Advertisement

European Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 177, Issue 9, pp 1351–1358 | Cite as

The occurrence of adverse events in low-risk non-survivors in pediatric intensive care patients: an exploratory study

  • Carin W. Verlaat
  • Cynthia van der Starre
  • Jan A. Hazelzet
  • Dick Tibboel
  • Johannes van der Hoeven
  • Joris Lemson
  • Marieke Zegers
Open Access
Original Article

Abstract

We studied the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) in low-risk non-survivors (LNs), compared to low-risk survivors (LSs), high-risk non-survivors (HNs), and high-risk survivors (HSs) in two pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). The study was performed as a retrospective patient record review study, using a PICU-trigger tool. A random sample of 48 PICU patients (0–18 years) was chosen, stratified into four subgroups of 12 patients: LNs, LSs, HNs, and HSs. Primary outcome was the occurrence of AEs. The severity, preventability, and nature of the indentified AEs were determined. In total, 45 AEs were found in 20 patients. The occurrence of AEs in the LN group was significantly higher compared to that in the LS group and HN group (AE occurrence: LN 10/12 patients, LS 1/12 patients; HN 2/12 patients; HS 7/12 patients; LN-LS difference, p < 0.001; LN-HN difference, p < 0.01). The AE rate in the LN group was significantly higher compared to that in the LS and HN groups (median [IQR]: LN 0.12 [0.07–0.29], LS 0 [0–0], HN 0 [0–0], and HS 0.03 [0.0–0.17] AE/PICU day; LN-LS difference, p < 0.001; LN-HN difference, p < 0.01). The distribution of the AEs among the four groups was as follows: 25 AEs (LN), 2 AEs (LS), 8 AEs (HN), and 10 AEs (HS). Fifteen of forty-five AEs were preventable. In 2/12 LN patients, death occurred after a preventable AE.

Conclusion: The occurrence of AEs in LNs was higher compared to that in LSs and HNs. Some AEs were severe and preventable and contributed to mortality.

What is Known:

• 59–76% of all PICU patients encounter at least one adverse event during their PICU stay.

• It is unknown if adverse events play a role in death of low-risk PICU patients.

What is New:

• In low-risk PICU non-survivors, occurrence of adverse events is higher compared to low-risk PICU survivors and to high-risk PICU non-survivors.

• Severe and preventable adverse events occur in low-risk PICU non-survivors, some contributing to mortality.

Keywords

Adverse events Complications Patient safety Hospital (P ediatric) intensive care Trigger tool Health care quality Outcome 

Abbreviations

AE

Adverse event

CCC

Complex chronic condition

ECLS

Extracorporal life support

HN

High-risk non-survivor

HS

High-risk survivor

IQR

Inter-quartile range

LN

Low-risk non-survivor

LS

Low-risk survivor

NCCC

Non-complex chronic condition

NCC MERP

National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention

PICU

Pediatric intensive care unit

PIM

Pediatric Index of Mortality

PRISM

Pediatric Risk of Mortality

Introduction

The mortality rate in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in economically developed countries has decreased in the last decades to approximately 3% [26]. Moreover, a substantial part of the PICU population (55% in a recent study) has a mortality risk of < 1% [35]. Although these are low-risk patients, some of these patients die on the PICU. Patient factors like complex chronic conditions (CCCs) do not explain all deceased patients in this patient group [6, 35]. For quality purposes, it is interesting to analyze whether adverse events (AEs) or even medical errors play a role in the death of low-risk PICU patients [3, 16]. An AE is an unintended injury that results in temporary or permanent disability, death, or prolonged hospital stay and that is caused by health care management rather than by the patient’s underlying disease process [38]. A national project on preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals showed that preventable AEs contributed to 4.1% of hospital deaths [38, 39]. In most international AE studies, (young) children were excluded or the number of included PICU admissions was not specified or very low, so data about PICU patients are scarce [2, 3, 4, 18, 38].

Because of their vulnerability, intensive care patients are more prone to iatrogenic events [10, 12, 13]. The incidence of AEs in the PICU population depends on the method used to detect AEs [1, 17, 19, 22, 28, 31, 33, 36]. Studies using a trigger tool method show that 59–76% of all PICU patients encounter at least one AE during their stay [1, 17, 36].

