Performance of trigger tools in identifying adverse drug events in emergency department patients: a validation study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
Trigger tools are retrospective surveillance methods that can be used to identify adverse drug events (ADEs), unintended and harmful effects of medications, in medical records. Trigger tools are used in quality improvement, public health surveillance and research activities. The objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of trigger tools in identifying ADEs.Methods
This study was a sub-study of a prospective cohort study which enrolled adults presenting to one tertiary care emergency department. Clinical pharmacists evaluated patients for ADEs at the point-of-care. Twelve months after the prospective study's completion, the patients' medical records were reviewed using eight different trigger tools. ADEs identified using each trigger tool were compared with events identified at the point-of-care. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of each trigger tool for ADEs.Results
Among 1151 patients, 152 (13.2%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 11.4, 15.3%) were diagnosed with one or more ADEs at the point-of-care. The sensitivity of the trigger tools for detecting ADEs ranged from 2.6% (95% CI 0.7, 6.6%) to 15.8% (95% CI 10.6, 22.8%). Their specificity varied from 99.3% (95% CI 98.6, 99.7) to 100% (95% CI 99.6, 100%).Conclusion
The trigger tools examined had poor sensitivity for identifying ADEs in emergency department patients, when applied manually and in retrospect. Reliance on these methods to detect ADEs for quality improvement, surveillance, and research activities is likely to underestimate their occurrence, and may lead to biased estimates.
SUBMITTER: Karpov A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5137830 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Performance of trigger tools in identifying adverse drug events in emergency department patients: a validation study.
Karpov Andrei A Parcero Catherine C Mok Catherine P Y CP Panditha Chandima C Yu Eugenia E Dempster Linda L Hohl Corinne M CM
British journal of clinical pharmacology 20160708 4
<h4>Aims</h4>Trigger tools are retrospective surveillance methods that can be used to identify adverse drug events (ADEs), unintended and harmful effects of medications, in medical records. Trigger tools are used in quality improvement, public health surveillance and research activities. The objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of trigger tools in identifying ADEs.<h4>Methods</h4>This study was a sub-study of a prospective cohort study which enrolled adults presenting to one te ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:There are various trigger tools for detecting adverse drug events (ADEs), however, a drug-related emergency department (ED) visit trigger tool (DrEDTT) has not yet been developed. We aimed to develop and validate a DrEDTT with a multi-center cohort. In this cross-sectional study, we developed the DrEDTT consisting of 28 triggers through a comprehensive literature review and three phase expert group discussion. Next, we evaluated the performance of the DrEDTT by applying it to relevant medical records retrieved from four hospitals from January 2016 to June 2016. Two experts performed an in-depth chart review of a 25% of random sample of trigger flagged and unflagged ED visits and a true ADE was determined through causality assessment. Among 66,564 patients who visited the ED for reasons other than traffic accident and trauma during the study period, at least one trigger was found in 21,268 (32.0%) patients. A total of 959 true ADE cases (5.8%) were identified from a randomly selected 25% of ED visit cases. The overall positive predictive value was 14.0% (range: 8.3-66.7%). Sensitivity and specificity of DrEDTT were 77.7% and 70.4%, respectively. In conclusion, this newly developed trigger tool might be helpful to detect ADE-related ED visits.
| S-EPMC8391800 | 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:ObjectivesAdverse drug events (ADEs) cause or contribute to one in nine emergency department (ED) presentations in North America and are often misdiagnosed. EDs have insufficient clinical pharmacists to complete medication reviews in all incoming patients, even though pharmacist-led medications reviews have been associated with improved health outcomes. Our objective was to validate clinical decision rules to identify patients presenting with ADEs so they could be prioritized for pharmacist-led medication review.MethodsThis multicenter, prospective study was conducted in two tertiary and one community hospital in Canada. We enrolled 1,529 adults presenting to EDs over 12 months. We applied two clinical decision rules and collected baseline variables prior to assessments by clinical pharmacists and physicians. We compared the physician and pharmacist diagnoses with the decision rule results. The primary outcome was a moderate or severe ADE, defined as an unintended and harmful event related to medication use or misuse, which required a change in medical therapy, diagnostic testing, consultation, or admission. An independent committee adjudicated uncertain and discordant cases. We calculated the diagnostic accuracy of both rules.ResultsAmong 1,529 patients, 184 (12.0%) were diagnosed with an ADE. Rule 1 contained the variables 1) having a preexisting medical condition or having taken antibiotics within 1 week and 2) age > 80 years or having a medication change within 28 days. They had a sensitivity of 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.3%-95.0%) and a specificity of 37.9% (95% CI = 35.3%-40.6%) for ADEs.ConclusionsOur study validated clinical decision rules that can be applied by clinical pharmacists to limit the number of patients requiring medication review, while identifying the majority of patients presenting with clinically significant ADEs.
