↓ Skip to main content

Exploring similarities and differences in hospital adverse event rates between Norway and Sweden using Global Trigger Tool

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring similarities and differences in hospital adverse event rates between Norway and Sweden using Global Trigger Tool
Published in
BMJ Open, March 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012492
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen Tveter Deilkås, Madeleine Borgstedt Risberg, Marion Haugen, Jonas Christoffer Lindstrøm, Urban Nylén, Hans Rutberg, Soop Michael

Abstract

In this paper, we explore similarities and differences in hospital adverse event (AE) rates between Norway and Sweden by reviewing medical records with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT). All acute care hospitals in both countries performed medical record reviews, except one in Norway. Records were randomly selected from all eligible admissions in 2013. Eligible admissions were patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing care with an in-hospital stay of at least 24 hours, excluding psychiatric and care and rehabilitation. Reviews were done according to GTT methodology. Similar contexts for healthcare and similar socioeconomic and demographic characteristics have inspired the Nordic countries to exchange experiences from measuring and monitoring quality and patient safety in healthcare. The co-operation has promoted the use of GTT to monitor national and local rates of AEs in hospital care. 10 986 medical records were reviewed in Norway and 19 141 medical records in Sweden. No significant difference between overall AE rates was found between the two countries. The rate was 13.0% (95% CI 11.7% to 14.3%) in Norway and 14.4% (95% CI 12.6% to 16.3%) in Sweden. There were significantly higher AE rates of surgical complications in Norwegian hospitals compared with Swedish hospitals. Swedish hospitals had significantly higher rates of pressure ulcers, falls and 'other' AEs. Among more severe AEs, Norwegian hospitals had significantly higher rates of surgical complications than Swedish hospitals. Swedish hospitals had significantly higher rates of postpartum AEs. The level of patient safety in acute care hospitals, as assessed by GTT, was essentially the same in both countries. The differences between the countries in the rates of several types of AEs provide new incentives for Norwegian and Swedish governing bodies to address patient safety issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 10%
Engineering 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,418,789
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#4,699
of 25,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,304
of 323,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#114
of 440 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 440 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.