Although one could speculate that AE incidence is higher in the more complex and sicker patients needing extensive support (high-risk patients), AEs also occur in the less severely ill PICU patients [1, 17, 22]. To our knowledge, no studies have focused on the occurrence of AEs in low-risk PICU patients. The incidence of AEs among low-risk patients might be underestimated when only the general PICU population is examined. Analyzing medical records from non-survivors with a low risk of dying is an efficient tool to discover problems in the quality of care [14]. If low-risk PICU patients deteriorate or die because of preventable AEs, there is a potential for improving their outcome.

The aim of this exploratory study was to study the occurrence of AEs in the low-risk non-survivors (LNs), compared to low-risk survivors (LSs), high-risk non-survivors (HNs), and high-risk survivors (HSs) in two PICUs. Of all AEs, we studied the severity, preventability, and nature. The study was designed as a retrospective exploratory study that used chart review to examine the feasibility of detecting AEs in this patient group.

Methods

Study design and setting

This is a retrospective patient record study to measure the occurrence of AEs in low-risk non-survivors and to compare the results with patients with a different risk profile and different outcomes, using a random stratified sample of 48 records. The study was performed in two PICUs. Data collection was performed in 2015.

Admission selection

Admissions in each PICU between 1 January 2006 and 1 January 2012 were stratified into four groups with different risk profiles and different outcomes. The study group consisted of LNs. Three control groups were chosen: LSs, HNs, and HSs. Low-risk admissions were defined as admissions with a mortality risk in the simply recalibrated Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) 2 score and/or recalibrated Pediatric Risk of Mortality II score (further referred as “PRISM”) of < 1% [24, 25, 27, 29, 35]. High-risk admissions were defined as admissions with a mortality risk in the simply recalibrated PIM2 and/or PRISM of ≥ 30% [35].

Other inclusion criteria were the following: age < 18 years and PICU length of stay of at least 2 h. Exclusion criteria were the following: patients already deceased before admission (for example, brain dead patients, admitted for organ donation), corrected age < 36 weeks (gestational age), invalid or impossible PIM2/PRISM score, and no clinical data available.

The mortality risk scores and PICU outcome data were provided by the national PICU registry (Pediatric Intensive Care Evaluation (PICE) registry) [23]. The PICE registry is a national database containing anonymized information of admission characteristics, severity of illness, and patient outcome. Data quality is assessed using standard procedures including audit site visits. Of all patients, both PIM2 and PRISM scores are collected. The models were recalibrated for the study period to predict the overall mortality in the total population in this period without altering the relative weights of risk factors in the models and thus retaining the discriminative power of the models [35, 37]. A local copy from the PICE registry was sent to the local PICUs including all admissions between 2006 and 2012. The database of these two PICUs (total of 11,216 admissions: PICU-1, 8438 admissions; PICU-2, 2778 admissions) contained 39 LNs.

Since the study was designed as an exploratory study, a selection of roughly one third of the LN was used for the study. Twelve LNs were selected for the study. Because the number of patients between the two participating centers was unequal, nine admissions from PICU-1 and three admissions from PICU-2 were selected for each study group, using a computer-based research randomizer [34]. To avoid different population characteristics, the patients in the control groups (LS (n = 12), HN (n = 12), HS (n = 12)) were stratified based on PICU center, gender, and age category. After stratification, the patients were randomly chosen using the computer-based research randomizer.

To verify if the risk profile of patients was correct, the PIM2 and PRISM scores were checked using available physiologic and laboratory data. If a discrepancy was discovered, e.g., the corrected mortality risk turned out to be >2% in LN and LS or < 30% in HN and HS, the patient was excluded from the study. The next from the list of available patients (with the same risk group/outcome/PICU center/gender/age category) was selected until, in each group, 12 patients were included.

Data collection

An established set of triggers was modified to local characteristics of the PICU population and was used in a retrospective chart review to discover AEs (Table 4, online only) [1]. In the first stage, patient charts were manually reviewed for the presence of 19 triggers. In the second stage, each positive trigger was followed by an in-depth investigation for the presence of associated AEs. Both stages were performed by a pediatric intensivist (CV) with more than 15 years of PICU experience who was trained in the use of the trigger tool method.

