• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

急诊科高风险区域患者的不良事件:一项前瞻性队列研究。

Adverse events among patients registered in high-acuity areas of the emergency department: a prospective cohort study.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

CJEM. 2010 Sep;12(5):421-30. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500012574.

DOI:10.1017/s1481803500012574
PMID:20880432
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To enhance patient safety, it is important to understand the frequency and causes of adverse events (defined as unintended injuries related to health care management). We performed this study to describe the types and risk of adverse events in high-acuity areas of the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study examined the outcomes of consecutive patients who received treatment at 2 tertiary care EDs. For discharged patients, we conducted a structured telephone interview 14 days after their initial visit; for admitted patients, we reviewed the inpatient charts. Three emergency physicians independently adjudicated flagged outcomes (e.g., death, return visits to the ED) to determine whether an adverse event had occurred.

RESULTS

We enrolled 503 patients; one-half (n = 254) were female and the median age was 57 (range 18-98) years. The majority of patients (n = 369, 73.3%) were discharged home. The most common presenting complaints were chest pain, generalized weakness and abdominal pain. Of the 107 patients with flagged outcomes, 43 (8.5%, 95% confidence interval 8.1%-8.9%) were considered to have had an adverse event through our peer review process, and over half of these (24, 55.8%) were considered preventable. The most common types of adverse events were as follows: management issues (n = 18, 41.9%), procedural complications (n = 13, 30.2%) and diagnostic issues (n = 10, 23.3%). The clinical consequences of these adverse events ranged from minor (urinary tract infection) to serious (delayed diagnosis of aortic dissection).

CONCLUSION

We detected a higher proportion of preventable adverse events compared with previous inpatient studies and suggest confirmation of these results is warranted among a wider selection of EDs.

摘要

目的

为了提高患者安全,了解不良事件(定义为与医疗管理相关的非预期伤害)的发生频率和原因非常重要。我们进行了这项研究,以描述急诊科(ED)高风险区域的不良事件类型和风险。

方法

这项前瞻性队列研究对在 2 家三级护理 ED 接受治疗的连续患者的结局进行了研究。对于出院患者,我们在他们首次就诊后 14 天进行了结构化电话访谈;对于住院患者,我们回顾了住院病历。3 名急诊医生独立裁决标记的结局(例如,死亡、再次到 ED 就诊),以确定是否发生了不良事件。

结果

我们共纳入了 503 名患者;其中一半(n = 254)为女性,中位年龄为 57 岁(范围 18-98 岁)。大多数患者(n = 369,73.3%)被出院回家。最常见的就诊症状是胸痛、全身无力和腹痛。在有标记结局的 107 名患者中,通过我们的同行评审过程,有 43 名(8.5%,95%置信区间 8.1%-8.9%)被认为发生了不良事件,其中超过一半(24 名,55.8%)被认为是可预防的。最常见的不良事件类型如下:管理问题(n = 18,41.9%)、程序并发症(n = 13,30.2%)和诊断问题(n = 10,23.3%)。这些不良事件的临床后果从轻微(尿路感染)到严重(主动脉夹层延迟诊断)不等。

结论

与之前的住院研究相比,我们发现了更高比例的可预防不良事件,并建议在更广泛的 ED 选择中验证这些结果。

相似文献

1
Adverse events among patients registered in high-acuity areas of the emergency department: a prospective cohort study.急诊科高风险区域患者的不良事件:一项前瞻性队列研究。
CJEM. 2010 Sep;12(5):421-30. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500012574.
2
Adverse events following an emergency department visit.急诊科就诊后的不良事件。
Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Feb;16(1):17-22. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.017384.
3
Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients With Cardiovascular Conditions: A Multicenter Study.心血管病急诊患者的不良事件:一项多中心研究。
Ann Emerg Med. 2021 Jun;77(6):561-574. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.12.012. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
4
Adverse events in patients with return emergency department visits.返回急诊科就诊患者的不良事件。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Feb;24(2):142-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003194. Epub 2014 Dec 24.
5
Errors, near misses and adverse events in the emergency department: what can patients tell us?急诊科的差错、险些失误及不良事件:患者能告诉我们什么?
CJEM. 2008 Sep;10(5):421-7. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500010484.
6
Adverse events in the paediatric emergency department: a prospective cohort study.儿科急诊中的不良事件:一项前瞻性队列研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Mar;30(3):216-227. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010055. Epub 2020 Apr 29.
7
Low Adverse Event Rates But High Emergency Department Utilization in Chest Pain Patients Treated in an Emergency Department Observation Unit.急诊科观察单元治疗的胸痛患者不良事件发生率低但急诊科利用率高。
Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2017 Mar;16(1):15-21. doi: 10.1097/HPC.0000000000000099.
8
Development of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score to predict serious adverse events after emergency department assessment of syncope.加拿大晕厥风险评分的制定,用于预测急诊科对晕厥进行评估后发生的严重不良事件。
CMAJ. 2016 Sep 6;188(12):E289-E298. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.151469. Epub 2016 Jul 4.
9
Do emergency physicians attribute drug-related emergency department visits to medication-related problems?急诊医师是否将与药物相关的急诊就诊归因于与药物相关的问题?
Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Jun;55(6):493-502.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.10.008. Epub 2009 Dec 11.
10
Patient safety analysis of the ED care of patients with heart failure and COPD exacerbations: a multicenter prospective cohort study.心力衰竭和 COPD 加重患者急诊护理的患者安全分析:一项多中心前瞻性队列研究。
Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Jan;32(1):29-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.09.013. Epub 2013 Oct 17.

引用本文的文献

1
Potential Diagnostic Error for Emergency Conditions, Mortality, and Healthy Days at Home.紧急情况的潜在诊断错误、死亡率及在家健康天数
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Jun 2;8(6):e2516400. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.16400.
2
A Critical Appraisal of AHRQ's "Diagnostic Errors" Report.对 AHRQ 报告《诊断错误》的批判性评价。
Mo Med. 2023 Mar-Apr;120(2):114-120.
3
Trends and Characteristics of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits Among Patients With Cancer in the US.美国癌症患者中潜在可预防的急诊科就诊趋势和特征。
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jan 3;6(1):e2250423. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50423.
4
How safe are paediatric emergency departments? A national prospective cohort study.儿科急诊科有多安全?一项全国性前瞻性队列研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2022 Oct 19;31(11):806-817. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014608.
5
How safe is prehospital care? A systematic review.院前急救有多安全?一项系统评价。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2021 Oct 26;33(4). doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab138.
6
Physician Perceptions of Disposition Decision-making for Older Adults in the Emergency Department: A Preliminary Analysis.急诊科医生对老年患者处置决策的认知:一项初步分析。
Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2020 Dec;64(1):648-652. doi: 10.1177/1071181320641148. Epub 2021 Feb 9.
7
Disparate perspectives: Exploring healthcare professionals' misaligned mental models of older adults' transitions of care between the emergency department and skilled nursing facility.不同视角:探索医疗保健专业人员对老年人在急诊科和熟练护理机构之间的过渡护理的认知错位。
Appl Ergon. 2021 Oct;96:103509. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103509. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
8
Qualitative evaluation of a mandatory provincial programme auditing emergency department return visits.对一项省级强制项目进行急诊复诊审计的定性评估。
BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 7;11(4):e044218. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044218.
9
The reporting of adverse events in Johannesburg Academic Emergency Departments.约翰内斯堡学术性急诊科不良事件的报告
Afr J Emerg Med. 2021 Mar;11(1):207-210. doi: 10.1016/j.afjem.2020.10.005. Epub 2020 Nov 7.
10
Adverse events in the paediatric emergency department: a prospective cohort study.儿科急诊中的不良事件:一项前瞻性队列研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Mar;30(3):216-227. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010055. Epub 2020 Apr 29.