To evaluate how recurrent COVID-19 infections influence the clinical course of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), focusing on moderate-to-severe symptom flare-ups, all-cause mortality and long covid.

Nationwide retrospective cohort study.

Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment database covering the entire Korean population between January 2020 and December 2023.

A total of 313 760 patients aged ≥40 years who met an established operational definition of COPD based on diagnostic codes and inhaled therapy prescriptions. Patients were stratified by the number of COVID-19 events: none, one, two or three or more.

The primary outcomes were moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations and all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was long covid, defined by WHO criteria using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes persisting ≥2 months within 3 months after infection.

Among 313 760 patients, 154 095 (49.1 %) experienced at least one COVID-19 event. COVID-19 infection was associated with increased risk of exacerbations (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.64, 95% CI 1.62 to 1.66) and mortality (aHR 2.25, 95 % CI 2.19 to 2.31). Risk rose progressively with repeated infections, reaching an aHR of 2.41 for exacerbations and 2.93 for mortality after three or more events. Long covid was more frequent in patients with multiple infections, but most cases occurred after the first event, with diminishing occurrence after subsequent infections.

Recurrent COVID-19 infections in patients with COPD were linked to progressively higher risk of exacerbations and mortality, whereas the burden of long covid was greatest after the first infection. Preventing the initial infection and reducing reinfection risk remain critical components of COPD care in the post-COVID-19 era.

Diagnostic errors in primary care are common, particularly in the interpretation and follow-up of abnormal haemoglobin (Hgb) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) results. These errors frequently result in missed or delayed diagnoses of serious conditions such as anaemia and chronic kidney disease. This protocol describes a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial designed to evaluate a novel, evidence-based, team-based intervention aimed at improving diagnostic safety and efficiency.

The study will be conducted across 12 University of Texas Physicians (UTPs) primary care clinics in Houston, Texas, USA. Adult patients (≥18 years) with newly identified abnormal Hgb or eGFR results will be eligible for inclusion. The intervention integrates automated tracking of abnormal laboratory results, nurse navigators to support patient follow-up and engagement, and clinical pathologists to provide diagnostic guidance to primary care providers. The primary outcome is diagnostic safety, defined as the proportion of patients who receive a correct diagnosis within 6 months. Secondary outcomes include diagnostic efficiency, appropriate test utilisation, cost-effectiveness, patient activation and implementation metrics such as acceptability, fidelity and sustainability. The study will also explore barriers and facilitators to successful implementation using mixed-methods evaluation.

This trial has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and findings will be reported to UTP leadership to inform potential system-wide implementation.

NCT05735314.

This study aimed to examine adverse event occurrences in outpatient care settings and healthcare utilisation after discharge and to identify the characteristics of patients at high risk of safety issues during the care transition from the hospital to their homes. In addition, the performance of outpatient triggers for the detection of adverse events was explored.

A retrospective cohort study using hospital medical record reviews over 6 months postdischarge.

A tertiary teaching hospital in South Korea.

A total of 746 adult patient medical records mainly including patients potentially at high risk of adverse events were analysed, comprising 5439 outpatient visits.

Occurrence of adverse events.

Approximately 14.2% of patients experienced at least one adverse event within 6 months postdischarge. Medication-related (84.2%) and surgical/procedural (13.2%) events were common. Most events were mild in severity and assessed as unpreventable. Patients who experienced adverse events had significantly more all-cause re-hospitalisations, emergency room visits and outpatient clinic visits. No difference was found in mortality. Controlling for other variables, multiple logistic regression analysis showed that patients who are overweight (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.90), with circulatory system diseases (OR=0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.96) and with a National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) ≥2 at discharge (OR=0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.54) were less likely to experience adverse events. Those with admissions via emergency rooms or day-surgery centres (OR=1.98, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.32), in medical departments (OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.23), with a diagnosis of cancer (OR=2.03, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.62) and longer hospital stays (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11) were more likely to experience adverse events postdischarge. Outpatient triggers with relatively high performance included ‘constipation with narcotics/calcium channel blockers’, ‘abrupt medication discontinuation’, ‘rash’ and ‘white blood cell count 3’.

Approximately 14% of patients, mainly comprising high-risk patients, experienced adverse events postdischarge, with more emergency room visits and all-cause re-hospitalisations. Patients experiencing adverse events were characterised by body mass index, type of admission route, clinical department, medical diagnosis, length of hospital stay and NEWS2. Patient and caregiver participation in the monitoring and reporting of adverse events should be encouraged to improve postdischarge patient safety. The use of triggers to detect potential patient safety problems is recommended.

High-intensity statin therapy is recommended as a first-line strategy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). A combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe at an equivalent dose to high-intensity statin may achieve similar LDL-C reduction with fewer side effects. This study evaluates the long-term efficacy and safety of this approach, initiated following AMI, compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy.

The ROSUZET-AMI trial is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Patients with AMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised 1:1 to receive either moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin 5 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiovascular death, major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, documented unstable angina requiring hospitalisation and all coronary revascularisation events occurring at least 30 days after randomisation), or non-fatal stroke.

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital (No. 2020-0424-0003). Informed consent is obtained from every participant before randomisation. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed journals, and the key findings will be presented at international scientific conferences.

NCT04499859.

Self-harm and suicide are common among prison inmates, but less is known about these phenomena in those with psychosis.

The aim of this study was to examine self-harm behaviour in New South Wales (NSW) prisons in Australia among inmates diagnosed with psychosis. This study also examined self-harm-related alerts applied by Corrective Services to assist staff with the management of the security and well-being of inmates.

A retrospective case-control data-linkage study was conducted using administrative data collections in NSW, Australia.

The study included all individuals diagnosed with psychosis and incarcerated between 2001 and 2020 in NSW as cases and an age and sex matched control group with no such diagnosis with a record of incarceration in the same time period.

The primary outcome measure was self-harm among the cases and controls. The secondary outcome measure was the application of alerts by Corrective Services in relation to self-harm incidents.

Multivariate regression analysis was used to examine predictors of self-harm in prison. Prisoners with psychosis (n=14 900) were more likely to self-harm than controls (n=2713), with 15.0% versus 3.6% engaging in self-harm (highest odds of self-harm observed in those with schizophrenia and related psychoses, aOR=4.84, 95% CI: 3.93 to 5.98). Those of Aboriginal heritage had an increased risk of self-harm (aOR=1.58, 95% CI: 1.43 to 1.75). Factors associated with a lower risk of self-harm were male sex and older age (≥25 years) at the time of their first incarceration. 35.6% of those released from prison with a prior psychosis diagnosis had at least one alert applied during incarceration compared with 10.1% of prisoners without a diagnosis of psychosis. Overall, 35 individuals with psychosis and 1 individual from the control group died while in prison between 2001 and 2020. 17 prison suicides were recorded from the study population; all occurred in the psychosis group.

Given the heightened risk of self-harm in those with histories of psychosis, consideration should be given to sharing mental health information between agencies to improve the care and management of this group during incarceration. Prison alerts may be a useful tool to help staff manage inmates’ well-being if used appropriately.

The aim of this study is to investigate the use and effectiveness of equity tools in current practices of patient safety incident analyses via a scoping review of the literature.

Scoping review of the literature using the two main search term concepts "health equity" AND "safety review". The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist was used to report in this paper.

Databases including but not limited to MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed were searched from inception to 16 January 2023.

Studies that included an equity tool in patient safety reviews were included. There were no restrictions on language or setting for included studies. Review articles were excluded.

Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search and screen included articles. Data from included studies was extracted and compiled.

Five studies out of 5026 screened studies were included in the final analysis, 4 were conducted in the USA and 1 in Norway. While all studies identified equity domains to guide their approach to the provision of more equitable care, only three proposed change ideas and one implemented their framework to evaluate the role of social determinants and bias in adverse events. Communication was the most common theme found across four of the five studies. Access to healthcare services and bias were included as equity domains in two of the five studies. Implicit bias training was one of the identified change ideas. Other change ideas included improving access and communication, for example, through increasing the use and availability of interpreter services. One of the studies piloted the implementation of their equity checklist and found adverse event causes rooted in equity in 50% of the cases.

This scoping review demonstrates that there is a gap in current patient safety incident analyses, specifically lacking the consideration of equity domains. The development of a comprehensive health equity tool is necessary to promote equitable and safe care.