000			nab a22 7a 4500
999			_c16920 _d16920
003			PC16920
005			20220621125116.0
008			220621b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cH12O
041			_aspa
100			_91071 _aRuiz López, Pedro _eUnidad de Calidad
100			_91011 _aGómez de la Cámara, Agustín _eEpidemiología Clínica
245	0	0	_aDetección de eventos adversos en pacientes adultos hospitalizados mediante el método Global TriggerTool. _h[artículo]
260			_bRevista de calidad asistencial : órgano de la Sociedad Española de Calidad Asistencial, _c2015
300			_a30(4):166-74.
500			_aFormato Vancouver: Guzmán Ruiz O, Ruiz López P, Gómez Cámara A, Ramírez Martín M. Detección de eventos adversos en pacientes adultos hospitalizados mediante el método Global TriggerTool. Rev Calid Asist. 2015 Jul-Aug;30(4):166-74.
501			_aPMID: 26025386
504			_aContiene 42 referencias
520			_aObjectives: To identify and characterize adverse events (AE) in an Internal Medicine Department of a district hospital using an extension of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), analyzing the diagnostic validity of the tool. Methods: An observational, analytical, descriptive and retrospective study was conducted on 2013 clinical charts from an Internal Medicine Department in order to detect EA through the identification of 'triggers' (an event often related to an AE). The 'triggers' and AE were located by systematic review of clinical documentation. The AE were characterized after they were identified. Results: A total of 149 AE were detected in 291 clinical charts during 2013, of which 75.3% were detected directly by the tool, while the rest were not associated with a trigger. The percentage of charts that had at least one AE was 35.4%. The most frequent AE found was pressure ulcer (12%), followed by delirium, constipation, nosocomial respiratory infection and altered level of consciousness by drugs. Almost half (47.6%) of the AE were related to drug use, and 32.2% of all AE were considered preventable. The tool demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.3% (95%CI: 88.9-93.2) and a specificity of 32.5% (95%CI: 29.9-35.1). It had a positive predictive value of 42.5% (95%CI: 40.1-45.1) and a negative predictive value of 87.1% (95%CI: 83.8-89.9). Conclusions: The tool used in this study is valid, useful and reproducible for the detection of AE. It also serves to determine rates of injury and to observe their progression over time. A high frequency of both AE and preventable events were observed in this study.
710			_91020 _aUnidad de Calidad Asistencial
710			_9625 _aInstituto de Investigación imas12
856			_uhttp://pc-h12o-es.m-hdoct.a17.csinet.es/pdf/pc/1/pc16920.pdf _ySolicitar documento
942			_2ddc _cART _n0