Primary outcomes were the occurrence of AEs and AE rate (AE/PICU day). For the AE rate, only AEs occurring during the PICU admission were included. AEs that occurred shortly before PICU admission and were beyond doubt related to the PICU admission were scored as “AE pre PICU.” The severity of AEs was rated using the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) Index for Categorizing Errors (Table 5, online only) [20]. Preventability of AEs was scored on a 6-point scale (Table 6, online only) [3]. AEs with a preventability score of 4–6 were defined as preventable. A preventable AE results from an error in management due to failure to follow accepted practice at an individual or system level. Accepted practice was taken to be “the current level of expected performance for the average practitioner or system that manages the condition in question” [38]. AEs were grouped into eight categories, based on the classification made by Hogan et al. (Table 7, online only) [15]. If problems were encountered in AE determination and categorizing AEs, a decision was taken after discussion within the research group.

The ANZPIC registry diagnostic code list was used for diagnosis classification [30]. An admission was classified as having a CCC or a non-complex chronic condition (NCCC) if either the primary diagnosis, the primary underlying diagnosis, or the first additional diagnosis was a diagnosis defined as a CCC or NCCC according to a modified Feudtner’s list [5, 7, 8]. PICE diagnoses not appearing on these lists were classified before analyzing the data according to expert opinion (CV, JL) [35]. The list of the PICE database diagnoses grouped as a CCC and NCCC is described in Table 8 and Table 9 (online only).

Socio-economic status of the family was obtained by coupling the four digits of the postal code to the socio-economic status of the neighborhood in 2006 (The Netherlands Institute for Social Research) and grouped into three categories [32].

Data analysis

Normal distribution of continuous variables was tested using sampling distributions and skewness and kurtosis tests. Not normally distributed data were reported by median and inter-quartile range (IQR). Non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U) were used for the analyses of not normally distributed data. For categorical variables, Fisher’s exact test or the chi-square test was used (software: IBM SPSS Statistics 22).

Reliability study

To assess the reliability of the record review process, a random sample of nine records (20%) was reviewed by a second investigator.

Results

Respondent characteristics

A total of 48 patients were randomly selected. Nine admissions were excluded, and therefore, nine new admissions were chosen as described (Fig. 1, flowchart).
Fig. 1

Flowchart of the study population. LN low-risk non-survivor, LS low-risk survivor, HN high-risk non-survivor, HS high-risk survivor, PIM2 Pediatric Index of Mortality score, PRISM Pediatric Risk of Mortality

Patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. The four groups were different on admission characteristics, mortality risk scores, presence of CCCs, and outcome characteristics like length of stay. The LN group had more medical admissions and higher PRISM mortality risk compared to the LS group. The PIM2 mortality risks between LN and LS were comparable. LN patients were more often mechanically ventilated; had more ventilator days, more central venous catheters, and more central venous catheter days; and had a longer length of stay compared to LS patients.
Table 1

Patient characteristics

Characteristic

LN

LS

HN

HS

Patients in each subgroup

12

12

12

12

Gender: male

6

6

6

6

Age group

 • 1–28 days

1

1

1

1

 • 29–365 days

4

4

4

4

 • 1–4 years

0

0

0

0

 • 5–17 years

7

7

7

7

Age: median [IQR] (years)

9.5 [0–12.8]

7.5 [0–13.0]

5.0 [0–13.3]

5.5 [0–11.3]

Weight: median [IQR] (kg)

32.5 [3.9–53.5]

14.9 [3.1–44.8]

20.0 [7.0–50.0]

22.0 [5.5–37.0]

Socio-economic status

 • Low

3

3

2

3

 • Intermediate

5

8

8

8

 • High

3

1

1

1

 • Unknown

1

0

1

0

Non-elective admission

10

7d,f

12

12

Medical admission

12aa,c

6

8

10

CPR or brain herniation as the cause for PICU admission

0

0

9b

3

Off-hours admission

6

4

6

7

Chronic condition

 • CCC

9cc

7

3b

6

 • NCCC

2

1

0

3

 • None

1

4

9

3

Recalibrated PRISM mortality risk, median [IQR] (%)

0.9 [0.7–1.4]a,ccc,eee

0.6 [0.5–0.8]ddd,fff

77.0 [21.4–87.4]

43.6 [35.3–60.5]

Recalibrated PIM2 mortality risk, median [IQR] (%)

1.3 [0.8–6.1]ccc,e

1.3 [1.0–2.2]d,fff

56.1 [21.8–83.4]b

14 [14–46]

Mechanical ventilation

11aa

4dd,ff

12

12

Ventilator days, median [IQR]

6.5 [2.5–30.8]aaa

0 [0–1.8]ddd,ff

2.5 [1.0–9.3]

6.5 [4.3–11.5]

Central venous catheter

10a

5ff

11

9

Central venous catheter days, median [IQR]

4.5 [1.3–14.3]aa

0 [0–2]dd,ff

2.5 [1–17.5]

6.5 [1–11.8]

Extracorporal life support

2*

0

1

3

Length of stay, median [IQR] (days)

16 [5.5–32.8]aa,c,e

2 [2–2.8]dd

2.5 [1–9.3]b

11 [6.3–13]

Mode of death (n = 24)

 

Not applicable

 

Not applicable

 - Brain death

0c

 

6

 

 - Maximal treatment including CPR

1

 

0

 

 - Maximal treatment without CPR

2

 

1

 

 - Limiting or withdrawal of therapy

9

 

5

 

All numbers are expressed as the number of patients unless specified otherwise

LN low-risk non-survivors, LS low-risk survivors, HN high-risk non-survivors, HS high-risk survivors

*Two patients in LN with extracorporal life support (ECLS): one patient, a neonate with a very complex congenital cardiac disorder including pulmonary atresia and total abnormal pulmonary venous return, was admitted preoperatively for cardiac surgery and needed ECLS after surgery but did not survive. The mortality risk in this patient was—according to the PIM2/PRISM criteria—measured before surgery and was low. Another patient, admitted with severe asthma, was resuscitated during PICU stay (day 2) and supported by ECLS after resuscitation but died of cerebral post-anoxic complications

ap < 0.05, aap < 0.01, and aaap < 0.001, LN compared with LS; bp < 0.05, HN compared with HS; cp < 0.05, ccp < 0.01, and cccp < 0.001, LN compared with HN; dp < 0.05, ddp < 0.01, and dddp < 0.001, LS compared with group HS; ep < 0.05, and eeep < 0.001, LN compared with group HS; fp < 0.05, ffp < 0.01, and fffp < 0.001, LS compared with group HN

In the LN group, most patients had a CCC (not resulting in a higher PIM2 or PRISM score) in contrast to the HN, where CCCs occurred in a minority of patients. In the HN, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was a frequent reason for admission, often resulting in brain death as the cause of death. In the majority of the LN, patients died after limiting therapeutic options. The length of stay in the LN was much longer compared to the HN and also longer compared to the HS.

Adverse events

The occurrence of AEs in the LN group was significantly higher compared to that in the LS and HN groups (Table 2). Eighty-three percent of the LN patients suffered from at least one AE. Twenty-five AEs occurred in the LN group. The AE rate (AE per PICU day) in the LN group was significantly higher compared to that in the LS and HN groups (median 0.12 AE/PICU day).
Table 2

Adverse events

Outcome measure

LN

LS

HN

HS

Patients with ≥ 1 AE(/n)

10/12aaa,cc

1/12dd

2/12b

7/12

AE PICU/PICU day, median [IQR]

0.12 [0.07–0.29]aaa,cc

0 [0–0]dd

0 [0–0]b

0.03 [0.0–0.17]

Number of AEs, total

25

2

8

10

Number of AEs/patient, median [IQR]

2 [1–3.8]

0 [0–0]

0 [0–0]

1 [0–1]

Only the primary outcome (patients with greater than or equal to one AE) and AE rate were tested

