Adverse Events in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Patient safety concerns over the past 2 decades have prompted widespread efforts to reduce adverse events (AEs). It is unclear whether these efforts have resulted in reductions in hospital-wide AE rates. We used a validated safety surveillance tool, the Global Assessment of Pediatric Patient Safety, to measure temporal trends (2007–2012) in AE rates among hospitalized children. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective surveillance study of randomly selected pediatric inpatient records from 16 teaching and nonteaching hospitals. We constructed Poisson regression models with hospital random intercepts, controlling for patient age, sex, insurance, and chronic conditions, to estimate changes in AE rates over time. RESULTS: Examining 3790 records, reviewers identified 414 AEs (19.1 AEs per 1000 patient days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.2–20.9) and 210 preventable AEs (9.5 AEs per 1000 patient days; 95% CI 8.2–10.8). On average, teaching hospitals had higher AE rates than nonteaching hospitals (26.2 [95% CI 23.7–29.0] vs 5.1 [95% CI 3.7–7.1] AEs per 1000 patient days, P < .001). Chronically ill children had higher AE rates than patients without chronic conditions (33.9 [95% CI 24.5–47.0] vs 14.0 [95% CI 11.8–16.5] AEs per 1000 patient days, P < .001). Multivariate analyses revealed no significant changes in AE rates over time. When stratified by hospital type, neither teaching nor nonteaching hospitals experienced significant temporal AE rate variations. CONCLUSIONS: AE rates in pediatric inpatients are high and did not improve from 2007 to 2012. Pediatric AE rates were substantially higher in teaching hospitals as well as in patients with more chronic conditions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most studies have not found temporal reductions in the overall rate of harm attributable to medical care over the time period under study that could explain the results.
“While some reductions in the rate of medical errors may be attributable to secular trends, most studies have not found temporal reductions in the overall rate of harm attributable to medical care over the time period under study that could explain our results.40–43”
From National improvements in resident physician-reported patient safety after limiting first-year resident physicians’ extended duration work shifts: a pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
The Discussion (p. 7) reports no significant decline in adverse events among hospitalized children from 2007 to 2012 and says broader multicenter studies of hospitalized adults also found no change in harm rates. It also notes declines in some adult studies; it does not establish that *most* studies found no reduction or that their study periods match the citing authors’ period. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHarm rates in pediatrics remain high (19.1 adverse events per 1000 inpatient days) despite nationwide efforts to improve patient safety.
“Harm rates in pediatrics remain high (19.1 adverse events per 1000 inpatient days) despite nationwide efforts to improve patient safety (22).”
From DrugCentral 2023 extends human clinical data and integrates veterinary drugs (2023) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 107
- Authors
- Stockwell, D. C., Landrigan, C. P., Toomey, S. L., Loren, S. S., Jang, J., Quinn, J. A., Ashrafzadeh, S., Wang, M. J., Wu, M., Sharek, P. J., Classen, D. C., Srivastava, R., Parry, G., Schuster, M. A., & for the GAPPS Study Group
- Affiliations
- Children's National (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine and
- Intermountain Healthcare (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2018-08-01
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- PMC
- PMC6317760
- OpenAlex
- W2883565265
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 13.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U18HS020513)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
- Keywords
- adverse events, pediatric patient safety, hospitalized children, preventable adverse events, temporal trends, teaching hospitals, chronic disease, safety surveillance, hospital type
- MeSH terms
- Child, Child, Hospitalized, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Iatrogenic Disease, Male, Random Allocation, Retrospective Studies, Medical Errors, Electronic Health Records, Patient Safety
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review