Parmelli Elena, Flodgren Gerd, Fraser Scott G, Williams Nicola, Rubin Gregory, Eccles Martin P
Department of Oncology, Hematology and Respiratory Diseases, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;2012(8):CD005609. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005609.pub2.
Reporting of adverse clinical events is thought to be an effective method of improving the safety of healthcare. Underreporting of these adverse events is often said to occur with consequence of missing of opportunities to learn from these incidents. A clinical incident can be defined as any occurrence which is not consistent with the routine care of the patient or the routine operation of the institution.
To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase clinical incident reporting in healthcare settings.
We searched the the following databases: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge), Healthstar (OVID), INSPEC, DHSS-DATA, SIGLE, ISI Conference Proceedings, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Science), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE).
Randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) of interventions designed to increase clinical incident reporting in healthcare.
At least two review authors assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies, extracted the data and assessed the quality of included studies.
Four studies (one CBA and three ITS studies) met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The CBA study showed a significant improvement in incident reporting rates after the introduction of the new reporting system. Just one of the ITS studies showed a statistically significant improved effectiveness of the new reporting system from nine months. The other two studies reported no statistically significant improvements.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limitations of the studies it is not possible to draw conclusions for clinical practice. Anyone introducing a system into practice should give careful consideration to conducting an evaluation using a robust design.
临床不良事件报告被认为是提高医疗安全的有效方法。人们常说这些不良事件报告不足,其后果是错失从这些事件中吸取教训的机会。临床事件可定义为任何与患者常规护理或机构常规运作不一致的情况。
评估旨在提高医疗机构临床事件报告率的干预措施的效果。
我们检索了以下数据库:Cochrane有效实践与护理组织小组专业注册库、Cochrane系统评价数据库、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE(OVID)、EMBASE(OVID)、CINAHL(EBSCO)、社会科学引文索引和科学引文索引(Web of Knowledge)、Healthstar(OVID)、INSPEC、DHSS - DATA、SIGLE、ISI会议论文集、科学网会议论文集引文索引(科学)、有效性评价摘要数据库(DARE)。
旨在提高医疗机构临床事件报告率的干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)、前后对照研究(CBA)和中断时间序列(ITS)。
至少两名综述作者评估了潜在相关研究的纳入资格,提取了数据并评估了纳入研究的质量。
四项研究(一项CBA研究和三项ITS研究)符合我们的纳入标准并被纳入综述。CBA研究表明,新报告系统引入后事件报告率有显著提高。只有一项ITS研究显示,从九个月起新报告系统的有效性有统计学意义的提高。其他两项研究报告无统计学意义的改善。
由于研究的局限性,无法为临床实践得出结论。任何将系统引入实践的人都应慎重考虑采用稳健设计进行评估。