LN low-risk non-survivors, LS low-risk survivors, HN high-risk non-survivors, HS high-risk survivors, AE adverse event, PICU pediatric intensive care unit, AE PICU/PICU day the number of AEs per patient day

aaap < 0.001, LN compared with LS; bp < 0.05, HN compared with HS; ccp < 0.01, LN compared with HN; ddp < 0.01, LS compared with group HS, LN compared with group HS; fp < 0.05, ffp < 0.01, and fffp < 0.001, LS compared with group HN

In Table 3, preventability, severity, and classification of all identified AEs are shown. In the LN group, eight preventable AEs occurred. In five of these preventable AEs, the severity was high (grade G-I). Two patients, in both the LN groups, died after a preventable AE. Looking at all 15 preventable AEs found among all subgroups in this study, most preventable AEs were related to problems in clinical monitoring (n = 5), infection control (n = 5), and diagnosis (n = 2). Detailed information about all patients with AEs including description, timing, severity, and preventability of the AEs is shown in Table 10 (online only). The day on which the AE occurred varied from day 0 (preceding the PICU admission) to the last days of the PICU stay.
Table 3

Preventability, severity, and classification of adverse events

Group

No AEs

Preventability

Severity

Classification

LN

25

8 preventable AEs

I = 2

Infection control = 1

Clinical monitoring = 1

G–H = 3

Drug or fluid related = 1

Diagnosis = 2

E–F = 3

Infection control = 2

Clinical monitoring = 1

17 non-preventable AEs

I = 4

Other = 3

Drug or fluid related = 1

G–H = 5

Other = 4

Drug or fluid related = 1

E–F = 8

Infection control = 4

Other = 3

Technical = 1

LS

2

2 preventable AEs

H = 2

Infection control = 1

Drug or fluid related = 1

HN

8

2 preventable AEs

G–H = 1

Clinical monitoring = 1

E–F = 1

Infection control = 1

6 non-preventable AEs

I = 1

ECLS = 1

G–H = 1

ECLS = 1

E–F = 4

ECLS = 1

Other = 3

HS

10

3 preventable AEs

G–H = 1

ECLS = 1

E–F = 2

ECLS = 1

Clinical monitoring = 1

7 non-preventable AEs

G–H = 5

Clinical monitoring = 1

ECLS = 1

Other = 3

E–F = 2

ECLS = 1

Technical = 1

Total

45

15 preventable

 

Clinical monitoring = 4

30 unpreventable

Diagnosis = 2

Drug or fluid related = 2

ECLS = 2

Infection control = 5

Clinical monitoring = 1

Drug or fluid related = 2

Technical = 2

ECLS = 5

Infection control = 4

Other = 16

Severity categories: E = contributed to or resulted in temporary harm to the patient and required intervention, F = contributed to or resulted in temporary harm to the patients and required initial or prolonged hospitalization, G = contributed to or resulted in permanent patient harm, H = required intervention to sustain life, I = contributed to or resulted in the patient’s death

LN low-risk non-survivors, LS low-risk survivors, HN high-risk non-survivors, HS high-risk survivors, AE adverse event, ECLS extracorporal life support

Inter-observer agreement

Nine patient records were reviewed by the second investigator. Inter-observer agreement was 8/9 (89%).

Discussion

Major findings

In this exploratory study, AEs occurred in 83% of the LN. The occurrence of AEs and AE rate in these LN patients were significantly higher compared to those in LS patients and also higher compared to those in HN patients. A substantial part of the AEs in the LN group was preventable and had severe consequences, including two LN patients who died after a preventable AE. Screening patients with a low mortality risk is a valuable tool to discover problems in the quality of care and might reduce preventable death by implementing targeted quality improvement measures.

A possible explanation for the higher occurrence of AEs in the LN group might be that “low-risk” as defined by a calculated low mortality risk does not always reflect a true low risk of dying. Mortality risk scores such as PIM2 or PRISM scores perform reasonably well for the PICU population in general with an AUC between 0.83 and 0.90 but not for each individual [37]. Many patients in the LN group are sicker than they appear based on the PIM2 or PRISM score. Misclassifications do occur. For example, seven LN patients were admitted to the PICU with major comorbidity such as hemato-oncology patients and patients with complex congenital heart disorder. These low-risk patients with a CCC are often at high risk for AEs [35]. Patients with congenital heart disorders are sometimes admitted preoperatively to the PICU. Mortality risk scores can be obtained before surgery and do not measure true postoperative risk. New PRISM methods like PRISM IV might reflect mortality risk better in these patients because the risk score is measured after surgery [26]. However, severe and preventable AEs did occur in patients with and without a CCC, so to our opinion, this is not the only explanation.

Comparing the AE rate from this study with other studies is difficult because in this exploratory study, we did not include the general PICU population but focused on the low- and high-risk groups. A single PICU study on patient safety factors in 47 PICU non-survivors found that 36% of non-survivors suffered at least one AE of category I and 60% suffered a “critical incident” [19]. These results cannot be compared with our study not only because of different population characteristics but also due to different outcome measures. The “critical incidents” used in the study of Monroe could either be AEs or medical errors not causing harm (categories B–D), a category which is too wide in our opinion [21].

From the viewpoint of quality improvement, preventable AEs are the most interesting. Looking at the nature of the 15 preventable AEs found in this study, problems in clinical monitoring (n = 5), infection control (n = 5), and diagnosis (n = 2) were most prevalent. For example, a pediatric early warning system might lead to timely recognition of deterioration and thus lead to lower mortality [11]. During the study period, pediatric early warning systems and sepsis bundles were implemented in the participating hospitals, but the effectiveness could not be systematically examined yet.

The length of stay in the LN group was significantly longer compared to that in all other groups. A longer duration of stay may be the consequence of the AEs or might have contributed to an increased chance for AEs, and this cannot be estimated from this retrospective study.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, children in the age group of 1–4 years were not present in the randomly chosen LN group and therefore not in the other groups, possibly giving rise to bias. Second, a relatively high number of admissions were excluded from the study. The decision to exclude patients was made on predefined criteria. Remarkably, in seven patients, the PIM2/PRISM score turned out to be false after verifying with the data from the medical record. This should encourage better surveillance of the database. Third, poor quality of the information in patient records might lead to underestimation of the number of AEs. The assessment of AEs with a trigger tool method depends on the presence of data in the medical record. However, in a patient record review study in Dutch hospitals, poor quality of the information present in the medical record was associated with higher rates of AEs [40]. Another weakness of all retrospective studies is hindsight bias [9, 39]. Knowledge of the final outcome may have influenced judgment on severity and preventability. This could lead to an overestimation of preventable severe AEs as judged by the investigators. Finally, the mortality prediction models do not perform perfectly. However, we found that both in real LN and in LN with a CCC, severe AEs and AEs contributing to death occur.

Conclusion

This exploratory study shows that AEs do occur in PICU low-risk non-survivors. The occurrence of AEs in low-risk non-survivors was higher compared to that in low-risk survivors and high-risk non-survivors. Some AEs were severe and preventable and contributed to morbidity and mortality. The exact scale and nature of this safety problem should be analyzed in a larger multi-center study.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Idse Visser (PICE registry) (Erasmus University Medical Center–Sophia Children’s Hospital) for their support. We would like to thank Marjan Illsey-de Jonge, RN, for her support in developing of and training in the trigger tool.

Authors’ contributions

Dr. Verlaat conceptualized and designed the study, acquired the data, carried out the initial analyses, drafted and revised the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. Dr. van der Starre conceptualized and designed the study, acquired the data, assisted with the interpretation of data, revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. Dr. Hazelzet, Dr. Lemson, Dr. Zegers, Dr. Tibboel, and Dr. van der Hoeven conceptualized and designed the study, supervised the data collection, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent and ethics

The study protocol has been presented to the Medical Ethical Committee of the Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen (registration number: 2016-2829). The committee judged that ethical approval was not required under Dutch national law. Data were anonymized and handled according to the principles of good clinical practice. No informed consent was obtained.

Supplementary material

431_2018_3194_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)
431_2018_3194_MOESM2_ESM.docx (13 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 12 kb)
431_2018_3194_MOESM3_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 13 kb)
431_2018_3194_MOESM4_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 13 kb)
431_2018_3194_MOESM5_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM 5 (DOCX 19 kb)
431_2018_3194_MOESM6_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 6 (DOCX 16 kb)
431_2018_3194_MOESM7_ESM.docx (20 kb)
ESM 7 (DOCX 20 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal S, Classen D, Larsen G, Tofil NM, Hayes LW, Sullivan JE, Storgion SA, Coopes BJ, Craig V, Jaderlund C, Bisarya H, Parast L, Sharek P (2010) Prevalence of adverse events in pediatric intensive care units in the United States. Pediatr Crit Care Med 11(5):568–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baines RJ, Langelaan M, de Bruijne MC, Asscheman H, Spreeuwenberg P, van de Steeg L, Siemerink KM, van Rosse F, Broekens M, Wagner C (2013) Changes in adverse event rates in hospitals over time: a longitudinal retrospective patient record review study. BMJ Qual Saf 22(4):290–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, Blais R, Brown A, Cox J, Etchells E, Ghali WA, Hébert P, Majumdar SR, O’Beirne M, Palacios-Derflingher L, Reid RJ, Sheps S, Tamblyn R (2004) The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 170(11):1678–1686CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH (1991) Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 324(6):370–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards JD, Houtrow AJ, Vasilevskis EE, Rehm RS, Markovitz BP, Graham RJ, Dudley RA (2012) Chronic conditions among children admitted to U.S. pediatric intensive care units: their prevalence and impact on risk for mortality and prolonged length of stay*. Crit Care Med 40(7):2196–2203CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eulmesekian PG (2017) Low-risk pediatric critical care patients, are they really a different population? Pediatr Crit Care Med 18(4):390–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feudtner C, Christakis DA, Connell FA (2000) Pediatric deaths attributable to complex chronic conditions: a population-based study of Washington state, 1980-1997. Pediatrics 106(1 Pt 2):205–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feudtner C, Feinstein JA, Zhong W, Hall M, Dai D (2014) Pediatric complex chronic conditions classification system version 2: updated for ICD-10 and complex medical technology dependence and transplantation. BMC Pediatr 14:199CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischhoff B (1975) Hindsight not equal to foresight—effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1(3):288–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forster AJ, Kyeremanteng K, Hooper J, Shojania KG, van Walraven C (2008) The impact of adverse events in the intensive care unit on hospital mortality and length of stay. BMC Health Serv Res 8:259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fuijkschot J, Vernhout B, Lemson J, Draaisma JMT, Loeffen JLCM (2015) Validation of a Paediatric Early Warning Score: first results and implications of usage. Eur J Pediatr 174(1):15–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garrouste Orgeas M et al (2008) Impact of adverse events on outcomes in intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 36(7):2041–2047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garrouste-Orgeas M, Timsit JF, Vesin A, Schwebel C, Arnodo P, Lefrant JY, Souweine B, Tabah A, Charpentier J, Gontier O, Fieux F, Mourvillier B, Troché G, Reignier J, Dumay MF, Azoulay E, Reignier B, Carlet J, Soufir L, OUTCOMEREA Study Group (2010) Selected medical errors in the intensive care unit: results of the IATROREF study: parts I and II. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 181(2):134–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hannan EL, Bernard HR, O’Donnell JF, Kilburn H Jr (1989) A methodology for targeting hospital cases for quality of care record reviews. Am J Public Health 79(4):430–436CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hogan H, Healey F, Neale G, Thomson R, Vincent C, Black N (2012) Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a retrospective case record review study. BMJ Qual Saf 21(9):737–745CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kohn LT et al (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system, vol xxi. National Academy, Washington, D.C., p 287Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larsen GY, Donaldson AE, Parker HB, Grant MJ (2007) Preventable harm occurring to critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 8(4):331–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mendes W, Martins M, Rozenfeld S, Travassos C (2009) The assessment of adverse events in hospitals in Brazil. Int J Qual Health Care 21(4):279–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monroe K, Wang D, Vincent C, Woloshynowych M, Neale G, Inwald DP (2011) Patient safety factors in children dying in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU): a case notes review study. BMJ Qual Saf 20(10):863–868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NCC-MERP (2001) February 20; National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention. Available from: http://www.nccmerp.org/types-medication-errors
