![]() The definition of each type of mortality (preventable, potentially preventable, and inevitable) is controversial. 2,3 An excellent way to determine quality is by analyzing preventable or potentially preventable deaths. Evaluations of the quality of management of polytrauma patients reveal that it is frequently below recognized standards. 1 Analyzing the quality of the treatment of polytrauma patients is essential in order to improve morbidity and mortality results, but it is not easy to establish quality standards. ![]() Polytrauma continues to be one of the leading causes of death in people under the age of 40. Se han hallado más errores diagnósticos y de tipo ruled-based en el centro español. Comparando la calidad asistencial de un trauma center americano con la de un centro de referencia español, hemos detectado unos errores evitables extraordinariamente parecidos. ConclusionesĮl uso de un lenguaje común para analizar los errores de manejo es una clave esencial para establecer puntos de referencia estándares y universales. En ambos centros, el principal tipo de error fue humano, siendo tipo knowledge-based el más frecuente en el USC (44%) vs rule-based en el SRC (58%) (p < 0,001). El SRC tuvo un 41% de errores diagnósticos vs solo el 18% en el USC (p = 0,001). En el USC, el 73% de los errores fue de tipo terapéutico comparado con el 59% en el SRC (p = 0,06). Los errores ocurren en urgencias y fueron causados por médicos. Según la taxonomía de la Joint Comission, el principal tipo de error fue clínico en ambos centros, debido a errores de intervención (tratamiento). La incidencia de mortalidad evitable y potencialmente evitable fue del 7,7% en el USC, y del 13,8% en el SRC. Se han identificado las muertes evitables o potencialmente evitables, analizando los errores en el manejo, clasificándolos según la taxonomía de la Joint Comission. MétodosĮstudio comparativo que evalúa pacientes politraumatizados mayores de 16 años que han sido exitus durante su hospitalización. More diagnostic and ‘ruled-based’ errors have been found in the Spanish center.Įl objetivo del estudio es comparar la calidad asistencial de un trauma center americano (USC) vs un centro equivalente de referencia europeo (SRC) en España, a través del análisis de la mortalidad evitable. Comparing the quality of care of an American trauma center and a Spanish referral center, we have detected remarkably similar avoidable errors. The use of a common language of errors among centers is key in establishing benchmarking standards. In contrast, at the SRC center the most common errors were ‘rule-based’ (58%) ( P<.001). At the USC, the most frequent human cause was ‘knowledge-based’ (44%). In both centers, the main cause of error was human. The SRC had a 41% of diagnosis errors vs just 18% in the USC ( P=.001). In the USC, 73% of errors were therapeutic as compared to 59% in the SRC ( P =.06). Errors occurred mostly in the emergency department and were caused by physicians. The rate of preventable and potentially preventable mortality was 7.7% and 13.8% in the USC and SRC respectively.Īccording to the JC taxonomy, the main error type was clinical in both centers, due to errors in intervention (treatment). All errors identified were then classified using the JC taxonomy. We cross-referenced these deaths and extracted all deaths that were classified as potentially preventable or preventable. MethodsĬomparative study that evaluated trauma patients older than 16 years old who died during their hospitalization. The aim is comparing the quality of care at a typical American trauma center (USC) vs an equivalent European referral center in Spain (SRC), through the analysis of preventable and potentially preventable deaths.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |