Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Contribution of adverse events to death of hospitalised patients
  1. Ellinor Christin Haukland1,2,
  2. Kjersti Mevik2,3,
  3. Christian von Plessen4,5,
  4. Carsten Nieder1,6,
  5. Barthold Vonen2,7
  1. 1 Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bodø, Norway
  2. 2 Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway
  3. 3 Department of General Surgery, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bodø, Norway
  4. 4 Centre of Quality, Region of Southern Denmark, Middelfart, Denmark
  5. 5 Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute for Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  6. 6 Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway
  7. 7 Centre for Clinical Documentation and Evaluation, Northern Norway Regional Health Authority, Tromsø, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ellinor Christin Haukland; ellinor.haukland{at}nlsh.no

Abstract

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<0.001, RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.47). Patients dying in hospital experience seven times the rate of severe adverse events, 38.4% vs 5.2% (p<0.001, RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.47). For 86 out of 377 inpatient deaths, the adverse event is so severe that it contributes to death. 27.9% of severe adverse events contributing to death originate in primary care. Lower respiratory infections (p<0.001, RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51), medication harm (p<0.001, RR 5.21, 95% CI 3.04 to 8.94) and pressure ulcers (p=0.04, RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.85) are significantly more frequent for inpatient deaths than in the general sample of hospital patients.

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.

  • in-patient deaths
  • mortality
  • global trigger tool
  • adverse events

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors ECH and BV: designed the study. ECH and KM: review and collection of data. ECH: analysed the data supervised by BV and led the writing of the paper. ECH, BV, CvP and CN: interpreted the data. All authors contributed revising the manuscript; contributed substantially to the writing of the paper, and reviewed and approved the final draft.

  • Funding ECH receives a grant from the Northern Norway Regional Health Authority (HST1195-14).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval The Regional Committee of Ethics in Norway has reviewed the study and categorised it as retrospective health record research, which does not require approval by the committee (2013/1823).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.