Which method best catches hospital errors? study puts four to the test
NCT ID NCT07705204
First seen Jul 15, 2026 · Last updated Jul 16, 2026 · Updated 1 time
Summary
This observational study looks at how common adverse events (medical errors or complications) are among hospitalized adults in China and compares four different ways to detect them. Researchers review medical records from five hospitals to identify events, assess their severity and preventability, and evaluate methods like trigger tools and incident reporting systems. The goal is to find the most reliable detection approach to improve patient safety.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only, not medical advice or a prediction.
- What this could lead to
- If successful, this study could identify the most effective way to detect adverse events in hospitals, leading to better patient safety practices.
- What could go wrong
- As an observational study, it does not test a new intervention, so it cannot directly improve safety. Results may vary across different hospital settings.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Study facts
What this study's own registry entry says, in plain language.
- Participants
-
2,807 people
The number who actually took part.
- Started
-
Aug 2025
- Expected to finish
-
Oct 2026
An estimate. End dates often move.
- Lead sponsor
-
Other sponsor
The registry's catch-all category, for sponsors it does not file as a company, a government agency, or a research network.
Who can take part
This study's own entry requirements. Only the study team can say for certain whether you qualify.
Who is studied
The study population consisted of inpatient admissions to 5 participating public general hospitals in Beijing, China, during 2024. Eligible admissions were identified according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Stratified random sampling was used, with sample sizes allocated in proportion to hospital admission volumes. Within each site, eligible admissions were randomly selected with equal selection probabilities. The final study sample included 2,843 admissions.
- Ages
-
18 years and older
- Sex
-
Anyone
- Healthy volunteers
-
Not accepted
This study is not open to healthy volunteers. The entry requirements below say who it is open to.
Show the full entry requirements Hide the full entry requirements
Copied word for word from the study's registry entry, so the wording is the study team's rather than ours.
Inclusion Criteria: * age ≥18 years and a length of stay of at least 24 hours Exclusion Criteria: * Patients admitted primarily for psychiatric disorders, palliative care, or rehabilitation were excluded.
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for Adverse event are added.
By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
Contacts and locations
Locations
-
Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Peking Union Medical College
Beijing, Beijing Municipality, 100730, China
More trials for these conditions
Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.
- Learning from mistakes: a new study maps patient safety in team-based primary care
- Which sedation is safer for TAVR? propofol vs dexmedetomidine
- Phone app aims to catch symptoms early and keep patients out of the hospital
- New cocktail of drugs shows promise against rare lymphoma
- New app aims to prevent medication mishaps during flu season
- New baby formula with breast milk sugars studied for safety and growth