies, caesarean section, post-caesarean wound infection, Apgar score < 7, birth weight < 2.5 kilos, perineal rupture, stillbirth, eclampsia, pregnancy induced diabetes and vacuum or forceps assisted delivery. There were 15,586 births in 15 delivery units. Results: Multiple pregnancies were less common in northern Norway (1.3 vs. 1.7%) (P = 0.02). Less use of vacuum (6.6% vs. 8.3%) (P = 0.01) and forceps (0.9% vs 1.7%) (P < 0.01) assisted delivery was observed. There was no difference with regard to pregnancy induced diabetes, caesarean section, stillbirth, Apgar score < 7 and eclampsia. A significant difference in birth weight < 2.5 kilos (4.7% vs. 5.0%) (P < 0.04) and perineal rupture grade 3 and 4 (1.5% vs. 2.3%) (P < 0.02) were revealed. The post-caesarean wound infection rate was higher (10.5% vs. 7.4%) (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Northern Norway had an obstetric care of good quality. Birth weight, multiple pregnancies and post-caesarean wound infection rates should be further elucidated

Should the surgeon or the general practitioner (GP) follow up patients after surgery for colon cancer? A randomized controlled trial protocol focusing on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and serious clinical events

This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT00572143.© 2008 Augestad et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Adverse events in hospitalised cancer patients: a comparison to a general hospital population

Background: Patients with cancer are often treated by many healthcare providers, receive complex and potentially toxic treatments that can increase the risk for iatrogenic harm. The aim of this study is to investigate whether hospitalised cancer patients are at higher risk of adverse events (AEs) compared to a general hospital population. Material and methods: A total of 6720 patient records were retrospectively reviewed comparing AEs in hospitalised cancer patients to a general hospital population in Norway, using the IHI Global Trigger Tool method. Results: 24.2 percent of admissions for cancer patients had an AE compared to 17.4% of admissions of other patients (p  Conclusions: Because of higher age, longer length of stay and surgical treatment, hospitalised cancer patients experience AEs more often than other patients

Adverse events in deceased hospitalised cancer patients as a measure of quality and safety in end-of-life cancer care

Background - Anticancer treatment exposes patients to negative consequences such as increased toxicity and decreased quality of life, and there are clear guidelines recommending limiting use of aggressive anticancer treatments for patients near end of life. The aim of this study is to investigate the association between anticancer treatment given during the last 30 days of life and adverse events contributing to death and elucidate how adverse events can be used as a measure of quality and safety in end-of-life cancer care. Methods - Retrospective cohort study of 247 deceased hospitalised cancer patients at three hospitals in Norway in 2012 and 2013. The Global Trigger Tool method were used to identify adverse events. We used Poisson regression and binary logistic regression to compare adverse events and association with use of anticancer treatment given during the last 30 days of life. Results - 30% of deceased hospitalised cancer patients received some kind of anticancer treatment during the last 30 days of life, mainly systemic anticancer treatment. These patients had 62% more adverse events compared to patients not being treated last 30 days, 39 vs. 24 adverse events per 1000 patient days (p p = 0.045, OR 1.85 (1.01–3.36)). Receiving follow up by specialist palliative care reduced the rate of AEs per 1000 patient days in both groups by 29% (p = 0.02, IRR 0.71, CI 95% 0.53–0.96). Conclusions - Anticancer treatment given during the last 30 days of life is associated with a significantly increased rate of adverse events and related mortality. Patients receiving specialist palliative care had significantly fewer adverse events, supporting recommendations of early integration of palliative care in a patient safety perspective

The One-stop trial: Does electronic referral and booking by the general practitioner (GPs) to outpatient day case surgery reduce waiting time and costs? A randomized controlled trial protocol

Abstract Background Waiting time and costs from referral to day case outpatient surgery are at an unacceptably high level. The waiting time in Norway averages 240 days for common surgical conditions. Furthermore, in North Norway the population is scattered throughout a large geographic area, making the cost of travel to a specialist examination before surgery considerable. Electronic standardised referrals and booking of day case outpatient surgery by GPs are possible through the National Health Network, which links all health care providers in an electronic network. New ways of using this network might reduce the waiting time and cost of outpatient day case surgery. Materials and Methods In a randomised controlled trial, selected patients (inguinal hernia, gallstone disease and pilonidal sinus) referred to the university hospital are either randomised to direct electronic referral and booking for outpatient surgery (one stop), or to the traditional patient pathway where all patients are seen at the outpatient clinic several weeks ahead of surgery. Consultants in gastrointestinal surgery designed standardised referral forms and guidelines. New software has been designed making it possible to implement referral forms, guidelines and patient information in the GP's electronic health record. For "one-stop" referral, GPs must provide mandatory information about the specific condition. Referrals were linked to a booking system, enabling the GPs to book the hospital, day and time for outpatient surgery. The primary endpoints are waiting time and costs. The sample size calculation was based on waiting time. A reduction in waiting time of 60 days (effect size), 25%, is significant, resulting in a sample size of 120 patients in total. Discussion Poor communication between primary and secondary care often results in inefficiencies and unsatisfactory outcomes. We hypothesised that standardised referrals would improve the quality of information, making it feasible to use a one-stop approach for all patients undergoing surgery on an outpatient basis for inguinal hernia, pilonidal sinus and gallstones. In this study we wanted to investigate the waiting time and cost-effectiveness of direct electronic referral and booking of outpatient surgery compared to the traditional patient pathway, where the patient is seen at the outpatient clinic prior to surgery. Trial registration This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT00692497</p

The One-stop trial : does electronic referral and booking by the general practitioner (GPs) to outpatient day case surgery reduce waiting time and costs? A randomized controlled trial protocol

Background: Waiting time and costs from referral to day case outpatient surgery are at an unacceptably high level. The waiting time in Norway averages 240 days for common surgical conditions. Furthermore, in North Norway the population is scattered throughout a large geographic area, making the cost of travel to a specialist examination before surgery considerable. Electronic standardised referrals and booking of day case outpatient surgery by GPs are possible through the National Health Network, which links all health care providers in an electronic network. New ways of using this network might reduce the waiting time and cost of outpatient day case surgery. Materials and Methods: In a randomised controlled trial, selected patients (inguinal hernia, gallstone disease and pilonidal sinus) referred to the university hospital are either randomised to direct electronic referral and booking for outpatient surgery (one stop), or to the traditional patient pathway where all patients are seen at the outpatient clinic several weeks ahead of surgery. Consultants in gastrointestinal surgery designed standardised referral forms and guidelines. New software has been designed making it possible to implement referral forms, guidelines and patient information in the GP's electronic health record. For "one-stop" referral, GPs must provide mandatory information about the specific condition. Referrals were linked to a booking system, enabling the GPs to book the hospital, day and time for outpatient surgery. The primary endpoints are waiting time and costs. The sample size calculation was based on waiting time. A reduction in waiting time of 60 days (effect size), 25%, is significant, resulting in a sample size of 120 patients in total. Discussion: Poor communication between primary and secondary care often results in inefficiencies and unsatisfactory outcomes. We hypothesised that standardised referrals would improve the quality of information, making it feasible to use a one-stop approach for all patients undergoing surgery on an outpatient basis for inguinal hernia, pilonidal sinus and gallstones. In this study we wanted to investigate the waiting time and cost-effectiveness of direct electronic referral and booking of outpatient surgery compared to the traditional patient pathway, where the patient is seen at the outpatient clinic prior to surgery. Trial registration: This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT0069249

Anal incontinence, urinary incontinence and sexual problems in primiparous women – a comparison between women with episiotomy only and women with episiotomy and obstetric anal sphincter injury

Background: Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) might cause anal incontinence (AI) and sexual dysfunction, and might be associated with urinary incontinence (UI). Episiotomy has been identified both as a risk and a protective factor of OASIS. Lately, episiotomies with specific characteristics have shown to be protective against the risk of OASIS. However, little is known about episiotomy characteristics and pelvic floor dysfunction. This study investigates AI, UI, and sexual problems in primiparous women with episiotomy, comparing women with and without OASIS. Associations between episiotomy characteristics and AI, UI, and sexual problems were assessed. Methods: This is a matched case–control study investigating 74 women with one vaginal birth, all with an episiotomy. Among these, 37 women sustained OASIS and were compared to 37 women without OASIS. The two groups were matched for vacuum/forceps. AI, UI and sexual problem symptoms were obtained from St. Mark’s scoring-tool and self-administered questionnaires. The episiotomy characteristics were investigated and results assessed for the whole group. Results: The mean time from birth was 34.5 months (range1.3-78.2) for those with OASIS and 25.9 months (range 7.0-57.4) for those without OASIS, respectively. More women with OASIS reported AI: 14 (38%) vs. 3 (8%) p = 0.05 (OR 4.66, 95% CI 1.34-16.33) as well as more problem with sexual desire p = 0.02 (OR 7.62, 95% CI 1.30-44.64) compared to women without OASIS. We found no association between episiotomy with protective characteristics and dysfunctions. Conclusion: Women with OASIS had more AI and sexual problems than those without OASIS. Episiotomy characteristics varied greatly between the women. Episiotomy with protective characteristics was not associated with increased dysfunctions. OASIS should be avoided, and correct episiotomy used if indicated

Episiotomy characteristics and risks for obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a case-control study

Objectives  To investigate the association between the geometrical properties of episiotomy and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) because episiotomies angled at 40–60° are associated with fewer OASIS than episiotomies with more acute angles. Design  Case–control study. Setting  University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø and Nordland Hospital, Bodø, Norway. Sample  Seventy-four women who had one vaginal birth and episiotomy. Cases (n = 37) have sustained OASIS at birth, while controls (n = 37) had not. The groups were matched for instrumental delivery. Methods  Two groups of women with history of only one vaginal birth were compared. Episiotomy scar was identified and photographed and relevant measures were taken. Data were analysed using conditional logistic analysis. Main outcome measures  Mean episiotomy angle, length, depth, incision point. Results  The risk of sustaining OASIS decreased by 70% (odds ratio [OR] 0.30; 95% CI 0.14–0.66) for each 5.5-mm increase in episiotomy depth, decreased by 56% (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23–0.86) for each 4.5-mm increase in the distance from the midline to the incision point of the episiotomy, and decreased by 75% (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.10–0.61) for each 5.5-mm increase in episiotomy length. Lastly, there was no difference in mean angle between groups but there was a “U-shaped” association between angle and OASIS (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.02–4.28) with an increased risk (OR 9.00; 95% CI 1.1–71.0) of OASIS when the angle was either smaller than 15°or >60°. Conclusion  The present study showed that scarred episiotomies with depth > 16 mm, length > 17 mm, incision point > 9 mm lateral of midpoint and angle range 30–60° are significantly associated with less risk of OASIS. Shrinkage of tissue must be considered

Contribution of adverse events to death of hospitalised patients

Background - There is no standardised method to investigate death as a patient safety indicator and we need valid and reliable measurements to use adverse events contributing to death as a quality measure. Objective - To investigate the contribution of severe adverse events to death in hospitalised patients and clarify methodological differences using the Global Trigger Tool method on all inpatient deaths compared with a sample of general hospitalised patients. Method - Retrospective records reviewing using the Global Trigger Tool method. Results - In 0.3% of hospital admissions, adverse events contribute to inpatient death. Patients who die in hospital have twice the rate of adverse events per 1000 patient days compared with general patients, 76.7 vs 36.5 (p Conclusions - Patients dying in hospitals experience seven times the rate of severe adverse events. Reviewing all inpatient death by the Global Trigger Tool method discloses new valid and reliable data of severe adverse events contributing to death which otherwise would be undetected