G. Olivera Cañadas , A. Cañada Dorado , M. Drake Canela , B. Fernández-Martínez , G. Ordóñez León , M. Cimas Ballesteros
{"title":"Identificación de eventos centinela en atención primaria","authors":"G. Olivera Cañadas , A. Cañada Dorado , M. Drake Canela , B. Fernández-Martínez , G. Ordóñez León , M. Cimas Ballesteros","doi":"10.1016/j.cali.2017.03.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To identify and describe a list of sentinel events (SEs) for Primary Care (PC).</p></div><div><h3>Methododology</h3><p>A structured experts’ consensus was obtained by using two online questionnaires. The participants were selected because of their expertise in PC and patient safety. The first questionnaire assessed the suitability of the hospital SEs established in the National Quality Forum 2006 for use in PC via responses of “yes”, “no”, or “yes but with modification”. In the latter case, a re-wording of the SE was requested. Additionally, inclusion of new SEs was also allowed. The second questionnaire included those SEs with positive responses (“yes”, “yes with modification”<em>)</em>, so that the experts could choose between the original and alternative drafts, and evaluate the newly described SEs.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The questionnaires were completed by 44 out of a total of the 47 experts asked to participate, and a total of 17 SEs were identified as suitable for PC. For the first questionnaire, 12 of the 28 hospital SEs were considered adaptable to PC, of which 11 were re-drafts. Thirty-seven experts proposed new SEs. These mainly concerned problems with medication and vaccines, delay, or lack of assistance, diagnostic delays, and problems with diagnostic tests, and were finally summarised in 5 SEs. In the second questionnaire, ≥<!--> <!-->65% of the experts chose the alternative wording against the original cases for the 11 SEs suitable for PC. The 5 newly included SEs were considered adequate with a positive response of 70-85%.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Having a list of SEs available in PC will help to improve the management of health care risks.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101101,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Calidad Asistencial","volume":"32 5","pages":"Pages 269-277"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cali.2017.03.003","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Calidad Asistencial","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1134282X17300258","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Objective
To identify and describe a list of sentinel events (SEs) for Primary Care (PC).
Methododology
A structured experts’ consensus was obtained by using two online questionnaires. The participants were selected because of their expertise in PC and patient safety. The first questionnaire assessed the suitability of the hospital SEs established in the National Quality Forum 2006 for use in PC via responses of “yes”, “no”, or “yes but with modification”. In the latter case, a re-wording of the SE was requested. Additionally, inclusion of new SEs was also allowed. The second questionnaire included those SEs with positive responses (“yes”, “yes with modification”), so that the experts could choose between the original and alternative drafts, and evaluate the newly described SEs.
Results
The questionnaires were completed by 44 out of a total of the 47 experts asked to participate, and a total of 17 SEs were identified as suitable for PC. For the first questionnaire, 12 of the 28 hospital SEs were considered adaptable to PC, of which 11 were re-drafts. Thirty-seven experts proposed new SEs. These mainly concerned problems with medication and vaccines, delay, or lack of assistance, diagnostic delays, and problems with diagnostic tests, and were finally summarised in 5 SEs. In the second questionnaire, ≥ 65% of the experts chose the alternative wording against the original cases for the 11 SEs suitable for PC. The 5 newly included SEs were considered adequate with a positive response of 70-85%.
Conclusion
Having a list of SEs available in PC will help to improve the management of health care risks.