Characterization of adverse events detected in a large health care delivery system using an enhanced global trigger tool over a five-year interval.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To report 5 years of adverse events (AEs) identified using an enhanced Global Trigger Tool (GTT) in a large health care system.Study setting
Records from monthly random samples of adults admitted to eight acute care hospitals from 2007 to 2011 with lengths of stay ≥3 days were reviewed.Study design
We examined AE incidence overall and by presence on admission, severity, stemming from care provided versus omitted, preventability, and category; and the overlap with commonly used AE-detection systems.Data collection
Professional nurse reviewers abstracted 9,017 records using the enhanced GTT, recording triggers and AEs. Medical record/account numbers were matched to identify overlapping voluntary reports or AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs).Principal findings
Estimated AE rates were as follows: 61.4 AEs/1,000 patient-days, 38.1 AEs/100 discharges, and 32.1 percent of patients with ≥1 AE. Of 1,300 present-on-admission AEs (37.9 percent of total), 78.5 percent showed NCC-MERP level F harm and 87.6 percent were "preventable/possibly preventable." Of 2,129 hospital-acquired AEs, 63.3 percent had level E harm, 70.8 percent were "preventable/possibly preventable"; the most common category was "surgical/procedural" (40.5 percent). Voluntary reports and PSIs captured <5 percent of encounters with hospital-acquired AEs.Conclusions
AEs are common and potentially amenable to prevention. GTT-identified AEs are seldom caught by commonly used AE-detection systems.
SUBMITTER: Kennerly DA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4213042 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Characterization of adverse events detected in a large health care delivery system using an enhanced global trigger tool over a five-year interval.
Kennerly Donald A DA Kudyakov Rustam R da Graca Briget B Saldaña Margaret M Compton Jan J Nicewander David D Gilder Richard R
Health services research 20140313 5
<h4>Objective</h4>To report 5 years of adverse events (AEs) identified using an enhanced Global Trigger Tool (GTT) in a large health care system.<h4>Study setting</h4>Records from monthly random samples of adults admitted to eight acute care hospitals from 2007 to 2011 with lengths of stay ≥3 days were reviewed.<h4>Study design</h4>We examined AE incidence overall and by presence on admission, severity, stemming from care provided versus omitted, preventability, and category; and the overlap wit ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the level, preventability and categories of adverse events (AEs) identified by medical record review using the Global Trigger Tool (GTT). To estimate when the AE occurred in the course of the hospital stay and to compare voluntary AE reporting with medical record reviewing.DesignTwo-stage retrospective record review.Setting650-bed university hospital.Participants20 randomly selected medical records were reviewed every month from 2009 to 2012.Primary and secondary outcome measuresAE/1000 patient-days. Proportion of AEs found by GTT found also in the voluntary reporting system. AE categorisation. Description of when during hospital stay AEs occur.ResultsA total of 271 AEs were detected in the 960 medical records reviewed, corresponding to 33.2 AEs/1000 patient-days or 20.5% of the patients. Of the AEs, 6.3% were reported in the voluntary AE reporting system. Hospital-acquired infections were the most common AE category. The AEs occurred and were detected during the hospital stay in 65.5% of cases; the rest occurred or were detected within 30 days before or after the hospital stay. The AE usually occurred early during the hospital stay, and the hospital stay was 5 days longer on average for patients with an AE.ConclusionsRecord reviewing identified AEs to a much larger extent than voluntary AE reporting. Healthcare organisations should consider using a portfolio of tools to gain a comprehensive picture of AEs. Substantial costs could be saved if AEs were prevented.
| S-EPMC4039822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many hospitals continue to use incident reporting systems (IRSs) as their primary patient safety data source. The information IRSs collect on the frequency of harm to patients [adverse events (AEs)] is generally of poor quality, and some incident types (e.g. diagnostic errors) are under-reported. Other methods of collecting patient safety information using medical record review, such as the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), have been developed. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review to empirically quantify the gap between the percentage of AEs detected using the GTT to those that are also detected via IRSs. The review was conducted in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies published in English, which collected AE data using the GTT and IRSs, were included. In total, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were undertaken in hospitals and were published between 2006 and 2022. The studies were conducted in six countries, mainly in the USA (nine studies). Studies reviewed 22 589 medical records using the GTT across 107 institutions finding 7166 AEs. The percentage of AEs detected using the GTT that were also detected in corresponding IRSs ranged from 0% to 37.4% with an average of 7.0% (SD 9.1; median 3.9 and IQR 5.2). Twelve of the fourteen studies found <10% of the AEs detected using the GTT were also found in corresponding IRSs. The >10-fold gap between the detection rates of the GTT and IRSs is strong evidence that the rate of AEs collected in IRSs in hospitals should not be used to measure or as a proxy for the level of safety of a hospital. IRSs should be recognized for their strengths which are to detect rare, serious, and new incident types and to enable analysis of contributing and contextual factors to develop preventive and corrective strategies. Health systems should use multiple patient safety data sources to prioritize interventions and promote a cycle of action and improvement based on data rather than merely just collecting and analysing information.
| S-EPMC10367579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesNear misses include conditions with potential for harm, intercepted medical errors, and events requiring monitoring or intervention to prevent harm. Little is reported on near misses or their importance for quality and safety in the emergency department (ED).MethodsThis is a secondary evaluation of data from a retrospective study of the ED Trigger Tool (EDTT) at an urban, academic ED (data from October 1, 2014, to October 31, 2015; 92,859 eligible visits). All patients 18 years and older completing a visit were eligible. We ran the EDTT, a computerized query for triggers on 13 months of ED visit data, reviewing 5582 selected records using a 2-tiered approach. Events were categorized by occurrence (ED vs present on arrival [POA]), severity, omission/commission, and type, using a taxonomy with categories, subcategories, and cross-cutting modifiers.ResultsWe identified 1458 ED near misses in 1269 of 5582 records (22.7%) and 80 near misses that were POA. Patient care events represented most ED near misses, including delays in diagnosis, treatment, and failure to monitor, primarily driven by ED boarding and crowding. Medication events were second most common (17%), including 80 medication administration errors. Of 80 POA events, 42% were related to overanticoagulation. We estimate that 19.3% of all ED visits include a near miss.ConclusionsNear-miss events are relatively common (22.7% of our sample, 19.3% in the population) and are associated with an increased risk for an adverse event. Most events were patient care related (77%) involving delays due to crowding and ED boarding followed by medication administration errors. The EDTT is a high-yield approach for detecting important near misses and latent system deficiencies that impact patient safety.
| S-EPMC9974611 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Prehospital emergency care has developed rapidly during the past decades. The care is given in a complex context which makes prehospital care a potential high-risk activity when it comes to patient safety. Patient safety in the prehospital setting has been only sparsely investigated. The aims of the present study were 1) To investigate the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in prehospital care and 2) To investigate the factors contributing to AEs in prehospital care. METHODS:We used a retrospective study design where 30 randomly selected prehospital medical records were screened for AEs each month in three prehospital organizations in Sweden during a period of one year. A total of 1080 prehospital medical records were included. The record review was based on the use of 11 screening criteria. RESULTS:The reviewers identified 46 AEs in 46 of 1080 (4.3%) prehospital medical records. Of the 46 AEs, 43 were classified as potential for harm (AE1) (4.0, 95% CI = 2.9-5.4) and three as harm identified (AE2) (0.3, 95% CI = 0.1-0.9). However, among patients with a life-threatening condition (priority 1), the risk of AE was higher (16.5%). The most common factors contributing to AEs were deviations from standard of care and missing, incomplete, or unclear documentation. The most common cause of AEs was the result of action(s) or inaction(s) by the emergency medical service (EMS) crew. CONCLUSIONS:There were 4.3 AEs per 100 ambulance missions in Swedish prehospital care. The majority of AEs originated from deviations from standard of care and incomplete documentation. There was an increase in the risk of AE among patients who the EMS team assessed as having a life-threatening condition. Most AEs were possible to avoid.
| S-EPMC6345067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely.ObjectiveThis study aimed: (1) to synthesize available evidence on AE incidence in acute care inpatient settings using Trigger Tool methodology; and (2) to explore whether study characteristics and study quality explain variations in reported AE incidence.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsTo identify relevant studies, we queried PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and three journals in the patient safety field (last update search 25.05.2022). Eligible publications fulfilled the following criteria: adult inpatient samples; acute care hospital settings; Trigger Tool methodology; focus on specialty of internal medicine, surgery or oncology; published in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. Systematic reviews and studies addressing adverse drug events or exclusively deceased patients were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Our main outcome of interest was AEs per 100 admissions. We assessed nine study characteristics plus study quality as potential sources of variation using random regression models. We received no funding and did not register this review.ResultsScreening 6,685 publications yielded 54 eligible studies covering 194,470 admissions. The cumulative AE incidence was 30.0 per 100 admissions (95% CI 23.9-37.5; I2 = 99.7%) and between study heterogeneity was high with a prediction interval of 5.4-164.7. Overall studies' risk of bias and applicability-related concerns were rated as low. Eight out of nine methodological study characteristics did explain some variation of reported AE rates, such as patient age and type of hospital. Also, study quality did explain variation.ConclusionEstimates of AE studies using trigger tool methodology vary while explaining variation is seriously hampered by the low standards of reporting such as the timeframe of AE detection. Specific reporting guidelines for studies using retrospective medical record review methodology are necessary to strengthen the current evidence base and to help explain between study variation.
| S-EPMC9436152 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTraditional approaches to safety and quality screening in the emergency department (ED) are porous and low yield for identifying adverse events (AEs). A better approach may be in the use of trigger tool methodology. We recently developed a novel ED trigger tool using a multidisciplinary, multicenter approach. We conducted a multicenter test of this tool and assess its performance.MethodsIn design and participants, we studied the ED trigger tool for a 13-month period at four EDs. All patients 18 years and older with Emergency Severity Index acuity levels of 1 to 3 seen by a provider were eligible. Reviewers completed standardized training modules. Each site reviewed 50 randomly selected visits per month. A first-level reviewer screened for presence of predefined triggers (findings that increase the probability of an AE). If no trigger is present, the review is deemed complete. When present, a trigger prompts an in-depth review for an AE. Any event identified is assigned a level of harm using the Medication Event Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index, ranging from a near miss (A) to patient death (I). Events are noted as present on arrival or in the ED, an act of commission or omission, and are assigned one of four event categories. A second-level physician performs a confirmatory review of all AEs and independently reviews 10% of cases to estimate the false-negative rate. All AEs or potential AEs were reviewed in monthly group calls for consensus on findings. The primary outcome is the proportion of visits in which an AE is identified, overall and by site. Secondary outcomes include categories of events, distribution of harm ratings, and association of AEs with sociodemographic and clinical factors and triggers. We present sociodemographic data and details about AEs and results of logistic regression for associations of AEs with of triggers, sociodemographics, and clinical variables.ResultsWe captured 2594 visits that are representative, within site, of their patient population. Overall, the sample is 64% white, 54% female, and with a mean age of 51. Variability is observed between sites for age, race, and insurance, but not sex. A total of 240 events were identified in 228 visits (8.8%) of which 53.3% were present on arrival, 19.7% were acts of omission, and 44.6% were medication-related, with some variability across sites. A MERP F score (contributing to need for admission, higher level of care, or prolonged hospitalization) was the most common severity level (35.4% of events). Overall, 185 (77.1%) of 240 events involved patient harm (MERP level ≥ E), affecting 175 visits (6.7%). Triggers were present in 951 visits (36.6%). Presence of any trigger was strongly associated with an AE (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6, 95% confidence interval = 3.2-6.6). Ten triggers were individually associated with AEs (adjusted odds ratio = 2.1-7.7). Variability was observed across sites in individual trigger associations, event rates, and categories, but not in severity ratings of events. The overall false-negative rate was 6.1%.ConclusionsThe trigger tool approach was successful in identifying meaningful events. The ED trigger tool seems to be a promising approach for identifying all-cause harm in the ED.
| S-EPMC6343477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsThe occurrence rate of adverse events (AEs) related to care among hospitalized oncology patients in Switzerland remains unknown. The primary objective of this study was to describe, for the first time, the occurrence rate, type, severity of harm, and preventability of AEs related to care, reported in health records of hospitalized hematological and solid-tumor cancer patients in three Swiss hospitals.MethodsUsing an adapted version of the validated Global Trigger Tool (GTT) from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, we conducted a retrospective record review of patients discharged from oncology units over a 6-week period during 2018. Our convenience sample included all records from adult patients (≥18 years of age), diagnosed with cancer, and hospitalized (>24 hours). Per the GTT method, two trained nurses independently assessed patient records to identify AEs using triggers, and physicians from the included units analyzed the consensus of the two nurses. Together, they assessed the severity and preventability of each AE.ResultsFrom the sample of 224 reviewed records, we identified 661 triggers and 169 AEs in 94 of them (42%). Pain related to care was the most frequent AE (n = 29), followed by constipation (n = 17). AEs rates were 75.4 per 100 admissions and 106.6 per 1000 patient days. Most of the identified AEs (78%) caused temporary harm to the patient and required an intervention. Among AEs during hospitalization (n = 125), 76 (61%) were considered not preventable, 28 (22%) preventable, and 21 (17%) undetermined.ConclusionAbout half of the hospitalized oncology patients suffered from at least one AE related to care during their hospitalization. Pain, constipation, and nosocomial infections were the most frequent AEs. It is, therefore, essential to identify AEs to guide future clinical practice initiatives to ensure patient safety.
| S-EPMC7217322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPregnant women belong to the special population of drug therapy, and their physiological state, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are significantly different from the general population. Drug safety during pregnancy involves two generations, which is a hot issue widely concerned in the whole society. Global Trigger Tool (GTT) of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has been wildly used as a patient safety measurement strategy by several institutions and national programs, and the effectiveness had been demonstrated. But only one study reports the use of GTT in obstetric delivery until now. The aim of the study is to establish triggers detecting adverse drug events (ADEs) suitable for obstetric inpatients on the basis of the GTT, to examine the performance of the obstetric triggers in detecting ADEs experienced by obstetric units compared with the spontaneous reporting system and GTT, and to assess the utility and value of the obstetric trigger tool in identifying ADEs of obstetric inpatients.MethodsBased on a literature review searched in PubMed and CNKI from January of 1997 to October of 2023, retrospective local obstetric ADEs investigations, relevant obstetric guidelines and the common adverse reactions of obstetric therapeutic drugs were involved to establish the initial obstetric triggers. According to the Delphi method, two rounds of expert questionnaire survey were conducted among 16 obstetric and neonatological physicians and pharmacists until an agreement was reached. A retrospective study was conducted to identity ADEs in 300 obstetric inpatient records at the Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital from June 1 to September 30, 2018. Two trained junior pharmacists analyzed the first eligible records independently, and the included records reviewed by trained pharmacist and physician to identify ADEs. Sensitivity and specificity of the established obstetric triggers were assessed by the number of ADEs/100 patients and positive predictive value with the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and GTT. Excel 2010 and SPSS22 were used for data analysis.ResultsThrough two rounds of expert investigation, 39 preliminary triggers were established that comprised four modules (12 laboratory tests, 9 medications, 14 symptoms, and 4 outcomes). A total of 300 medical records were reviewed through the obstetric triggers, of which 48 cases of ADEs were detected, with an incidence of ADEs of 16%. Among the 39 obstetric triggers, 22 (56.41%) were positive and 11 of them detected ADEs. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 36.36%, and the number of ADEs/100 patients was 16.33 (95% CI, 4.19-17.81). The ADE detection rate, positive trigger rate, and PPV for the obstetric triggers were significantly augmented, confirming that the obstetric triggers were more specific and sensitive than SRS and GTT.ConclusionThe obstetric triggers were proven to be sensitive and specific in the active monitoring of ADE for obstetric inpatients, which might serve as a reference for ADE detection of obstetric inpatients at medical institutions.
| S-EPMC10789046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveHome healthcare is an increasingly common part of healthcare. The patients are often aged, frail and have multiple diseases, and multiple caregivers are involved in their treatment. This study explores the origin, incidence, types and preventability of adverse events (AEs) that occur in patients receiving home healthcare.DesignA study using retrospective record review and trigger tool methodology.Setting and methodsTen teams with experience of home healthcare from nine regions across Sweden reviewed home healthcare records in a two-stage procedure using 38 predefined triggers in four modules. A random sample of records from 600 patients (aged 18 years or older) receiving home healthcare during 2015 were reviewed.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe cumulative incidence of AEs found in patients receiving home healthcare; secondary measures were origin, types, severity of harm and preventability of the AEs.ResultsThe patients were aged 20-79 years, 280 men and 320 women. The review teams identified 356 AEs in 226 (37.7%; 95% CI 33.0 to 42.8) of the home healthcare records. Of these, 255 (71.6%; 95% CI 63.2 to 80.8) were assessed as being preventable, and most (246, 69.1%; 95% CI 60.9 to 78.2) required extra healthcare visits or led to a prolonged period of healthcare. Most of the AEs (271, 76.1%; 95% CI 67.5 to 85.6) originated in home healthcare; the rest were detected during home healthcare but were related to care outside home healthcare. The most common AEs were healthcare-associated infections, falls and pressure ulcers.ConclusionsAEs in patients receiving home healthcare are common, mostly preventable and often cause temporary harm requiring extra healthcare resources. The most frequent types of AEs must be addressed and reduced through improvements in interprofessional collaboration. This is an important area for future studies.
| S-EPMC5781156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe developed a paediatric haemodialysis trigger tool (pHTT) for application per haemodialysis (HD) session in children receiving intermittent in-centre HD and systematically monitored adverse events.MethodsSingle-centre quality improvement study performed over two 8-week cycles. Data collected prospectively using a 'per-dialysis session' pHTT tool including 54 triggers across six domains, adapted from a recently described haemodialysis trigger tool (HTT) for adults. Each trigger was evaluated for level of harm following assessment by two authors. Following a period of training, HD nurses completed the HTT at the end of each dialysis session.ResultsThere were 241 triggers over 182 dialysis sessions, with 139 triggers in 91 HD sessions for 15 children, age range 28-205 months, over an 8-week period (first cycle) and 102 triggers in 91 HD sessions for 13 children, age range 28-205 months, over a further 8-week period (second cycle). After interventions informed by the pHTT, the harm rate per session was significantly reduced from 1.03 (94/91) to 0.32 (29/91), P < 0.001. There was a significant difference between the distribution of triggers by harm category (P < 0.001) and between the proportion of triggers across the various domains of the pHTT (P = 0.004) between the two cycles. No triggers were evaluated as causing permanent harm.ConclusionsThis pilot study demonstrates potential benefits of a bedside tool to monitor adverse events during haemodialysis in children. Thus, following interventions informed by the pHTT, the harm rate per session was significantly reduced. Under standard patient safety systems, the vast majority of triggers identified by the pHTT would remain unreported and perhaps lead to missed opportunities to improve patient safety. We propose the use of a paediatric HTT as part of standard care by centres providing HD to children in the future. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.
| S-EPMC9925574 | biostudies-literature