-
Int J Qual Health Care · Oct 2000
Comparative StudyA comparison of iatrogenic injury studies in Australia and the USA. I: Context, methods, casemix, population, patient and hospital characteristics.
- E J Thomas, D M Studdert, W B Runciman, R K Webb, E J Sexton, R M Wilson, R W Gibberd, B T Harrison, and T A Brennan.
- Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. eric.thomas@uth.tmc.edu
- Int J Qual Health Care. 2000 Oct 1;12(5):371-8.
ObjectiveTo better understand the differences between two iatrogenic injury studies of hospitalized patients in 1992 which used ostensibly similar methods and similar sample sizes, but had quite different findings. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study (QAHCS) reported that 16.6% of admissions were associated with adverse events (AE), whereas the Utah, Colorado Study (UTCOS) reported a rate of 2.9%.SettingHospitalized patients in Australia and the USA.DesignInvestigators from both studies compared methods and characteristics and identified differences. QAHCS data were then analysed using UTCOS methods.Main Outcome MeasuresDifferences between the studies and the comparative AE rates when these had been accounted for.ResultsBoth studies used a two-stage chart review process (screening nurse review followed by confirmatory physician review) to detect AEs; five important methodological differences were found: (i) QAHCS nurse reviewers referred records that documented any link to a previous admission, whereas UTCOS imposed age-related time constraints; (ii) QAHCS used a lower confidence threshold for defining medical causation; (iii) QAHCS used two physician reviewers, whereas UTCOS used one; (iv) QAHCS counted all AEs associated with an index admission whereas UTCOS counted only those determining the annual incidence; and (v) QAHCS included some types of events not included in UTCOS. When the QAHCS data were analysed using UTCOS methods, the comparative rates became 10.6% and 3.2%, respectively.ConclusionsFive methodological differences accounted for some of the discrepancy between the two studies. Two explanations for the remaining three-fold disparity are that quality of care was worse in Australia and that medical record content and/or reviewer behaviour was different.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.