• 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

初级保健是否是安全的患者环境?不良事件的发生率、严重程度、性质和原因:数量众多且大多可以避免。

Is primary care a patient-safe setting? Prevalence, severity, nature, and causes of adverse events: numerous and mostly avoidable.

机构信息

Quality and Safety Unit, Primary Care Management (Gerencia Asistencial de Atención Primaria), Madrid Health Service (SERMAS), C/ San Martín de Porres 6, 5ª planta, Madrid 28035, Spain.

Information Systems Unit, Primary Care Management (Gerencia Asistencial de Atención Primaria), Madrid Health Service (SERMAS), C/ San Martín de Porres 6, 5ª planta, Madrid 28035, Spain.

出版信息

Int J Qual Health Care. 2023 Apr 29;35(2). doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzad019.

DOI:10.1093/intqhc/mzad019
PMID:37043330
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10148678/
Abstract

UNLABELLED

Knowing the frequency and characteristics of adverse events (AEs) is key to implementing actions that can prevent their occurrence. However, reporting systems are insufficient for this purpose and epidemiological studies are also required. Currently, the reviewing of clinical records is the gold standard method for knowing the frequency and characteristics of AEs. Research on AEs in a primary care setting has been limited and primarily focuses on specific types of events (medication errors, etc.) or patients. Large studies that search for any kind of AE in all patients are scarce. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of AEs in the primary care setting and their characteristics.

SETTING

all 262 primary health-care centres in the Madrid region (Spain) during the last quarter of 2018.

DESIGN

cross-sectional descriptive study. Eligible population: subjects over 18 years of age who attended medical consultation over the last year (N = 2 743 719); a randomized sample stratified by age.

MAIN OUTCOMES

age, sex, occurrence of an AE, number of consultations in the study period, avoidability, severity, place of occurrence, type of event, and contributory factors. The clinical records were reviewed by three teams, each composed of one doctor and one nurse trained and with expertise in patient safety. The SPSS software package (version 26) was used for the statistical analyses. The evaluators reviewed 1797 clinical records. The prevalence of AEs over the study period was 5.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.0%‒6.0%], with higher values in women (5.7%; 95% CI: 4.6%‒6.8%;P = 0.10) and patients over 75 years of age (10.3%; 95% CI: 8.9%‒11.7%; P < 0.001). The overall occurrence per hundred consultations was estimated to be 1.58% (95% CI: 1.28%‒1.94%). Of the detected AEs, 71.3% (95% CI: 62.1%‒80.5%) were avoidable. Additionally, 60.6% (95% CI: 50.7%‒70.5%) were categorized as mild, 31.9% (95% CI: 22.4%‒41.4%) as moderate, and 7.4% (95% CI: 2.1%‒12.7%) as severe. Primary care was the occurrence setting in 76.6% (95% CI: 68.0%‒85.2%) of cases. The overall incidence of AEs related to medication was 53.2% (95% CI: 50.9%‒55.5%). The most frequent types of AEs were prescription errors (28.7%; 95% CI: 19.5%‒37.9%), followed by drug administration errors by patients (17.0%; 95% CI: 9.4%‒24.6%), and clinical assessment errors (11.7%; 95% CI: 5.2%‒18.2%). The most common contributory factors were those related to the patient (80.6%; 95% CI: 71.1%‒90.1%) and tasks (59.7%; 95% CI: 48.0%‒71.4%). A high prevalence of AEs (1 in 66 consultations) was observed, which was slightly higher than that reported in similar studies. About 3 out of 4 such events were considered to be avoidable and 1 out of 13 was severe. Prescription errors, drug administration errors by patients, and clinical assessment errors were the most frequent types of AEs. Graphical Abstract.

摘要

背景

了解不良事件(AE)的频率和特征对于采取措施预防其发生至关重要。然而,报告系统在这方面是不够的,还需要进行流行病学研究。目前,审查临床记录是了解 AE 频率和特征的金标准方法。在初级保健环境中进行的 AE 研究受到限制,主要集中在特定类型的事件(药物错误等)或患者。很少有研究在所有患者中搜索任何类型的 AE。本研究旨在估计初级保健环境中 AE 的发生率及其特征。

地点

西班牙马德里地区的所有 262 个初级保健中心在 2018 年最后一个季度。

设计

横断面描述性研究。合格人群:过去一年接受过医疗咨询的年龄在 18 岁以上的患者(N=2743719 人);按年龄分层的随机样本。

主要结果

年龄、性别、AE 发生情况、研究期间的就诊次数、可避免性、严重程度、发生地点、事件类型和促成因素。由三个团队审查临床记录,每个团队由一名接受过培训且具有患者安全专业知识的医生和一名护士组成。使用 SPSS 软件包(版本 26)进行统计分析。评估人员审查了 1797 份临床记录。研究期间 AE 的患病率为 5.0%[95%置信区间(CI):4.0%至 6.0%],女性(5.7%;95%CI:4.6%至 6.8%;P=0.10)和 75 岁以上患者(10.3%;95%CI:8.9%至 11.7%;P<0.001)的值更高。每百次就诊的总发生率估计为 1.58%(95%CI:1.28%至 1.94%)。在所检测到的 AE 中,71.3%(95%CI:62.1%至 80.5%)是可以避免的。此外,60.6%(95%CI:50.7%至 70.5%)为轻度,31.9%(95%CI:22.4%至 41.4%)为中度,7.4%(95%CI:2.1%至 12.7%)为重度。76.6%(95%CI:68.0%至 85.2%)的发生地点为初级保健。与药物相关的 AE 总发生率为 53.2%(95%CI:50.9%至 55.5%)。最常见的 AE 类型是处方错误(28.7%;95%CI:19.5%至 37.9%),其次是患者用药错误(17.0%;95%CI:9.4%至 24.6%)和临床评估错误(11.7%;95%CI:5.2%至 18.2%)。最常见的促成因素是与患者(80.6%;95%CI:71.1%至 90.1%)和任务(59.7%;95%CI:48.0%至 71.4%)相关的因素。观察到 AE 的高患病率(每 66 次就诊 1 次),略高于类似研究报告的患病率。大约 3 分之 4 的此类事件被认为是可以避免的,13 分之 1 是严重的。处方错误、患者用药错误和临床评估错误是最常见的 AE 类型。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f452/10148678/bd5f19843574/mzad019f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f452/10148678/bd5f19843574/mzad019f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f452/10148678/bd5f19843574/mzad019f1.jpg

相似文献

1
Is primary care a patient-safe setting? Prevalence, severity, nature, and causes of adverse events: numerous and mostly avoidable.初级保健是否是安全的患者环境?不良事件的发生率、严重程度、性质和原因:数量众多且大多可以避免。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2023 Apr 29;35(2). doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzad019.
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
Adverse events: an expensive and avoidable hospital problem.不良事件:代价高昂且可避免的医院问题。
Ann Med. 2022 Dec;54(1):3157-3168. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2140450.
4
Validation of a Reduced Set of High-Performance Triggers for Identifying Patient Safety Incidents with Harm in Primary Care: TriggerPrim Project.用于识别初级保健中存在伤害的患者安全事件的高性能触发因素的简化集的验证:TriggerPrim 项目。
J Patient Saf. 2023 Dec 1;19(8):508-516. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001161. Epub 2023 Sep 14.
5
Preventable and mitigable adverse events in cancer care: Measuring risk and harm across the continuum.癌症护理中可预防和可减轻的不良事件:衡量整个连续过程中的风险和危害。
Cancer. 2017 Dec 1;123(23):4728-4736. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30916. Epub 2017 Aug 17.
6
The incidence of adverse events among home care patients.居家护理患者不良事件的发生率。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2013 Feb;25(1):16-28. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzs075. Epub 2013 Jan 2.
7
A study of the prevalence of adverse events in primary healthcare in Spain.西班牙初级医疗保健中不良事件的发生率研究。
Eur J Public Health. 2012 Dec;22(6):921-5. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr168. Epub 2011 Nov 29.
8
Families as Partners in Hospital Error and Adverse Event Surveillance.家庭作为医院差错与不良事件监测的合作伙伴。
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Apr 1;171(4):372-381. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4812.
9
Frequency of ambulatory care adverse events in Latin American countries: the AMBEAS/PAHO cohort study.拉丁美洲国家门诊护理不良事件的发生率:AMBEAS/泛美卫生组织队列研究
Int J Qual Health Care. 2015 Feb;27(1):52-9. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu100. Epub 2015 Jan 21.
10
[Description of contributing factors in adverse events related to patient safety and their preventability].[与患者安全相关不良事件的促成因素及其可预防性描述]
Aten Primaria. 2018 Oct;50(8):486-492. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2017.05.013. Epub 2017 Nov 26.

引用本文的文献

1
Patient and family engagement interventions in primary care patient safety: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.基层医疗患者安全中的患者及家属参与干预措施:随机对照试验的系统评价与荟萃分析
Br J Gen Pract. 2025 Jun 26;75(756):e491-e499. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2024.0369. Print 2025 Jul.
2
Post-pandemic patient safety: have the characteristics of incidents with harm changed? Comparative observational study in primary care via review of medical records with a trigger tool.大流行后患者安全:伤害相关事件的特征是否发生变化?通过使用触发工具对医疗记录进行回顾的初级保健中的比较观察性研究。
BMC Prim Care. 2024 Nov 7;25(1):392. doi: 10.1186/s12875-024-02639-3.
3

本文引用的文献

1
[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient safety incident and medication error reporting systems].[新型冠状病毒肺炎大流行对患者安全事件及用药错误报告系统的影响]
J Healthc Qual Res. 2022 Nov-Dec;37(6):397-407. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2022.03.003. Epub 2022 May 30.
2
How to Improve Healthcare for Patients with Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy in Primary Care: A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial of the MULTIPAP Intervention.如何改善基层医疗中患有多种疾病和使用多种药物的患者的医疗服务:MULTIPAP干预的实用整群随机临床试验
J Pers Med. 2022 May 6;12(5):752. doi: 10.3390/jpm12050752.
3
Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application.
Validation of a Reduced Set of High-Performance Triggers for Identifying Patient Safety Incidents with Harm in Primary Care: TriggerPrim Project.
用于识别初级保健中存在伤害的患者安全事件的高性能触发因素的简化集的验证:TriggerPrim 项目。
J Patient Saf. 2023 Dec 1;19(8):508-516. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001161. Epub 2023 Sep 14.
基层医疗电子报告系统中上报的患者安全事件分析。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 25;18(17):8941. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18178941.
4
Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England.基层医疗中患者报告的安全事件的性质和类型:对澳大利亚和英国患者的横断面调查。
BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 29;11(4):e042551. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042551.
5
Incidence, nature and causes of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England: retrospective case note review.英格兰初级保健中可避免的严重伤害的发生率、性质和原因:回顾性病历审查。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Dec;30(12):961-976. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011405. Epub 2020 Nov 10.
6
What Safety Events Are Reported For Ambulatory Care? Analysis of Incident Reports from a Patient Safety Organization.门诊护理报告了哪些安全事件?对患者安全组织的事件报告进行分析。
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2020 Aug 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.08.010.
7
[Avoidable adverse events in primary care. Retrospective cohort study to determine their frequency and severity].[基层医疗中可避免的不良事件。确定其发生率和严重程度的回顾性队列研究]
Aten Primaria. 2020 Dec;52(10):705-711. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2020.02.008. Epub 2020 Jun 9.
8
Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.医疗保健环境中可预防的患者伤害的发生率、严重程度和性质:系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMJ. 2019 Jul 17;366:l4185. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4185.
9
[Descriptive analysis of medication errors notified by Primary Health Care: Learning from errors].[基层医疗保健机构上报的用药错误描述性分析:从错误中学习]
Aten Primaria. 2020 Apr;52(4):233-239. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2019.01.006. Epub 2019 Mar 30.
10
Potential value of patient record review to assess and improve patient safety in general practice: A systematic review.患者记录审查评估和改善一般实践中患者安全的潜在价值:系统评价。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2018 Dec;24(1):192-201. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2018.1491963.