BackgroundThere has been a theoretical debate as to which retrospective record review method is the most valid, reliable, cost efficient and feasible for detecting adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and capability of two common retrospective record review methods, the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” in detecting adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients.MethodsWe performed a three-stage structured retrospective record review process in a random sample of 350 orthopaedic admissions during 2009 at a Swedish university hospital. Two teams comprised each of a registered nurse and two physicians were assigned, one to each method. All records were primarily reviewed by registered nurses. Records containing a potential adverse event were forwarded to physicians for review in stage 2. Physicians made an independent review regarding, for example, healthcare causation, preventability and severity. In the third review stage all adverse events that were found with the two methods together were compared and all discrepancies after review stage 2 were analysed. Events that had not been identified by one of the methods in the first two review stages were reviewed by the respective physicians.ResultsAltogether, 160 different adverse events were identified in 105 (30.0%) of the 350 records with both methods combined. The “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method identified 155 of the 160 (96.9%, 95% CI: 92.9-99.0) adverse events in 104 (29.7%) records compared with 137 (85.6%, 95% CI: 79.2-90.7) adverse events in 98 (28.0%) records using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Adverse events “causing harm without permanent disability” accounted for most of the observed difference. The overall positive predictive value for criteria and triggers using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” was 40.3% and 30.4%, respectively.ConclusionsMore adverse events were identified using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method than using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Differences in review methodology, perception of less severe adverse events and context knowledge may explain the observed difference between two expert review teams in the detection of adverse events.

A comparison was made of the effects of continuous epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and intermittent epidural morphine on bowel function after abdominal hysterectomy. The duration of postoperative ileus was assessed as the time from the end of operation to the first postoperative passage of flatus and feces. Twenty-two patients were randomly allocated to two equal groups. An "epidural morphine" group received general anesthesia and epidural morphine for postoperative pain relief, and an "epidural bupivacaine" group was given combined general anesthesia and epidural anesthesia with 0.5% bupivacaine intraoperatively and epidural analgesia with 0.25% bupivacaine postoperatively. Epidural morphine or bupivacaine was given for 42 h postoperatively. Pain intensity (visual analog scale) was low in both groups, but lower (P less than 0.05) in the epidural bupivacaine group. The time to first passage of flatus was 22 +/- 16 h in the epidural bupivacaine group and 56 +/- 22 h in the epidural morphine group (P less than 0.001). The time to first postoperative passage of feces was shorter (P less than 0.05) in the former than in the latter 57 +/- 44 h vs 92 +/- 22 h). The patients of the epidural bupivacaine group started intake of oral fluids earlier (P less than 0.01) and to a greater extent (P less than 0.05) than those in the epidural morphine group. It is concluded that the duration of postoperative ileus after hysterectomy is shorter when epidural bupivacaine is given for postoperative pain relief than when this is achieved by epidural morphine.

A comparison was made of the effects of continuous epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and intermittent epidural morphine on bowel function after abdominal hysterectomy. The duration of postoperative ileus was assessed as the time from the end of operation to the first postoperative passage of flatus and feces. Twenty–two patients were randomly allocated to two equal groups. An “epidural morphine” group received general anesthesia and epidural morphine for postoperative pain relief, and an “epidural bupivacaine” group was given combined general anesthesia and epidural anesthesia with 0.5% bupivacaine intraoperatively and epidural analgesia with 0.25% bupivacaine postoperatively. Epidural morphine or bupivacaine was given for 42 h postoperatively. Pain intensity (visual analog scale) was low in both groups, but lower (P < 0.05) in the epidural bupivacaine group. The time to first passage of flatus was 22 16 h in the epidural bupivacaine group and 56 22 h in the epidural morphine group (P < 0.001). The time to first postoperative passage of feces was shorter (P < 0.05) in the former than in the latter (57 44 h vs 92 22 h). The patients of the epidural bupivacaine group started intake of oral fluids earlier (P<0.01) and to a greater extent (P < 0.05) than those in the epidural morphine group. It is concluded that the duration of postoperative ileus after hysterectomy is shorter when epidural bupivacaine is given for postoperative pain relief than when this is achieved by epidural morphine.

No abstract

E.+cntion d t s dbJdrenLes pniqties. d e Pechappement.