Incidents in the context of pre-hospital care by ambulances: contributions to patient safety.
Eric Rosa Pereira, Graciele Oroski Paes
PMID 38018615WHAT IT FOUND
Patient safety incidents were frequent in Brazilian ambulance care, especially missing patient identification, incomplete or illegible handover records, and hand hygiene lapses.
Nurses should treat identification, medication, hygiene, and transfer gaps as routine risks, not rare errors.
Key findings
01During 439.5 hours of observation, 2386 incidents were identified during ambulance care.
02Of the goal-related incidents, the paper reported 794 for effective communication, 383 for hand hygiene and infection risk, 237 for correct identification, 192 for medication safety, and 72 for fall or pressure injury risk.
03The goal compliance data recorded patient identification as 'no' in 238 observations (100%), hand hygiene between procedures as 'yes' in 17 observations (7.2%), and proper medication preparation as 'yes' in 50 observations (38.2%).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was conducted in one ambulance service in one municipality, so it may not reflect other pre-hospital services. One researcher observed all care, limiting comparison between observers. The methods section states 239 incidents, while the results section states 2386 incidents, leaving the denominator unclear. The study was descriptive; it did not test an intervention or follow patient outcomes, so incident counts cannot show whether care caused harm or whether proposed fixes reduce incidents. The authors note that specific pre-hospital safety literature is scarce, and they relied on references mainly from intra-hospital care.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the incident counts as proof that ambulance care is generally unsafe or that checklists, bracelets, or training will reduce harm. This was a single-center, single-observer descriptive study with no control group, no intervention test, and no patient outcome follow-up.