Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study

Objective To determine whether isolated patients admitted to hospital have a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs), to identify their nature, impact and preventability.Design Prospective cohort study with isolated and non-isolated patients.Setting One public university hospital in the Valencian C...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: María Teresa Gea Velázquez de Castro, Fátima Jiménez-Pericás, Carlos Aibar Remón, Juan José Miralles, María del Carmen Meyer García, Jesús Maria Aranaz Andrés
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2020-10-01
Series:BMJ Open
Online Access:https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/10/e035238.full
id doaj-6e064ab24e7646e1945279d74a101034
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6e064ab24e7646e1945279d74a1010342021-05-06T09:36:15ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552020-10-01101010.1136/bmjopen-2019-035238Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort studyMaría Teresa Gea Velázquez de Castro0Fátima Jiménez-Pericás1Carlos Aibar Remón2Juan José Miralles3María del Carmen Meyer García4Jesús Maria Aranaz Andrés5Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hospital Universitari San Juan de Alicante, Sant Joan d’Alacant, SpainDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hospital Universitari San Juan de Alicante, Sant Joan d’Alacant, SpainPreventive Medicine and Public Health, Hospital Clinico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza, SpainDepartment of Public Health, History of Science and Gynaecology, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche, SpainDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hospital Politécnico y Universitario La Fe, Valencia, SpainPreventive Medicine and Public Health, Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, SpainObjective To determine whether isolated patients admitted to hospital have a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs), to identify their nature, impact and preventability.Design Prospective cohort study with isolated and non-isolated patients.Setting One public university hospital in the Valencian Community (southeast Spain).Participants We consecutively collected 400 patients, 200 isolated and 200 non-isolated, age ≥18 years old, to match according to date of entry, admission department, sex, age (±5 years) and disease severity from April 2017 to October 2018. Exclusion criteria: patients age <18 years old and/or reverse isolation patients.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome as the AE, defined according to the National Study of Adverse Effects linked to Hospitalisation (Estudio Nacional Sobre los Efectos Adversos) criteria. Cumulative incidence rates and AE incidence density rates were calculated.Results The incidence of isolated patients with AEs 16.5% (95% CI 11.4% to 21.6%) compared with 9.5% (95% CI 5.4% to 13.6%) in non-isolated (p<0.03). The incidence density of patients with AEs among isolated patients was 11.8 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 7.8 to 15.9) compared with 4.3 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 2.4 to 6.3) among non-isolated patients (p<0.001). The incidence of AEs among isolated patients was 18.5% compared with 11% for non-isolated patients (p<0.09). Among the 37 AEs detected in 33 isolated patients, and the 22 AEs detected in 19 non-isolated patients, most corresponded to healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) for both isolated and non-isolated patients (48.6% vs 45.4%). There were significant differences with respect to the preventability of AEs, (67.6% among isolated patients compared with 52.6% among non-isolated patients).Conclusions AEs were significantly higher in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients, more than half being preventable and with HAIs as the primary cause. It is essential to improve training and the safety culture of healthcare professionals relating to the care provided to this type of patient.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/10/e035238.full
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author María Teresa Gea Velázquez de Castro
Fátima Jiménez-Pericás
Carlos Aibar Remón
Juan José Miralles
María del Carmen Meyer García
Jesús Maria Aranaz Andrés
spellingShingle María Teresa Gea Velázquez de Castro
Fátima Jiménez-Pericás
Carlos Aibar Remón
Juan José Miralles
María del Carmen Meyer García
Jesús Maria Aranaz Andrés
Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
BMJ Open
author_facet María Teresa Gea Velázquez de Castro
Fátima Jiménez-Pericás
Carlos Aibar Remón
Juan José Miralles
María del Carmen Meyer García
Jesús Maria Aranaz Andrés
author_sort María Teresa Gea Velázquez de Castro
title Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_short Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_full Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_fullStr Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
title_sort higher incidence of adverse events in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients: a cohort study
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
series BMJ Open
issn 2044-6055
publishDate 2020-10-01
description Objective To determine whether isolated patients admitted to hospital have a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs), to identify their nature, impact and preventability.Design Prospective cohort study with isolated and non-isolated patients.Setting One public university hospital in the Valencian Community (southeast Spain).Participants We consecutively collected 400 patients, 200 isolated and 200 non-isolated, age ≥18 years old, to match according to date of entry, admission department, sex, age (±5 years) and disease severity from April 2017 to October 2018. Exclusion criteria: patients age <18 years old and/or reverse isolation patients.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome as the AE, defined according to the National Study of Adverse Effects linked to Hospitalisation (Estudio Nacional Sobre los Efectos Adversos) criteria. Cumulative incidence rates and AE incidence density rates were calculated.Results The incidence of isolated patients with AEs 16.5% (95% CI 11.4% to 21.6%) compared with 9.5% (95% CI 5.4% to 13.6%) in non-isolated (p<0.03). The incidence density of patients with AEs among isolated patients was 11.8 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 7.8 to 15.9) compared with 4.3 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 2.4 to 6.3) among non-isolated patients (p<0.001). The incidence of AEs among isolated patients was 18.5% compared with 11% for non-isolated patients (p<0.09). Among the 37 AEs detected in 33 isolated patients, and the 22 AEs detected in 19 non-isolated patients, most corresponded to healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) for both isolated and non-isolated patients (48.6% vs 45.4%). There were significant differences with respect to the preventability of AEs, (67.6% among isolated patients compared with 52.6% among non-isolated patients).Conclusions AEs were significantly higher in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients, more than half being preventable and with HAIs as the primary cause. It is essential to improve training and the safety culture of healthcare professionals relating to the care provided to this type of patient.
url https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/10/e035238.full
work_keys_str_mv AT mariateresageavelazquezdecastro higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT fatimajimenezpericas higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT carlosaibarremon higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT juanjosemiralles higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT mariadelcarmenmeyergarcia higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
AT jesusmariaaranazandres higherincidenceofadverseeventsinisolatedpatientscomparedwithnonisolatedpatientsacohortstudy
_version_ 1721456828285452288