The occurrence, types, consequences and preventability of in-hospital adverse events - a scoping review
- PMID: 29973258
- PMCID: PMC6032777
- DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3335-z
The occurrence, types, consequences and preventability of in-hospital adverse events - a scoping review
Abstract
Background: Adverse events (AEs) seriously affect patient safety and quality of care, and remain a pressing global issue. This study had three objectives: (1) to describe the proportions of patients affected by in-hospital AEs; (2) to explore the types and consequences of observed AEs; and (3) to estimate the preventability of in-hospital AEs.
Methods: We applied a scoping review method and concluded a comprehensive literature search in PubMed and CINAHL in May 2017 and in February 2018. Our target was retrospective medical record review studies applying the Harvard method-or similar methods using screening criteria-conducted in acute care hospital settings on adult patients (≥18 years).
Results: We included a total of 25 studies conducted in 27 countries across six continents. Overall, a median of 10% patients were affected by at least one AE (range: 2.9-21.9%), with a median of 7.3% (range: 0.6-30%) of AEs being fatal. Between 34.3 and 83% of AEs were considered preventable (median: 51.2%). The three most common types of AEs reported in the included studies were operative/surgical related, medication or drug/fluid related, and healthcare-associated infections.
Conclusions: Evidence regarding the occurrence of AEs confirms earlier estimates that a tenth of inpatient stays include adverse events, half of which are preventable. However, the incidence of in-hospital AEs varied considerably across studies, indicating methodological and contextual variations regarding this type of retrospective chart review across health care systems. For the future, automated methods for identifying AE using electronic health records have the potential to overcome various methodological issues and biases related to retrospective medical record review studies and to provide accurate data on their occurrence.
Keywords: Adverse events; Hospitals; Medical error; Patient safety; Scoping review.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests
All authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Similar articles
-
Estimating the incidence of adverse events in Portuguese hospitals: a contribution to improving quality and patient safety.BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jul 18;14:311. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-311. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014. PMID: 25034870 Free PMC article.
-
Incidence of adverse events, preventability and mortality in gynaecological hospital admissions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Apr;59(2):195-200. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12937. Epub 2019 Jan 20. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019. PMID: 30663036
-
Frequency of Adverse Events Before, During, and After Hospital Admission.South Med J. 2016 Oct;109(10):631-635. doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000536. South Med J. 2016. PMID: 27706501 Free PMC article.
-
Characterization of adverse events detected in a large health care delivery system using an enhanced global trigger tool over a five-year interval.Health Serv Res. 2014 Oct;49(5):1407-25. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12163. Epub 2014 Mar 13. Health Serv Res. 2014. PMID: 24628436 Free PMC article.
-
A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data.Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 May 10;36(2):mzae037. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae037. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024. PMID: 38662407 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Adverse events: an expensive and avoidable hospital problem.Ann Med. 2022 Dec;54(1):3157-3168. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2140450. Ann Med. 2022. PMID: 36369717 Free PMC article.
-
Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS One. 2022 Sep 1;17(9):e0273800. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273800. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 36048863 Free PMC article.
-
Registration of catheter-related complications in adverse events reporting systems: a major underestimation of the real complication practice.J Infect Prev. 2022 Jan;23(1):11-14. doi: 10.1177/17571774211012455. Epub 2021 Jun 22. J Infect Prev. 2022. PMID: 35126675 Free PMC article.
-
Effects of a management team training intervention on the compliance with a surgical site infection bundle: a before-after study in operating theatres in the Netherlands.BMJ Open. 2023 Apr 21;13(4):e073137. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073137. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 37085301 Free PMC article.
-
Triggers for identifying anticoagulation-associated adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Int J Clin Pharm. 2025 May 21. doi: 10.1007/s11096-025-01916-0. Online ahead of print. Int J Clin Pharm. 2025. PMID: 40397288 Review.
References
-
- Taylor-Adams S, Vincent C. Systems analysis of clinical incidents: the London protocol. Clinical Risk. 2004;10(6):211–220. doi: 10.1258/1356262042368255. - DOI
-
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Reporting serious problems to FDA. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm. Accessed 2 July 2018.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources