Copyright
©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Crit Care Med. Feb 4, 2018; 7(1): 9-15
Published online Feb 4, 2018. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v7.i1.9
Published online Feb 4, 2018. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v7.i1.9
Table 3 Comparison between the different studies in ICU using the Trigger Tool methodology
Ref. | Patients | No. of ICUs | Sample | Incidence or prevalence of AEs |
Resar et al[2] | During ICU stay | 62 | 12074 | 11.3/100 patient d |
Nilsson et al[12] | Those who die in less than 96 h of ICU admission | 1 | 128 | 32/100 ICU admissions 19.5% |
PREVENT[13] | Within 7 d prior to ICU admission | 5 | 280 | 27.1% (80% related to reason for admission) |
UPB (Molina et al) | During ICU stay | 1 | 94 | 52.1% 3.6 AEs per patient |
- Citation: Molina FJ, Rivera PT, Cardona A, Restrepo DC, Monroy O, Rodas D, Barrientos JG. Adverse events in critical care: Search and active detection through the Trigger Tool. World J Crit Care Med 2018; 7(1): 9-15
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3141/full/v7/i1/9.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v7.i1.9