Validation of adverse events after hip arthroplasty: a Swedish multi-centre cohort study

A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data

Patient safety is a key quality issue for health systems. Healthcare acquired adverse events (AEs) compromise safety and quality; therefore, their reporting and monitoring is a patient safety priority. Although administrative datasets are potentially efficient tools for monitoring rates of AEs, concerns remain over the accuracy of their data. Chart review validation studies are required to explore the potential of administrative data to inform research and health policy. This review aims to present an overview of the methodological approaches and strategies used to validate rates of AEs in administrative data through chart review. This review was conducted in line with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for scoping reviews. Through database searches, 1054 sources were identified, imported into Covidence, and screened against the inclusion criteria. Articles that validated rates of AEs in administrative data through chart review were included. Data were extracted, exported to Microsoft Excel, arranged into a charting table, and presented in a tabular and descriptive format. Fifty-six studies were included. Most sources reported on surgical AEs; however, other medical specialties were also explored. Chart reviews were used in all studies; however, few agreed on terminology for the study design. Various methodological approaches and sampling strategies were used. Some studies used the Global Trigger Tool, a two-stage chart review method, whilst others used alternative single-, two-stage, or unclear approaches. The sources used samples of flagged charts (n = 24), flagged and random charts (n = 11), and random charts (n = 21). Most studies reported poor or moderate accuracy of AE rates. Some studies reported good accuracy of AE recording which highlights the potential of using administrative data for research purposes. This review highlights the potential for administrative data to provide information on AE rates and improve patient safety and healthcare quality. Nonetheless, further work is warranted to ensure that administrative data are accurate. The variation of methodological approaches taken, and sampling techniques used demonstrate a lack of consensus on best practice; therefore, further clarity and consensus are necessary to develop a more systematic approach to chart reviewing.

Timing of adverse events in patients undergoing acute and elective hip arthroplasty surgery: a multicentre cohort study using the Global Trigger Tool

OBJECTIVE

To explore timing in relation to all types of adverse events (AEs), severity and preventability for patients undergoing acute and elective hip arthroplasty.

DESIGN

A multicentre cohort study using retrospective record review with Global Trigger Tool methodology in combination with data from several registers.

SETTING

24 hospitals in 4 major regions of Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients ≥18 years, undergoing acute or elective total or hemiarthroplasty of the hip, were eligible for inclusion. Reviews of weighted samples of 1998 randomly selected patient records were carried out using Global Trigger Tool methodology. The patients were followed for readmissions up to 90 days postoperatively throughout the whole country.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 667 acute and 1331 elective patients. Most AEs occurred perioperatively and postoperatively (n=2093, 99.1%) and after discharge (n=1142, 54.1%). The median time from the day of surgery to the occurrence of AE was 8 days. The median days for different AE types ranged from 0 to 24.5 for acute and 0 to 71 for elective patients and peaked during different time periods. 40.2% of the AEs, both major and minor, occurred within postoperative days 0-5 and 86.9% of the AEs occurred within 30 days. Most of the AEs were deemed to be of major severity (n=1370, 65.5%) or preventable (n=1591, 76%).

CONCLUSIONS

A wide variability was found regarding the timing of different AEs with the majority occurring within 30 days. The timing and preventability varied regarding the severity. Most of the AEs were deemed to be preventable and/or of major severity. To increase patient safety for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty surgery, a better understanding of the multifaceted nature of the timing of AEs in relation to the occurrence of differing AEs is needed.

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Adverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely.

Objective

This study aimed: (1) to synthesize available evidence on AE incidence in acute care inpatient settings using Trigger Tool methodology; and (2) to explore whether study characteristics and study quality explain variations in reported AE incidence.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

To identify relevant studies, we queried PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and three journals in the patient safety field (last update search 25.05.2022). Eligible publications fulfilled the following criteria: adult inpatient samples; acute care hospital settings; Trigger Tool methodology; focus on specialty of internal medicine, surgery or oncology; published in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. Systematic reviews and studies addressing adverse drug events or exclusively deceased patients were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Our main outcome of interest was AEs per 100 admissions. We assessed nine study characteristics plus study quality as potential sources of variation using random regression models. We received no funding and did not register this review.

Results

Screening 6,685 publications yielded 54 eligible studies covering 194,470 admissions. The cumulative AE incidence was 30.0 per 100 admissions (95% CI 23.9–37.5; I² = 99.7%) and between study heterogeneity was high with a prediction interval of 5.4–164.7. Overall studies’ risk of bias and applicability-related concerns were rated as low. Eight out of nine methodological study characteristics did explain some variation of reported AE rates, such as patient age and type of hospital. Also, study quality did explain variation.

Conclusion

Estimates of AE studies using trigger tool methodology vary while explaining variation is seriously hampered by the low standards of reporting such as the timeframe of AE detection. Specific reporting guidelines for studies using retrospective medical record review methodology are necessary to strengthen the current evidence base and to help explain between study variation.

Measuring adverse events following hip arthroplasty surgery using administrative data without relying on ICD-codes

Introduction

Measure and monitor adverse events (AEs) following hip arthroplasty is challenging. The aim of this study was to create a model for measuring AEs after hip arthroplasty using administrative data, such as length of stay and readmissions, with equal or better precision than an ICD-code based model.

Materials and methods

This study included 1 998 patients operated with an acute or elective hip arthroplasty in a national multi-centre study. We collected AEs within 90 days following surgery with retrospective record review. Additional data came from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, the Swedish National Patient Register and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. We made a 2:1 split of the data into a training and a holdout set. We used the training set to train different machine learning models to predict if a patient had sustained an AE or not. After training and cross-validation we tested the best performing model on the holdout-set. We compared the results with an established ICD-code based measure for AEs.

Results

The best performing model was a logistic regression model with four natural age splines. The variables included in the model were as follows: length of stay at the orthopaedic department, discharge to acute care, age, number of readmissions and ED visits. The sensitivity and specificity for the new model was 23 and 90% for AE within 30 days, compared with 5 and 94% for the ICD-code based model. For AEs within 90 days the sensitivity and specificity were 31% and 89% compared with 16% and 92% for the ICD-code based model.

Conclusion

We conclude that a prediction model for AEs following hip arthroplasty surgery, relying on administrative data without ICD-codes is more accurate than a model based on ICD-codes.

No association between preoperative impaired glucose control and postoperative adverse events following hip fracture surgery - A single-centre observational cohort study

RATIONALE

Observational studies have shown an association between hyperglycaemia and increased complications in orthopaedic patients. The aim of the study was to investigate if impaired preoperative glycaemic control, reflected by elevated HbA1c, was associated with adverse postoperative events in hip fracture patients.

METHODS

160 patients (116 women and 44 men; age 80 ± 10 and BMI 24 ± 4; mean ± SD) with hip fractures were included in a prospective observational cohort study. The patients were divided into two groups, normal glycaemic control (NGC) and impaired glycaemic control (IGC) HbA1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol. The patients were also characterized according to BMI and nutritional status using MNA-SF (Minimal Nutritional Assessment Short Form). Complications within 30 days of surgery were classified according to Clavien-Dindo and 1-year mortality was compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Out of 160 patients, 18 had diabetes and 4 more had likely occult diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 48). Impaired glycaemic control (IGC) was seen in 29 patients (18.1%) and normal glycaemic control (NGC) in 131 (81.9%). In patients with NGC and IGC, no postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade 0) were seen in 64/131 vs. 14/29 (48.9 vs. 48.3%), Grade 1-3a in 54/131 vs. 14/29 (41.2 vs. 48.3%) and Grade 3b-5 in 13/131 vs. 1/29 (9.9 vs. 3.4%) respectively, p = NS. There were no differences in 30-day complications (p = 0.55) or 1-year mortality (p = 0.35) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Elevated HbA1c at admission is not associated with increased complications or mortality after hip fracture surgery.

Only 8% of major preventable adverse events after hip arthroplasty are filed as claims: a Swedish multi-center cohort study on 1,998 patients

Background and purpose - Hip arthroplasty is one of the most performed surgeries in Sweden, and the rate of adverse events (AEs) is fairly high. All patients in publicly financed healthcare in Sweden are insured by the Mutual Insurance Company of Swedish County Councils (Löf). We assessed the proportion of patients that sustained a major preventable AE and filed an AE claim to Löf.Patients and methods - We performed retrospective record review using the Global Trigger Tool to identify AEs in a Swedish multi-center cohort consisting of 1,998 patients with a total or hemi hip arthroplasty. We compared the major preventable AEs with all patient-reported claims to Löf from the same cohort and calculated the proportion of filed claims.Results - We found 1,066 major preventable AEs in 744 patients. Löf received 62 claims for these AEs, resulting in a claim proportion of 8%. 58 of the 62 claims were accepted by Löf and received compensation. The claim proportion was 13% for the elective patients and 0.3% for the acute patients. The most common AE for filing a claim was periprosthetic joint infection; of the 150 infections found 37 were claimed.Interpretation - The proportion of filed claims for major preventable AEs is very low, even for obvious and serious AEs such as periprosthetic joint infection.

Exploring the incidence and nature of nursing-sensitive orthopaedic adverse events: A multicenter cohort study using Global Trigger Tool

BACKGROUND

For decades, patient safety has been recognized as a critical global healthcare issue. However, there is a gap of knowledge of all types of adverse events sensitive to nursing care within hospitals in general and within orthopaedic care specifically.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to explore the incidence and nature of nursing-sensitive adverse events following elective or acute hip arthroplasty at a national level.

DESIGN

A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

Nursing-sensitive adverse events, preventability, severity and length of stay.

METHODS

All patients, 18 years or older, who had undergone an elective (degenerative joint disease) or acute (fractures) hemi or total hip arthroplasty surgery at 24 hospitals were eligible for inclusion. Retrospective reviews of weighted samples of 1998 randomly selected patient records were carried out using the Swedish version of the Global Trigger Tool. The patients were followed for readmissions up to 90 days postoperatively throughout the whole country regardless of index hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 1150 nursing-sensitive adverse events were identified in 728 (36.4%) of patient records, and 943 (82.0%) of the adverse events were judged preventable in the study cohort. The adjusted cumulative incidence regarding nursing-sensitive adverse events for the study population was 18.8%. The most common nursing-sensitive adverse event types were different kinds of healthcare-associated infections (40.9%) and pressure ulcers (16.5%). Significantly higher proportions of nursing-sensitive adverse events were found among female patients compared to male, p < 0.001, and patients with acute admissions compared to elective patients, p < 0.001. Almost half (48.5%) of the adverse events were temporary and of a less severe nature. On the other hand, 592 adverse events were estimated to have contributed to 3351 extra hospital days.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the magnitude of nursing-sensitive adverse events. We found that nursing-sensitive adverse events were common, in most cases deemed preventable and were associated with different kinds of adverse events and levels of severity in orthopaedic care. Registered nurses play a vital role within the interdisciplinary team as they are the largest group of healthcare professionals, work 24/7 and spend much time at the bedside with patients. Therefore, nursing leadership at all hospital levels must assume responsibility for patient safety and authorize bedside registered nurses to deliver high-quality and sustainable care to patients.