Dataset Information

Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool.

ABSTRACT: Background and aims:The 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. Methods:Using 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. Results:From 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. Conclusion:About 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.

SUBMITTER: Gerber A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7217322 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool.

Gerber Anne A Da Silva Lopes André A Szüts Natacha N Simon Michael M Ribordy-Baudat Viviane V Ebneter Andreas A Perrinjaquet Claire C Gaignard Marie-Estelle ME Nicodet Delphine D Betticher Daniel D Bula Grégoire G Cote Maxime M Duchosal Michel André MA Berret Pierre-André PA Dietrich Pierre-Yves PY Brennan Caitlin C Decosterd Sandy S Ferreira Nobre Sandrina S Peters Solange S Koelliker Reto R Ninane Françoise F Jeitziner Marie-Madlen MM Colomer-Lahiguera Sara S Eicher Manuela M

Health science reports 20200512 2

<h4>Background and aims</h4>The 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.<h4>Methods</h4>Using an adapted version of the validated Global Tri ...[more]

PMID: 32405540

Similar Datasets

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.

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: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.

Dataset Information

Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool.

Publications

Describing adverse events in Swiss hospitalized oncology patients using the Global Trigger Tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets