Dataset Information

Comparing the Outcomes of Reporting and Trigger Tool Methods to Capture Adverse Events in the Emergency Department.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little is known about which methods are best for detecting adverse events in the emergency department (ED).

Objectives

This 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

Among 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).

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Lee WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6407819 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the Outcomes of Reporting and Trigger Tool Methods to Capture Adverse Events in the Emergency Department.

Lee Wen-Huei WH Zhang Ewai E Chiang Charng-Yen CY Yen Yung-Lin YL Chen Ling-Ling LL Liu Mei-Hsiu MH Kung Chia-Te CT Hung Shih-Chiang SC

Journal of patient safety 20190301 1

<h4>Background</h4>Little is known about which methods are best for detecting adverse events in the emergency department (ED).<h4>Objectives</h4>This 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.<h4>Methods</h4>This 1-year prospective observational cohort study evaluated a monitoring system that combined 2 reporting methods and 5 trigger tool methods to capture ad ...[more]

PMID: 28098586

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:Study objectiveTrigger tools improve surveillance for harm by focusing reviews on records with "triggers" whose presence increases the likelihood of an adverse event. We refine and automate a previously developed emergency department (ED) trigger tool and present record selection strategies to further optimize yield.MethodsWe specified 97 triggers for extraction from our electronic medical record, identifying 76,894 ED visits with greater than or equal to 1 trigger. We reviewed 1,726 records with greater than or equal to 1 trigger, following a standard trigger tool review process. We validated query performance against manual review and evaluated individual triggers, retaining only those associated with adverse events in the ED. We explored 2 approaches to enhance record selection: on number of triggers present and using trigger weights derived with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression.ResultsThe automated query performed well compared with manual review (sensitivity >70% for 80 triggers; specificity >92% for all). Review yielded 374 adverse events (21.6 adverse events per 100 records). Thirty triggers were associated with risk of harm in the ED. An estimated 10.3% of records with greater than 1 of these triggers would include an adverse event in the ED. Selecting only records with greater than or equal to 4 or greater than or equal to 9 triggers improves yield to 17% and 34.8%, respectively, whereas use of least absolute shrinkage and selection operator trigger weighting enhances the yield to as high as 52%.ConclusionThe ED trigger tool is a promising approach to improve yield, scope, and efficiency of review for all-cause harm in emergency medicine. Beginning with a broad set of candidate triggers, we validated a computerized query that eliminates the need for manual screening for triggers and identified a refined set of triggers associated with adverse events in the ED. Review efficiency can be further enhanced with enhanced record selection.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency Care has previously been identified as an area of significant concern regarding the prevalence of Adverse Events (AEs). However, the majority of this focus has been on the in-hospital setting, with little understanding of the identification and incidence of AEs in the prehospital environment.MethodThe early development and testing of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) specific triggers for the identification of AEs and Harm has been previously described. To operationalise the Emergency Medical Services Trigger Tool (EMSTT), the processes developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement for use with the Global Trigger Tool were adapted to a prehospital emergency care setting. These were then applied using a stepwise approach to the analysis of 36 consecutive samples of patient care records over an 18-month period (n =?710). Inter-rater reliability was measured for each trigger item and level of Harm classification. Total Triggers per 10,000 Patient Encounters, AEs per 10,000 Patient Encounters and Harm per 10,000 Patient Encounters were measured. All measures were plotted on Statistical Process Control Charts.ResultsThere was a high level of inter-rater agreement across all items (range: 85.6-100%). The EMSTT found an average rate of 8.20 Triggers per 10,000 Patient Encounters, 2.48 AEs per 10,000 Patient Encounters and 0.34 Harm events per 10,000 Patient Encounters. Three triggers: Change in Systolic Blood Pressure Greater Than 20%; Temp?>?38 °C without subsequent reduction; and SpO2 <?94% without supplemental Oxygen or SpO2 <?85% without assisted ventilation accounted for 93% (n =?180) of the triggers found throughout the longitudinal analysis.DiscussionWith sufficient focus on implementation and data collection, as well as the inclusion of a contextually relevant system for classifying AE/Harm, the EMSTT represents a potentially successful strategy towards identifying the rate of AEs within EMS across a large patient population with limited commitment of time and resources.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dietary supplements, such as herbal or complementary nutritional products and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), are commonly used in the United States, yet national data on adverse effects are limited. METHODS:We used nationally representative surveillance data from 63 emergency departments obtained from 2004 through 2013 to describe visits to U.S. emergency departments because of adverse events related to dietary supplements. RESULTS:On the basis of 3667 cases, we estimated that 23,005 (95% confidence interval [CI], 18,611 to 27,398) emergency department visits per year were attributed to adverse events related to dietary supplements. These visits resulted in an estimated 2154 hospitalizations (95% CI, 1342 to 2967) annually. Such visits frequently involved young adults between the ages of 20 and 34 years (28.0% of visits; 95% CI, 25.1 to 30.8) and unsupervised children (21.2% of visits; 95% CI, 18.4 to 24.0). After the exclusion of unsupervised ingestion of dietary supplements by children, 65.9% (95% CI, 63.2 to 68.5) of emergency department visits for single-supplement-related adverse events involved herbal or complementary nutritional products; 31.8% (95% CI, 29.2 to 34.3) involved micronutrients. Herbal or complementary nutritional products for weight loss (25.5%; 95% CI, 23.1 to 27.9) and increased energy (10.0%; 95% CI, 8.0 to 11.9) were commonly implicated. Weight-loss or energy products caused 71.8% (95% CI, 67.6 to 76.1) of supplement-related adverse events involving palpitations, chest pain, or tachycardia, and 58.0% (95% CI, 52.2 to 63.7) involved persons 20 to 34 years of age. Among adults 65 years of age or older, choking or pill-induced dysphagia or globus caused 37.6% (95% CI, 29.1 to 46.2) of all emergency department visits for supplement-related adverse events; micronutrients were implicated in 83.1% (95% CI, 73.3 to 92.9) of these visits. CONCLUSIONS:An estimated 23,000 emergency department visits in the United States every year are attributed to adverse events related to dietary supplements. Such visits commonly involve cardiovascular manifestations from weight-loss or energy products among young adults and swallowing problems, often associated with micronutrients, among older adults. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.).

