Dataset Information

Adverse events in prehospital emergency care: a trigger tool study.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Hagiwara MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6345067 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adverse events in prehospital emergency care: a trigger tool study.

Hagiwara Magnus Andersson MA Magnusson Carl C Herlitz Johan J Seffel Elin E Axelsson Christer C Munters Monica M Strömsöe Anneli A Nilsson Lena L

BMC emergency medicine 20190124 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods ...[more]

PMID: 30678636

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.

Dataset Information

Adverse events in prehospital emergency care: a trigger tool study.

Publications

Adverse events in prehospital emergency care: a trigger tool study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets