Estimating the Frequency of Inpatient Adverse Events Using a 2-Step Retrospective Chart Review: Initial Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lower- and middle-income countries bear a disproportionate share of the global burden of adverse events in health care. Despite this, patient safety research is predominantly conducted in high-income countries with well-developed health care systems, resulting in evidence and methodologies that have limited applicability in resource-constrained settings. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study primarily aimed to identify the most suitable methodology for a full-scale study to detect inpatient adverse events at a tertiary care hospital in a lower- to middle-income country. Second, we aimed to use our experience with this study to further adapt the selected methodology to our setting. METHODS: This external pilot study used a 2-step retrospective chart review methodology. Two separate screening tools, tools 1A and 1B, were compared to identify which performed better in our setting. We reviewed the medical records of patients who were discharged between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, from a tertiary care hospital in a lower- to middle-income country in South Asia. The main outcome of interest was the rate of adverse events among hospitalized patients reported as the total number of adverse events experienced per 100 admissions. RESULTS: A total of 100 medical records were screened using tool 1A, with the mean patient age being 39.2 (SD 27.7) years and the mean length of stay being 3.3 (SD 2.8) days. Only 1 adverse event was identified using tool 1A, resulting in an adverse event rate of 1 event per 100 hospital admissions. Tool 1B was also used to screen a total of 100 medical records. The mean patient age was found to be 39.8 (SD 28.4) years, with the mean length of stay being 3.5 (SD 3.4) days. A total of 30 adverse events were identified across 22 patient files, with 18 (60%) considered preventable, resulting in an adverse event rate of 30 events per 100 hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that tool 1B, adapted from the Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events, represents an appropriate and sensitive methodology to identify adverse events among hospitalized patients in a lower- to middle-income country. Furthermore, the findings and experiences of this study were used to improve the design and procedures of our research methodology before implementation in a full-scale study. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076971.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".