Project description:In 2011, an estimated 26.8 million US adults used prescription medications for mental illness.To estimate the numbers and rates of adverse drug event (ADE) emergency department (ED) visits involving psychiatric medications among US adults between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011.Descriptive analyses of active, nationally representative surveillance of ADE ED visits using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance system and of drug prescribing during outpatient visits using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.Medical records from national probability samples of ED and outpatient visits by adults 19 years or older were reviewed and analyzed.Antidepressants, antipsychotics, lithium salts, sedatives and anxiolytics, and stimulants.National estimates of ADE ED visits resulting from therapeutic psychiatric medication use and of psychiatric medication ADE ED visits per 10,000 outpatient visits at which psychiatric medications were prescribed.From 2009 through 2011, there were an estimated 89,094 (95% CI, 68,641-109,548) psychiatric medication ADE ED visits annually, with 19.3% (95% CI, 16.3%-22.2%) resulting in hospitalization and 49.4% (95% CI, 46.5%-52.4%) involving patients aged 19 to 44 years. Sedatives and anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, lithium salts, and stimulants were implicated in an estimated 30,707 (95% CI, 23,406-38,008), 25,377 (95% CI, 19,051-31,704), 21,578 (95% CI, 16,599-26,557), 3620 (95% CI, 2311-4928), and 2779 (95% CI, 1764-3794) respective ADE ED visits annually. Antipsychotics and lithium salts were implicated in 11.7 (95% CI, 10.1-13.2) and 16.4 (95% CI, 13.0-19.9) ADE ED visits per 10,000 outpatient prescription visits, respectively, compared with 3.6 (95% CI, 3.2-4.1) for sedatives and anxiolytics, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.3-3.5) for stimulants, and 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1-2.7) for antidepressants. The commonly used sedative zolpidem tartrate was implicated in 11.5% (95% CI, 9.5%-13.4%) of all adult psychiatric medication ADE ED visits and in 21.0% (95% CI, 16.3%-25.7%) of visits involving adults 65 years or older, in both cases significantly more than any other psychiatric medication.Psychiatric medications are implicated in many ADEs treated in US EDs. Efforts to reduce ADEs should include adults of all ages but might prioritize medications causing high numbers and rates of ED visits.

Dataset Information

Comparing the Outcomes of Reporting and Trigger Tool Methods to Capture Adverse Events in the Emergency Department.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing the Outcomes of Reporting and Trigger Tool Methods to Capture Adverse Events in the Emergency Department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets