Bed 13 is not worse than any other. A retrospective cohort study

Abstract

IntroductionRisk management and patient safety are closely related, following this premise some industries have adopted measures to omit number 13. Healthcare is not left behind, in some hospital the day of surgery's or bed numbering avoid number 13. The objective was to assess whether it is necessary to redesign the safety policies implemented in hospitals based on avoiding 13 in the numbering of rooms/beds. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted. Mortality and the number of adverse events suffered by patients admitted to rooms/beds numbering 13 (bad chance) or 7 (fair chance) over a two-year period to Intensive Care Unit, Medicine, Gastroenterology, Surgery, and Paediatric service were registered and compared. ResultsA total of 8553 admissions were included. They had similar length-of-stay and Charlson Index scores (p-value=0.435). Mortality of bed 13 was 268 (6.2%, 95% CI 5.5–6.9) and 282 in bed 7 (6.7%, 95% CI 5.9–7.5) (p-value=0.3). A total of 422 adverse events from 4342 admissions (9.7%, 95% CI 8.9–10.6) occurred in bed 13, while in bed 7 the count of adverse events was 398 in 4211 admissions (9.4%, 95% CI 8.6–10.4) (p-value=0.6). Odds Ratio for mortality was equal to 0.9 (95% CI 0.8–1.1) and suffering adverse events when admitted to bed 13 versus bed 7 was 1.03 (95% CI 0.9–1.2). ConclusionsBed 13 is not a risk factor for patient safety. Hospitals should pay attention to causes and interventions to avoid adverse events based on evidence rather than beliefs or myths.