| S-EPMC6175415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 brought attention to adverse drug events in national patient safety efforts. Updated, detailed, nationally representative data describing adverse drug events can help focus these efforts. Objective:To describe the characteristics of emergency department (ED) visits for adverse drug events in the United States in 2013-2014 and describe changes in ED visits for adverse drug events since 2005-2006. Design, Setting, and Participants:Active, nationally representative, public health surveillance in 58 EDs located in the United States and participating in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project. Exposures:Drugs implicated in ED visits. Main Outcomes and Measures:National weighted estimates of ED visits and subsequent hospitalizations for adverse drug events. Results:Based on data from 42?585 cases, an estimated 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.0) ED visits for adverse drug events occurred per 1000 individuals annually in 2013 and 2014 and 27.3% (95% CI, 22.2%-32.4%) of ED visits for adverse drug events resulted in hospitalization. An estimated 34.5% (95% CI, 30.3%-38.8%) of ED visits for adverse drug events occurred among adults aged 65 years or older in 2013-2014 compared with an estimated 25.6% (95% CI, 21.1%-30.0%) in 2005-2006; older adults experienced the highest hospitalization rates (43.6%; 95% CI, 36.6%-50.5%). Anticoagulants, antibiotics, and diabetes agents were implicated in an estimated 46.9% (95% CI, 44.2%-49.7%) of ED visits for adverse drug events, which included clinically significant adverse events, such as hemorrhage (anticoagulants), moderate to severe allergic reactions (antibiotics), and hypoglycemia with moderate to severe neurological effects (diabetes agents). Since 2005-2006, the proportions of ED visits for adverse drug events from anticoagulants and diabetes agents have increased, whereas the proportion from antibiotics has decreased. Among children aged 5 years or younger, antibiotics were the most common drug class implicated (56.4%; 95% CI, 51.8%-61.0%). Among children and adolescents aged 6 to 19 years, antibiotics also were the most common drug class implicated (31.8%; 95% CI, 28.7%-34.9%) in ED visits for adverse drug events, followed by antipsychotics (4.5%; 95% CI, 3.3%-5.6%). Among older adults (aged ?65 years), 3 drug classes (anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioid analgesics) were implicated in an estimated 59.9% (95% CI, 56.8%-62.9%) of ED visits for adverse drug events; 4 anticoagulants (warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and enoxaparin) and 5 diabetes agents (insulin and 4 oral agents) were among the 15 most common drugs implicated. Medications to always avoid in older adults according to Beers criteria were implicated in 1.8% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.1%) of ED visits for adverse drug events. Conclusions and Relevance:The prevalence of emergency department visits for adverse drug events in the United States was estimated to be 4 per 1000 individuals in 2013 and 2014. The most common drug classes implicated were anticoagulants, antibiotics, diabetes agents, and opioid analgesics.
| S-EPMC6490178 | 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-other
Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about which methods are best for detecting adverse events in the emergency department (ED).ObjectivesThis study compared the ability of trigger tool and reporting methods to capture adverse events in the ED and investigated the characteristics of the adverse events identified by each.MethodsThis 1-year prospective observational cohort study evaluated a monitoring system that combined 2 reporting methods and 5 trigger tool methods to capture adverse events in the ED of an academic medical center. Measurement outcomes included the number, type, and physical impact of the captured adverse events.ResultsAmong 69,327 adult nontrauma ED visits, 285 adverse events were identified. Of these adverse events, 77.2% were identified using reporting methods, 26% using trigger tool methods, and 3.2% using both methods. Most patients (81.7%) incurred temporary, minor physical impacts. Of the adverse events that occurred, 86.7% were related to clinical performance. Compared with reporting methods, trigger tool methods had a lower positive predictive rate to identify adverse events (odds ratio [OR], 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.16), a greater proportion of adverse events occurring during the preinterventation and postintervention phases (OR, 17.0; 95% CI, 8.48-34.16), and more cases of severe physical impact or death (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.62-11.10).ConclusionsThe reporting methods more effectively captured greater numbers of adverse events, whereas the adverse events captured by the trigger tool methods were more likely to be severe physical impacts. The combined use of the different methods had synergistic benefits for monitoring adverse events in the ED.