  21. 21.
    Neale G, Chapman EJ, Hoare J, Olsen S (2006) Recognising adverse events and critical incidents in medical practice in a district general hospital. Clin Med (Lond) 6(2):157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Niesse OW, Sennhauser FH, Frey B (2011) Critical incidents in paediatric critical care: who is at risk? Eur J Pediatr 170(2):193–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    PICE. PICE registry (2016) 2016, December 15; Available from: http://www.pice.nl/eng/index-eng.htm
  24. 24.
    Pollack MM, Ruttimann UE, Getson PR (1988) Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) score. Crit Care Med 16(11):1110–1116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pollack MM, Patel KM, Ruttimann UE (1996) PRISM III: an updated Pediatric Risk of Mortality score. Crit Care Med 24(5):743–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pollack MM, Holubkov R, Funai T, Dean JM, Berger JT, Wessel DL, Meert K, Berg RA, Newth CJ, Harrison RE, Carcillo J, Dalton H, Shanley T, Jenkins TL, Tamburro R, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network (2016) The Pediatric Risk of Mortality score: update 2015. Pediatr Crit Care Med 17(1):2–9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shann F, Pearson G, Slater A, Wilkinson K (1997) Paediatric Index of Mortality (PIM): a mortality prediction model for children in intensive care. Intensive Care Med 23(2):201–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silas R, Tibballs J (2010) Adverse events and comparison of systematic and voluntary reporting from a paediatric intensive care unit. Qual Saf Health Care 19(6):568–571PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slater A et al (2003) PIM2: a revised version of the Paediatric Index of Mortality. Intensive Care Med 29(2):278–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Slater A et al (2003) The ANZPIC registry diagnostic codes: a system for coding reasons for admitting children to intensive care. Intensive Care Med 29(2):271–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stambouly JJ, McLaughlin LL, Mandel FS, Boxer RA (1996) Complications of care in a pediatric intensive care unit: a prospective study. Intensive Care Med 22(10):1098–1104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    The Netherlands Institute for Social Research Socio economic status of neighborhood in the Netherlands. Available from: http://www.scp.nl/english/
  33. 33.
    Tibby SM, Correa-West J, Durward A, Ferguson L, Murdoch IA (2004) Adverse events in a paediatric intensive care unit: relationship to workload, skill mix and staff supervision. Intensive Care Med 30(6):1160–1166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Urbaniak GC, Plous S Research randomizer. 2013; Available from: https://www.randomizer.org/
  35. 35.
    Verlaat CW et al (2017) Factors associated with mortality in low-risk pediatric critical care patients in the Netherlands. Pediatr Crit Care Med 18(4):e155-e161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vermeulen JM, van Dijk M, van der Starre C, Wösten-van Asperen RM, Argent AC (2014) Patient safety in South Africa: PICU adverse event registration*. Pediatr Crit Care Med 15(5):464–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Visser IH et al (2013) Mortality prediction models for pediatric intensive care: comparison of overall and subgroup specific performance. Intensive Care Med 39(5):942–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zegers M, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C, Groenewegen PP, Waaijman R, van der Wal G (2007) Design of a retrospective patient record study on the occurrence of adverse events among patients in Dutch hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res 7:27CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zegers M, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C, Hoonhout LHF, Waaijman R, Smits M, Hout FAG, Zwaan L, Christiaans-Dingelhoff I, Timmermans DRM, Groenewegen PP, van der Wal G (2009) Adverse events and potentially preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals: results of a retrospective patient record review study. Qual Saf Health Care 18(4):297–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zegers M, de Bruijne MC, Spreeuwenberg P, Wagner C, Groenewegen PP, van der Wal G (2011) Quality of patient record keeping: an indicator of the quality of care? BMJ Qual Saf 20(4):314–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Intensive Care, Radboud Institute for Health SciencesRadboud University Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive CareErasmus University Medical Center–Sophia Children’s HospitalRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Public HealthErasmus University Medical Center–Sophia Children’s HospitalRotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Pediatric Intensive CareErasmus Medical Center–Sophia Children’s HospitalRotterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Intensive Care and IQ Healthcare, Radboud Institute for Health SciencesRadboud University Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations