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.

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.

Our safety recommendation!

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.