| S-EPMC6407819 | 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:BackgroundAntibiotics are among the most commonly prescribed medications for children; however, at least one-third of pediatric antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary. National data on short-term antibiotic-related harms could inform efforts to reduce overprescribing and to supplement interventions that focus on the long-term benefits of reducing antibiotic resistance.MethodsFrequencies and rates of emergency department (ED) visits for antibiotic adverse drug events (ADEs) in children were estimated using adverse event data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project and retail pharmacy dispensing data from QuintilesIMS (2011-2015).ResultsOn the basis of 6542 surveillance cases, an estimated 69464 ED visits (95% confidence interval, 53488-85441) were made annually for antibiotic ADEs among children aged ≤19 years from 2011 to 2015, which accounts for 46.2% of ED visits for ADEs that results from systemic medication. Two-fifths (40.7%) of ED visits for antibiotic ADEs involved a child aged ≤2 years, and 86.1% involved an allergic reaction. Amoxicillin was the most commonly implicated antibiotic among children aged ≤9 years. When we accounted for dispensed prescriptions, the rates of ED visits for antibiotic ADEs declined with increasing age for all antibiotics except sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim. Amoxicillin had the highest rate of ED visits for antibiotic ADEs among children aged ≤2 years, whereas sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim resulted in the highest rate among children aged 10 to 19 years (29.9 and 24.2 ED visits per 10000 dispensed prescriptions, respectively).ConclusionsAntibiotic ADEs lead to many ED visits, particularly among young children. Communicating the risks of antibiotic ADEs could help reduce unnecessary prescribing. Prevention efforts could target pediatric patients who are at the greatest risk of harm.
| S-EPMC6467735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adverse drug events are significant causes of emergency department visits. Systematic evaluation of adverse drug events leading to emergency department visits by age is lacking. This multicenter retrospective observational study evaluated the prevalence and features of adverse drug event-related emergency department visits across ages. We reviewed emergency department medical records obtained from three university hospitals between July 2014 and December 2014. The proportion of adverse drug events among total emergency department visits was calculated. The cause, severity, preventability, and causative drug(s) of each adverse drug event were analyzed and compared between age groups (children/adolescents [<18 years], adults [18-64 years], and the elderly [≥65 years]). Of 59,428 emergency department visits, 2,104 (3.5%) were adverse drug event-related. Adverse drug event-related emergency department visits were more likely to be female and older. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that compared to non- adverse drug event-related cases, adverse drug event-related emergency department visitors were more likely to be female (60.6% vs. 53.6%, p<0.001, OR 1.285, 95% CI 1.025-1.603) and older (50.8 ± 24.6 years vs. 37.7 ± 24.4 years, p<0.001, OR 1.892, 95% CI: 1.397-2.297). Comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, and malignancies were also significantly associated with adverse drug event-related emergency department visits. Side effects were the most common type of adverse drug events across age groups, although main types differed substantially depending on age. Serious adverse drug events, hospitalizations, and adverse drug event-related deaths occurred more frequently in the elderly than in adults or children/adolescents. The proportion of adverse drug event-related emergency department visits that were preventable was 15.3%. Causative drugs of adverse drug events varied considerably depending on age group. Adverse drug event features differ substantially according to age group. The findings suggest that an age-specific approach should be adopted in the preventive strategies to reduce adverse drug events.
| S-EPMC9484687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study describes the proportion of emergency department (ED) returns within 7 days due to adverse events, defined as adverse outcomes related to healthcare received.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingWe used an electronically triggered adverse event surveillance system at a tertiary care ED from May to June 2010 to examine ED returns within 7 days of index visit.ParticipantsOne of three trained nurses determined whether the visit was related to index emergency care. For such records, one of three trained emergency physicians conducted adverse event determinations.Main outcome measureWe determined adverse event type and severity and analysed the data with descriptive statistics, χ(2) tests and logistic regression.ResultsOf 13,495 index ED visits, 923 (6.8%) were followed by ED returns within 7 days. The median age of all patients was 47 years and 52.8% were women. After nursing review, 211 cases required physician review. Of these, 53 visits were adverse events (positive predictive value (PPV)=5.7%, 95% CI 4.4% to 7.4%) and 30 (56.6%) were preventable. Common adverse event types involved management, diagnostic or medication issues. We observed one potentially preventable death and 58.5% of adverse events resulting in transient disability. The PPV of a modified trigger with a cut-off of return within 72 h, resulting in admission was 11.9% (95% CI 6.8% to 18.9%).ConclusionsOur electronic trigger efficiently identified adverse events among 12% of patients with ED returns within 72 h, requiring hospital admission. Given the high degree of preventability of the identified adverse events, this trigger also holds promise as a performance measurement tool.
| S-EPMC4316869 | biostudies-literature