PubMed · 10160818
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Rakatansky. 1992. Prototype handrail.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10160818/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence and types of preventable adverse events in elderly patients. DESIGN: Review of random sample of medical records in two stage process by nurses and physicians to detect adverse events. Two study investigators then judged preventability. SETTING: Hospitals in US states of Utah and Colorado, excluding psychiatric and Veterans Administration hospitals. SUBJECTS: 15 000 hospitalised patients discharged in 1992. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of preventable adverse events (number of preventable events per 100 discharges) in elderly patients (>/=65 years old) and non-elderly patients (16-64 years). RESULTS: When results were extrapolated to represent all discharges in 1992 in both states, non-elderly patients had 8901 adverse events (incidence 2.80% (SE 0.18%)) compared with 7419 (5.29% (0.37%)) among elderly patients (P=0.001). Non-elderly patients had 5038 preventable adverse events (incidence 1.58% (0.14%)) compared with 4134 (2.95% (0.28%)) in elderly patients (P=0.001). Elderly patients had a higher incidence of preventable events related to medical procedures (such as thoracentesis, cardiac catheterisation) (0.69% (0.14%) v 0.13% (0.04%)), preventable adverse drug events (0.63% (0.14%) v 0.17% (0.05%)), and preventable falls (0.10% (0.06%) v 0.01% (0.02%)). In multivariate analyses, adjusted for comorbid illnesses and case mix, age was not an independent predictor of preventable adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Preventable adverse events were more common among elderly patients, probably because of the clinical complexity of their care rather than age based discrimination. Preventable adverse drug events, events related to medical procedures, and falls were especially common in elderly patients and should be targets for efforts to prevent errors.
BACKGROUND: Physical activity has been related to reduced risk of osteoporotic hip fractures, but the evidence among men is weak. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between baseline leisure physical activity and future risk of osteoporotic hip fracture in men. METHODS: At baseline in 1975 our prospective study cohort included 3,262 men who were 44 years or older and did not have chronic disease restricting their ability to exercise. At baseline, physical activity was assessed by a questionnaire. Hip fractures were followed for 21 years, or from the age of 50 years for subjects who were initially younger than 50 years. RESULTS: The hazard ratio of osteoporotic hip fracture, adjusted for other possible predictors (height, body mass index, baseline diseases, smoking, use of alcohol, work-related physical activity, and occupational group), in men participating in vigorous physical activity compared with men not participating was 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.91) (P = .03). CONCLUSION: These results provide further evidence that there is an inverse association between baseline physical activity and future hip fracture risk among men.
Prognostic models are used in medicine for investigating patient outcome in relation to patient and disease characteristics. Such models do not always work well in practice, so it is widely recommended that they need to be validated. The idea of validating a prognostic model is generally taken to mean establishing that it works satisfactorily for patients other than those from whose data it was derived. In this paper we examine what is meant by validation and review why it is necessary. We consider how to validate a model and suggest that it is desirable to consider two rather different aspects - statistical and clinical validity - and examine some general approaches to validation. We illustrate the issues using several case studies.