Characterization of adverse events detected in a large health care delivery system using an enhanced global trigger tool over a five-year interval

Patient Harm Events and Associated Cost Outcomes Reported to a Patient Safety Organization

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the study were to describe inpatient harm events detected via an automatic electronic trigger system (ETS) and to consider their financial consequences.

METHODS

Over a 27-month period, inpatient harm events were identified and documented in 1 healthcare system with 37 acute care facilities. Patients who experienced harm (all harm or preventable harm only) were compared with similar patients who did not. Clinical, financial, and demographic data were used to identify labor-adjusted direct variable costs (DVC) and potential differences in length of stay (LOS) associated with all-harm, preventable-harm, and nonharmed cohorts. Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, case mix index, diagnosis-related groups, major diagnostic category, sex, age, location, diagnosis, adverse event category and subcategory, preventability, and harm severity were used to compare cohorts. Total harm events reported via the ETS and the health system's voluntary event reporting system were compared.

RESULTS

Nearly 93,000 encounters for all-harm (n = 25,665) and nonharmed cohorts (n = 67,217) were compared by random sampling of diagnosis-related group-matched all-harm and nonharmed groups to ensure similar clinical conditions, as measured by Charlson Comorbidity Index and case mix index. Sampling (2 groups, n = 100 and n = 200) showed that increased LOS was associated with harm; yet other clinical comparators were similar across groups. the preventable-harm subcohort had longer LOS (10.7 versus 5.9 days) and higher DVC ($13,442 versus $8024) than the nonharmed cohort. Identification of harm events was nearly 6-fold higher with the ETS than with the voluntary event reporting system.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with preventable harm had increased LOS that was associated with higher DVC per preventable-harm encounter in a large US healthcare system.

Establishing a trigger tool based on global trigger tools to identify adverse drug events in obstetric inpatients in China

BACKGROUND

Pregnant 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.

METHODS

Based 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.

RESULTS

Through 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.

CONCLUSION

The 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.

Comparing rates of adverse events detected in incident reporting and the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review

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.

Evaluation of Global trigger tool as a medication safety tool for adverse drug event detection-a cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital

The objective of this study is to describe and analyze adverse drug events (ADE) identified using the Global trigger tool (GTT) in a Finnish tertiary hospital during a 5-year period and also to evaluate whether the medication module of the GTT is a useful tool for ADE detection and management or if modification of the medication module is needed. A cross-sectional study of retrospective record review in a 450-bed tertiary hospital in Finland. Ten randomly selected patients from electronic medical records were reviewed bimonthly from 2017 to 2021. The GTT team reviewed a total of 834 records with modified GTT method, which includes the evaluation of possible polypharmacy, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), highest nursing intensity raw score (NI), and pain triggers. The data set contained 366 records with triggers in medication module and 601 records with the polypharmacy trigger that were analyzed in this study. With the GTT, a total of 53 ADEs were detected in the 834 medical records, which corresponds to 13 ADEs/1000 patient-days and 6% of the patients. Altogether, 44% of the patients had at least one trigger found with the GTT medication module. As the number of medication module triggers increased per patient, it was more likely that the patient had also experienced an ADE. The number of triggers found with the GTT medication module in patients' records seems to correlate with the risk of ADEs. Modification of the GTT could provide even more reliable data for ADE prevention.

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Adverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely.

Objective

This 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.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

To 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.

Results

Screening 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.

Conclusion

Estimates 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.

Predictive Power of the "Trigger Tool" for the detection of adverse events in general surgery: a multicenter observational validation study

BACKGROUND

In spite of the global implementation of standardized surgical safety checklists and evidence-based practices, general surgery remains associated with a high residual risk of preventable perioperative complications and adverse events. This study was designed to validate the hypothesis that a new "Trigger Tool" represents a sensitive predictor of adverse events in general surgery.

METHODS

An observational multicenter validation study was performed among 31 hospitals in Spain. The previously described "Trigger Tool" based on 40 specific triggers was applied to validate the predictive power of predicting adverse events in the perioperative care of surgical patients. A prediction model was used by means of a binary logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The prevalence of adverse events among a total of 1,132 surgical cases included in this study was 31.53%. The "Trigger Tool" had a sensitivity and specificity of 86.27% and 79.55% respectively for predicting these adverse events. A total of 12 selected triggers of overall 40 triggers were identified for optimizing the predictive power of the "Trigger Tool".

CONCLUSIONS

The "Trigger Tool" has a high predictive capacity for predicting adverse events in surgical procedures. We recommend a revision of the original 40 triggers to 12 selected triggers to optimize the predictive power of this tool, which will have to be validated in future studies.

A Systematic Review of Methods for Medical Record Analysis to Detect Adverse Events in Hospitalized Patients

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review, we evaluate 2 of the most used trigger tools according to the criteria of the World Health Organization for evaluating methods.

METHODS

We searched Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for studies (2000-2017). Studies were included if medical record review (MRR) was performed with either the Global Trigger Tool or the Harvard Medical Practice Study in a hospital population. Quality assessment was performed in duplicate. Fifty studies were included, and results were reported for every criterion separately.

RESULTS

Medical record review reveals more adverse events (AEs) than any other method. However, at the same time, it detects different AEs. The costs of an AE were on average €4296. Considerable efforts have been made worldwide in health care to improve safety and to reduce errors. These have resulted in some positive effects. The literature showed that MRR is focused on several domains of quality of care and seems suitable for both small and large cohorts. Furthermore, we found a moderate to substantial agreement for the presence of a trigger and a moderate to good agreement for the presence of an AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical record review with a trigger tool is a reasonably well-researched method for the evaluation of the medical records for AEs. However, looking at the World Health Organization criteria, much research is still lacking or of moderate quality. Especially for the cost of detecting AEs, valuable information is missing. Moreover, knowledge of how MRR changes quality and safety of care should be evaluated.

Evolving Factors in Hospital Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Hospital Adverse Events

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate the frequency of hospital adverse events (AEs) and explore the rate of AEs over time, and across and within hospital populations.

METHODS

Validated search terms were run in MEDLINE and EMBASE; gray literature and references of included studies were also searched. Studies of any design or language providing an estimate of AEs within the hospital were eligible. Studies were excluded if they only provided an estimate for a specific AE, a subgroup of hospital patients or children. Data were abstracted in duplicate using a standardized data abstraction form. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis estimated the occurrence of hospital AEs, and meta-regression explored the association between hospital AEs, and patient and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 45,426 unique references were identified; 1,265 full-texts were reviewed and 94 studies representing 590 million admissions from 25 countries from 1961 to 2014 were included. The incidence of hospital AEs was 8.6 per 100 patient admissions (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.3 to 8.9; I2 = 100%, P < 0.001). Half of the AEs were preventable (52.6%), and a third resulted in moderate/significant harm (39.7%). The most evaluated AEs were surgical AEs, drug-related AEs, and nosocomial infections. The occurrence of AEs increased by year (95% CI, -0.05 to -0.04; P < 0.001) and patient age (95% CI = -0.15 to -0.14; P < 0.001), and varied by country income level and study characteristics. Patient sex, hospital type, hospital service, and geographical location were not associated with AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital AEs are common, and reported rates are increasing in the literature. Given the increase in AEs over time, hospitals should reinvest in improving hospital safety with a focus on interventions targeted toward the more than half of AEs that are preventable.

Evaluation of a Broad-Spectrum Partially Automated Adverse Event Surveillance System: A Potential Tool for Patient Safety Improvement in Hospitals With Limited Resources

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the sensitivity and resource efficiency of a partially automated adverse event (AE) surveillance system for routine patient safety efforts in hospitals with limited resources.

METHODS

Twenty-eight automated triggers from the hospital information system's clinical and administrative databases identified cases that were then filtered by exclusion criteria per trigger and then reviewed by an interdisciplinary team. The system, developed and implemented using in-house resources, was applied for 45 days of surveillance, for all hospital inpatient admissions (N = 1107). Each trigger was evaluated for its positive predictive value (PPV). Furthermore, the sensitivity of the surveillance system (overall and by AE category) was estimated relative to incidence ranges in the literature.

RESULTS

The surveillance system identified a total of 123 AEs among 283 reviewed medical records, yielding an overall PPV of 52%. The tool showed variable levels of sensitivity across and within AE categories when compared with the literature, with a relatively low overall sensitivity estimated between 21% and 44%. Adverse events were detected in 23 of the 36 AE categories defined by an established harm classification system. Furthermore, none of the detected AEs were voluntarily reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The surveillance system showed variable sensitivity levels across a broad range of AE categories with an acceptable PPV, overcoming certain limitations associated with other harm detection methods. The number of cases captured was substantial, and none had been previously detected or voluntarily reported. For hospitals with limited resources, this methodology provides valuable safety information from which interventions for quality improvement can be formulated.

Validation of an electronic trigger to measure missed diagnosis of stroke in emergency departments

OBJECTIVE

Diagnostic errors are major contributors to preventable patient harm. We validated the use of an electronic health record (EHR)-based trigger (e-trigger) to measure missed opportunities in stroke diagnosis in emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

Using two frameworks, the Safer Dx Trigger Tools Framework and the Symptom-disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error Framework, we applied a symptom-disease pair-based e-trigger to identify patients hospitalized for stroke who, in the preceding 30 days, were discharged from the ED with benign headache or dizziness diagnoses. The algorithm was applied to Veteran Affairs National Corporate Data Warehouse on patients seen between 1/1/2016 and 12/31/2017. Trained reviewers evaluated medical records for presence/absence of missed opportunities in stroke diagnosis and stroke-related red-flags, risk factors, neurological examination, and clinical interventions. Reviewers also estimated quality of clinical documentation at the index ED visit.

RESULTS

We applied the e-trigger to 7,752,326 unique patients and identified 46,931 stroke-related admissions, of which 398 records were flagged as trigger-positive and reviewed. Of these, 124 had missed opportunities (positive predictive value for "missed" = 31.2%), 93 (23.4%) had no missed opportunity (non-missed), 162 (40.7%) were miscoded, and 19 (4.7%) were inconclusive. Reviewer agreement was high (87.3%, Cohen's kappa = 0.81). Compared to the non-missed group, the missed group had more stroke risk factors (mean 3.2 vs 2.6), red flags (mean 0.5 vs 0.2), and a higher rate of inadequate documentation (66.9% vs 28.0%).

CONCLUSION

In a large national EHR repository, a symptom-disease pair-based e-trigger identified missed diagnoses of stroke with a modest positive predictive value, underscoring the need for chart review validation procedures to identify diagnostic errors in large data sets.

Increasing specialist intensity at weekends to improve outcomes for patients undergoing emergency hospital admission: the HiSLAC two-phase mixed-methods study

Background

NHS England’s 7-day services policy comprised 10 standards to improve access to quality health care across all days of the week. Six standards targeted hospital specialists on the assumption that their absence caused the higher mortality associated with weekend hospital admission: the ‘weekend effect’. The High-intensity Specialist-Led Acute Care (HiSLAC) collaboration investigated this using the implementation of 7-day services as a ‘natural experiment’.

Objectives

The objectives were to determine whether or not increasing specialist intensity at weekends improves outcomes for patients undergoing emergency hospital admission, and to explore mechanisms and cost-effectiveness.

Design

This was a two-phase mixed-methods observational study. Year 1 focused on developing the methodology. Years 2–5 included longitudinal research using quantitative and qualitative methods, and health economics.

Methods

A Bayesian systematic literature review from 2000 to 2017 quantified the weekend effect. Specialist intensity measured over 5 years used self-reported annual point prevalence surveys of all specialists in English acute hospital trusts, expressed as the weekend-to-weekday ratio of specialist hours per 10 emergency admissions. Hospital Episode Statistics from 2007 to 2018 provided trends in weekend-to-weekday mortality ratios. Mechanisms for the weekend effect were explored qualitatively through focus groups and on-site observations by qualitative researchers, and a two-epoch case record review across 20 trusts. Case-mix differences were examined in a single trust. Health economics modelling estimated costs and outcomes associated with increased specialist provision.

Results

Of 141 acute trusts, 115 submitted data to the survey, and 20 contributed 4000 case records for review and participated in qualitative research (involving interviews, and observations using elements of an ethnographic approach). Emergency department attendances and admissions have increased every year, outstripping the increase in specialist numbers; numbers of beds and lengths of stay have decreased. The reduction in mortality has plateaued; the proportion of patients dying after discharge from hospital has increased. Specialist hours increased between 2012/13 and 2017/18. Weekend specialist intensity is half that of weekdays, but there is no relationship with admission mortality. Patients admitted on weekends are sicker (they have more comorbid disease and more of them require palliative care); adjustment for severity of acute illness annuls the weekend effect. In-hospital care processes are slightly more efficient at weekends; care quality (errors, adverse events, global quality) is as good at weekends as on weekdays and has improved with time. Qualitative researcher assessments of hospital weekend quality concurred with case record reviewers at trust level. General practitioner referrals at weekends are one-third of those during weekdays and have declined further with time.

Limitations

Observational research, variable survey response rates and subjective assessments of care quality were compensated for by using a difference-in-difference analysis over time.

Conclusions

Hospital care is improving. The weekend effect is associated with factors in the community that precede hospital admission. Post-discharge mortality is increasing. Policy-makers should focus their efforts on improving acute and emergency care on a ‘whole-system’ 7-day approach that integrates social, community and secondary health care.

Future work

Future work should evaluate the role of doctors in hospital and community emergency care and investigate pathways to emergency admission and quality of care following hospital discharge.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Embedded Health Systems Science as a driver of care improvement within an integrated delivery organization

BACKGROUND

Embedded Health Systems Science (HSS) has the potential to reduce gaps between research and delivery of evidence-based medicine. Models are needed to guide the development of embedded HSS in health care delivery organizations particularly with the rise of value-based care.

METHODS

The development of HSS infrastructure at a large nonprofit health care delivery organization is described, along with an embedded HSS diabetes study to illustrate the integration of program specific data, electronic health records, and health care system data infrastructure. To compare diabetes outcomes across four evidenced-based programs, a control group was developed from EHR data using propensity score matching. Mixed effect adjusted models were used to estimate reductions in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight.

RESULTS

Adjusted analyses using an EHR derived comparison group demonstrated significantly different findings than unadjusted pre to post analyses. The embedded HSS study indicates that appropriate statistical methods, staff with required expertise, and integration with health system data infrastructure are needed to develop timely and rigorous HSS outcomes that effectively improve patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Embedded HSS has the potential to inform value-based care models and contribute to evidence-based medicine approaches that improve patient care. Although developing system wide integrated data structures and staff with the appropriate skills requires substantial effort, the outcome is more reliable evaluations that lead to higher quality and higher value care.

IMPLICATIONS

Health care delivery organizations can improve patient care by dedicating resources to embed HSS into its routine operations.

Longitudinal rates of hospital adverse events that contributed to death in Norway and Sweden from 2013 to 2018

Objectives

In this paper, we explore and compare types and longitudinal trends of hospital adverse events in Norway and Sweden in the years 2013–2018 with special reference to AEs that contributed to death.

Design

Acute care hospitals in both countries performed medical record reviews on randomly selected medical records from all eligible admissions. Analysis: Comparison between Norway and Sweden of linear trends from 2013–2018, and percentage rates of admissions with at least one AE according to types and severities.

Setting

Norway and Sweden have similar socio-economic and demographic characteristics, which constitutes a relevant context for cooperation, comparison and mutual learning. This setting has promoted the use of GTT to monitor national rates of AEs in hospital care in the two countries.

Participants

53 367 medical records in Norway and 88 637 medical records in Sweden were reviewed.

Results

13.2% of hospital admissions in Norway and 13.1% in Sweden were associated with an AE of all severities (E-I). 0.23% of hospital admissions in Norway and 0.26% in Sweden were associated with an AE that contributed to death (I). The differences between the two countries were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in overall rates (E-I) of AEs in Norway and Sweden, nor in rates of AEs that contributed to death (I). There was no significant change in AEs or fatal AEs in either country over the six-year time period.

The incidence and nature of adverse events in rehabilitation inpatients with acquired brain injuries

INTRODUCTION

Patient safety is important in all healthcare settings. Few studies have examined the state of patient safety in rehabilitation and none have examined patient safety in the setting of acquired brain injury (ABI) rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence, most common types, and severities of adverse events among inpatients undergoing ABI rehabilitation.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series descriptive study.

SETTING

The inpatient ABI rehabilitation program at an academic, tertiary rehabilitation hospital in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

108 consecutive inpatients with acquired brain injuries.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Patient charts and incident reports from the hospital's voluntary reporting system were reviewed by three board-certified physiatrists to determine the incidence, type, severity and preventability of adverse events. Adverse events were identified and classified for severity and type using the WHO International Classification for Patient Safety. Preventability was rated on a 6-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

During the study period, the incidence of adverse events was 17.42 ± 3.86 per 1000 patient days. Adverse events affected 52.8% of patients. Most adverse events identified were mild in severity (98.51%) and the rest were of moderate severity. The two most common types of adverse events were 1) patient incidents (56.72%) such as falls, pressure ulcers and skin tears, and 2) patient behaviors such as missing patient, assault, or sexual behaviors (16.42%). Of the 80 adverse events identified in the study, 44.78% were preventable. The hospital's voluntary reporting system did not capture 57.9% of the adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Future efforts to improve patient safety in ABI rehab should focus on reducing falls, skin injuries and behaviors, and removing barriers to voluntary incident reporting. Detecting adverse events through chart reviews provide a more complete understanding of patient safety risks in ABI rehab than relying on incident reporting alone. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

An evaluation of trigger tool method for adverse drug reaction monitoring at a tertiary care teaching hospital

Objectives:

The objective of this study is to evaluate the trigger tool method (TTM) in detection, monitoring, and reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) at Civil Hospital Ahmedabad, India.

Materials and Methods:

A prospective, single-center, observational cum intervention study was conducted in two phases in the Department of Medicine over 15 months. In phase I, preliminary trigger tool list (PTTL) comprising 55 triggers was evaluated by pharmacologist in terms of detection of ADR in 400 patients and then, modified trigger tool list (MTTL) was prepared. In Phase II, the TTM using MTTL was compared with the spontaneous method of ADR monitoring after educational interventions in resident doctors of the two units of medicine department.

Results:

Of the 55 triggers in PTTL, 34 triggers were observed in 327 patients, of which 19 triggers lead to the detection of 66 ADRs. The rate of ADEs was 16.5%/100 patients. Positive predictive value (PPV) of each trigger ranged from 0% to 100%. PPV for drug trigger, laboratory trigger, and PT was 14.4%, 4.5%, and 23.3%, respectively. Overall, PPV of PTTL was 19.27%. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 21.66%, respectively. MTTL consists of these 19 triggers. In Phase II, resident doctors reported 16 ADRs, using spontaneous method and 23 ADRs using MTTL. The rate of ADEs per 100 patients was 1.63 and 2.13, respectively, with these methods. A total of 105 ADRs were reported during both phases.

Conclusion:

TTM is an effective method of ADR reporting if it is utilized by a trained person. This method could be used as add-on method to spontaneous method to improve ADR reporting.

An in situ simulation program: a quantitative and qualitative prospective study identifying latent safety threats and examining participant experiences

OBJECTIVE

To explore the impact of in situ simulation training in regard to identification of latent safety threats and participant experiences.

DESIGN

A prospective study including quantitative and qualitative measures.

SETTING

A Danish hospital shifted from simulation training in centers outside the hospital to training where simulation was conducted where the situations normally took place and with the normal working teams.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 58 local instructors were educated and subsequently conducted in situ simulations in own departments. After each simulation, a log file was completed containing information on location, the scenario, who took part, time, learning points and findings. Furthermore, interviews were conducted with leaders, instructors and simulation participants.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Identified latent safety threats and participant experiences.

RESULTS

From June 2017 until December 2018, 323 simulations were conducted representing 35 different wards. They consisted of 40 different scenarios and had both technical and non-technical learning goals. A total of 35 organizational issues were uncovered via the in situ simulation and practice was adjusted accordingly. A total of 11 interviews were conducted. Four themes emerged from the analysis: practice-orientation, endorsement, sense of security and additional impact.

CONCLUSION

Transferring simulation to in situ training resulted in a substantial number of organizational findings. The subsequent follow-up and changes in practice made awareness of what could be latent safety threats. Leaders, instructors and simulation participants experienced in situ simulation as relevant and profitable.

COSTS AND ROOT CAUSES OF MEDICATION ERRORS AND FALLS IN A TEACHING HOSPITAL: CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

ABSTRACT Objectives to characterize accidents/falls and medication errors in the care process in a teaching hospital and to determine their root causes and variable direct costs. Method cross-sectional study implemented in two stages: the first, was based on the analysis of secondary sources (notifications, medical records and cost reports) and the second, on the application of root-cause analysis for incidents with moderate/severe harm. The study was carried out in a teaching hospital in Paraná, which exclusively serves the Brazilian Unified Health System and composes the Network of Sentinel Hospitals. Thirty reports of accidents/falls and 37 reports of medication errors were investigated. Descriptive statistical analysis and the methodology proposed by The Joint Commission International were applied. Results among the accidents/falls, 33.3% occurred in the emergency room; 40.0% were related to the bed, in similar proportions in the morning and night periods; 51.4% of medication errors occurred in the hospitalization unit, the majority in the night time (32.4%), with an emphasis on dose omissions (27.0%) and dispensing errors (21.6%). Most incidents did not cause additional harm or cost. The average cost was R$ 158.55 for the management of falls. Additional costs for medication errors ranged from R$ 31.16 to R$ 21,534.61. The contributing factors and root causes of the incidents were mainly related to the team, the professional and the execution of care. Conclusion accidents/falls and medication errors presented a low frequency of harm to the patient, but impacted costs to the hospital. Regarding root causes, aspects of the health work process related to direct patient care were highlighted.

Adverse Drug Events and Contributing Factors Among Hospitalized Adult Patients at Jimma Medical Center, Southwest Ethiopia: A Prospective Observational Study

Background

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are common complications of clinical care resulting in significant morbidity, mortality, and high clinical expenditure. Population-level estimates of inpatient ADEs are limited in Ethiopia.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the incidence, contributing factors, severity, and preventability of ADEs among hospitalized adult patients at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia.

Methods

A prospective observational study design was conducted among hospitalized adult patients at tertiary hospital in Ethiopia. A structured data collection tool was prepared from relevant literatures for data collection. Data were analyzed using statistical software. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors contributing to ADE occurrence. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 319 patients were included with follow-up period of 5667 person-days. About 50.5% were women. The mean (SD) age of patients was 43 (17.6) years. One hundred sixteen ADEs were identified with the incidence of 36.4 (95% CI, 30.1-43.6) per 100 admissions and 20.5 (95% CI, 16.9-24.6) per 1000 person-days. Antituberculosis agents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.52; 95% CI, 1.06-5.98; P = 0.036), disease of the circulatory system (aOR = 2.67; 95% CI, 1.46-4.89; P = 0.001), disease of the digestive system (aOR = 2.84; 95% CI, 1.45-5.57; P = 0.002), being on medication during admission (aOR = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.77-5.41; P < 0.001), and hospital stay more than 2 weeks (aOR = 3.93; 95% CI, 1.39-11.12; P = 0.010) were independent predictors of ADE occurrence.

Conclusions

One in every 4 patients admitted to the hospital experienced ADEs during their hospital stay. Most ADEs were moderate in severity. About two-thirds of the ADEs identified were deemed probably or definitely preventable. Therefore, it is high time to reinforce large-scale efforts to redesign safer, higher quality health care systems to adequately tackle the problem.

Psychometric Testing of a Structured Assessment Instrument for Non-technical Skills (NANTS-no) for Use in Clinical Supervision of Student Nurse Anesthetists

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated psychometric properties of a structured behavioral assessment instrument, Nurse Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills-Norway (NANTS-no). It estimated whether reliable assessments of nontechnical skills (NTS) could be made after taking part in a workshop. An additional objective was to evaluate the instrument's acceptability and usability.

METHODS

An explorative design was used. Nurse anesthetists (n = 46) involved in clinical supervision attended a 6-hour workshop on NTS, then rated NTS in video-recorded simulated scenarios and completed a questionnaire.

RESULTS

High reliability and dependability were estimated in this setting. Participants regarded the instrument as useful for clinical supervision of student nurse anesthetists (SNAs).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that NANTS-no may be reliable for performing clinical assessments of SNAs and encouraging critical reflection. However, further research is needed to explore its use in clinical settings.

Examining the Relationship of an All-Cause Harm Patient Safety Measure and Critical Performance Measures at the Frontline of Care

Background

In 2015, the Institute of Medicine Vital Signs report called for a new patient safety composite measure to lessen the reporting burden of patient harm. Before this report, two patient safety organizations had developed an electronic all-cause harm measurement system leveraging data from the electronic health record, which identified and grouped harms into five broad categories and consolidated them into one all-cause harm outcome measure.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between this all-cause harm patient safety measure and the following three performance measures important to overall hospital safety performance: safety culture, employee engagement, and patient experience.

Methods

We studied the relationship between all-cause harm and three performance measures on eight inpatient care units at one hospital for 7 months.

Results

The findings demonstrated strong correlations between an all-cause harm measure and patient safety culture, employee engagement, and patient experience at the hospital unit level. Four safety culture domains showed significant negative correlations with all-cause harm at a P value of 0.05 or less. Six employee engagement domains were significantly negatively correlated with all-cause harm at a P value of 0.01 or less, and six of the ten patient experience measures were significantly correlated with all-cause harm at a P value of 0.05 or less.

Conclusions

The results show that there is a strong relationship between all-cause harm and these performance measures indicating that when there is a positive patient safety culture, a more engaged employee, and a more satisfying patient experience, there may be less all-cause harm.

Physicians' and Nurses' Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward Incident Reporting in Palestinian Hospitals

OBJECTIVES

Underreporting of incidents that happen in health care services undermines the ability of the systems to improve patient safety. This study assessed the attitudes of physicians and nurses toward incident reporting and the factors influencing reporting in Palestinian hospitals. It also examined clinicians' views about the preferred features of incident reporting system.

METHODS

Cross-sectional self-administered survey of 475 participants, 152 physicians and 323 nurses, from 11 public hospitals in the West Bank; response rate, 81.3%.

RESULTS

There was a low level of event reporting among participants in the past year (40.3%). Adjusted for sex and age, physicians were 2.1 times more likely to report incidents than nurses (95% confidence interval, 1.32-3.417; P = 0.002). Perceived main barriers for reporting were grouped under lack of proper structure for reporting, prevalence of blame, and punitive environment. The clinicians indicated fear of administrative sanctions, social and legal liability, and of their competence being questioned (P > 0.05). Getting help for patients, learning from mistakes, and ethical obligation were equally indicated motivators for reporting (P > 0.05). Meanwhile, clinicians prefer formal reporting (77.8%) of all type of errors (65.5%), disclosure of reporters (52.7%), using reports to improve patient safety (80.3%), and willingness to report to immediate supervisors (57.6%).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians acknowledge the importance of reporting incidents; however, prevalence of punitive culture and inadequate reporting systems are key barriers. Improving feedback about reported errors, simplifying procedures, providing clear guidelines on what and who should report, and avoiding blame are essential to enhance reporting. Moreover, health care organizations should consider the opinions of the clinicians in developing reporting systems.

Adverse Events Experienced by Patients Hospitalized without Definite Medical Acuity: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Physicians often consider various nonmedical factors in hospital admission decision-making and may admit socially tenuous patients despite low-acuity medical needs. Evidence showing whether these patients are subject to the same risks of hospitalization as those considered definitely medically appropriate is limited. Our study sought to inform this risk/benefit discussion by quantifying the number of adverse events (AEs) experienced by both patient populations by using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool methodology. We found no difference in the percentage of admissions with AEs between the two groups (27.3% vs 29.3%; risk ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.34, P = .70) nor in AEs per 1,000-patient days (76.8 vs 70.4; incidence rate ratio = 1.09, 95% CI 0.77-1.55, P = .61). Thus, the number of AEs experienced during hospitalization does not appear to be related to the appropriateness of admission based on the level of medical acuity.

Prevalence and avoidability of surgical adverse events in a teaching hospital in Brazil

OBJECTIVE

to estimate the prevalence and avoidability of surgical adverse events in a teaching hospital and to classify the events according to the type of incident and degree of damage.

METHOD

cross-sectional retrospective study carried out in two phases. In phase I, nurses performed a retrospective review on a simple randomized sample of 192 records of adult patients using the Canadian Adverse Events Study form for case tracking. Phase II aimed at confirming the adverse event by an expert committee composed of physicians and nurses. Data were analyzed by univariate descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

the prevalence of surgical adverse events was 21.8%. In 52.4% of the cases, detection occurred on outpatient return. Of the 60 cases analyzed, 90% (n = 54) were preventable and more than two thirds resulted in mild to moderate damage. Surgical technical failures contributed in approximately 40% of the cases. There was a prevalence of the infection category associated with health care (50%, n = 30). Adverse events were mostly related to surgical site infection (30%, n = 18), suture dehiscence (16.7%, n = 10) and hematoma/seroma (15%, n = 9).

CONCLUSION

the prevalence and avoidability of surgical adverse events are challenges faced by hospital management.

Mitigating risk in Norwegian psychiatric care: Identifying triggers of adverse events through Global Trigger Tool for psychiatric care

BACKGROUND

Patients treated in psychiatric care are exposed to the risk of adverse events, similar to patients treated in somatic health care.

OBJECTIVES

In this article we report the findings of triggers associated with adverse events (AEs) identified by a version of the Global Trigger Tool - Psychiatry (GTT-P) adapted for Norwegian hospital-based psychiatric treatment.

METHODS

The design was a retrospective analysis of a random sample of 240 patient records from a psychiatric clinic in one Norwegian hospital. Patient records were sampled from both inpatient and outpatient psychiatric clinics in hospitals serving the northern part of the county of Trøndelag, Norway.

RESULTS

Our analysis was based on the identification of 32 potential triggers of adverse events. Eighteen of the triggers were significantly related to adverse events. No adverse events were identified in patient records that did not also contain triggers included in the Global Trigger Tool.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear relationship between the presence of triggers in a patient record and the likelihood of adverse events. Particularly relevant for psychiatric patients is 'suffering' as a trigger and this may also be relevant to somatic care and has implications for inclusion in the GTT-P.

Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched.

REVIEW METHODS

Observational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337 025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Around one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.

[Description of contributing factors in adverse events related to patient safety and their preventability]

Objetivo

Evaluar el grado en que los sucesos adversos (SA) ligados a la asistencia sanitaria alcanzan al paciente y su severidad. Analizar los factores contribuyentes a la aparición de SA, la relación con el daño provocado y el grado de evitabilidad.

Diseño

Estudio descriptivo retrospectivo.

Emplazamiento

Servicio de Atención Primaria de Porriño desde enero de 2014 a abril de 2016.

Participantes y/o contexto

Se incluyeron notificaciones de SA en el Sistema de Notificación y Aprendizaje para Seguridad del Paciente (SiNASP).

Método

Variables de medida: incidente adverso (IA) si no alcanzó al paciente o no produjo daño, evento adverso (EA) si llegó al paciente con daño. Grado de daño clasificado como mínimo, menor, moderado, crítico y catastrófico. Evitabilidad registrada como escasa evidencia de ser evitable, 50% evitable y sólida evidencia de ser evitable. Análisis de datos: porcentajes y test de chi-cuadrado para variables cualitativas; p < 0,05 con SPSS.15 Fuente de datos: SiNASP. Consideraciones éticas: autorizado por el Comité de Ética de Investigación (2016/344).

Resultados

Se registraron 166 SA (50,0% hombres, 46,4% mujeres; edad media: 60,80 años). El 62,7% alcanzaron al paciente. EA: 45,8% produjeron daño mínimo y 2,4%, daño crítico. Los profesionales fueron factor contribuyente en el 71,7% de los EA, encontrándose tendencia a la asociación entre deficiente comunicación y ausencia de protocolos con el daño producido. Grado de evitabilidad: 96,4%.

Conclusiones

La mayoría de los SA alcanzaron al paciente, estando relacionados con la medicación, pruebas diagnósticas y errores de laboratorio. El grado de daño se asoció con problemas de comunicación, ausencia o deficiencia de protocolos y escasa cultura en seguridad.

The application of the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review

Purpose

This study describes the use of, and modifications and additions made to, the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) since its first release in 2003, and summarizes its findings with respect to counting and characterizing adverse events (AEs).

Data sources

Peer-reviewed literature up to 31st December 2014.

Study selection

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

Data extraction

Two authors extracted and compiled the demographics, methodologies and results of the selected studies.

Results of data synthesis

Of the 48 studies meeting the eligibility criteria, 44 collected data from inpatient medical records and four from general practice records. Studies were undertaken in 16 countries. Over half did not follow the standard GTT protocol regarding the number of reviewers used. 'Acts of omission' were included in one quarter of studies. Incident reporting detected between 2% and 8% of AEs that were detected with the GTT. Rates of AEs varied in general inpatient studies between 7% and 40%. Infections, problems with surgical procedures and medication were the most common incident types.

Conclusion

The GTT is a flexible tool used in a range of settings with varied applications. Substantial differences in AE rates were evident across studies, most likely associated with methodological differences and disparate reviewer interpretations. AE rates should not be compared between institutions or studies. Recommendations include adding 'omission' AEs, using preventability scores for priority setting, and re-framing the GTT's purpose to understand and characterize AEs rather than just counting them.

Adverse events in hospitalised cancer patients: a comparison to a general hospital population

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer are often treated by many healthcare providers, receive complex and potentially toxic treatments that can increase the risk for iatrogenic harm. The aim of this study is to investigate whether hospitalised cancer patients are at higher risk of adverse events (AEs) compared to a general hospital population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 6720 patient records were retrospectively reviewed comparing AEs in hospitalised cancer patients to a general hospital population in Norway, using the IHI Global Trigger Tool method.

RESULTS

24.2 percent of admissions for cancer patients had an AE compared to 17.4% of admissions of other patients (p < .001, rr 1.39, 95% CI 1.19-1.62). However, cancer patients did not have a higher rate of AEs per 1000 patient days compared to other patients, 37.1 vs. 36.0 (p = .65, rr 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-1.18). No particular cancer category is at higher risk. The rate of AEs increases by 1.05 times for each day spent in hospital. For every year increase in age, the risk for AEs increases by 1.3%. Cancer patients more often have hospital-acquired infections, other surgical complications and AEs related to medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of higher age, longer length of stay and surgical treatment, hospitalised cancer patients experience AEs more often than other patients.

Developing and Evaluating an Automated All-Cause Harm Trigger System

BACKGROUND

From 2009 through 2012, the Adventist Health System Patient Safety Organization (AHS PSO) used the Global Trigger Tool method for harm identification and demonstrated harm reduction. Although the awareness of harm demonstrated opportunities for improvement across the system, leaders determined that the human and fiscal resources required to continue with a retrospective manual harm identification process were unsustainable. In addition, there was growing concern that the identification of harm after the patient's discharge did not allow for intervention during the hospital stay. Therefore, the AHS PSO decided to seek an alternative method for patient harm identification.

METHODS

The AHS PSO and another PSO jointly developed a novel automated all-cause harm trigger identification system that allowed for real-time bedside intervention, real-time trend analysis affecting patient safety, and continued learning about harm measurement. A sociotechnical approach of people, process, and technology was used at two pilot hospitals sharing the same electronic health record platform. Automated positive harm triggers and work-flow models were developed and evaluated.

RESULTS

Combined data from the two hospitals in a period of 11 consecutive months indicated (1) a total of 2,696 harms (combined hospital-acquired and outside-acquired); (2) that hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤ 40 mg/dL) was the most frequently identified harm; (3) 256 harms related to the Patient Safety Indicator 90 (PSI 90) Composite descriptions versus 77 harms reported to regulatory harm reduction programs; and (4) that almost one third (32%) of total harms were classified as outside-acquired.

CONCLUSION

The automated harm trigger system revealed not only more harm but a broader scope of harm and led to a deeper understanding of patient safety vulnerabilities.

Measuring harm and informing quality improvement in the Welsh NHS: the longitudinal Welsh national adverse events study

Background, objectives and setting

Despite global activity over the past 15 years to improve patient safety, the measurement of adverse events (AEs) remains challenging.

Objectives

We aimed to obtain definitive longitudinal data on harm across NHS Wales and to compare the performance of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) with the two-stage retrospective review process, using our findings to consolidate an approach to the ongoing surveillance of harm in Wales.

Data sources

Eleven of the 13 major Welsh NHS hospitals.

Review methods

The two-stage retrospective review methodology was used to quantify harm across NHS Wales. In total, 4536 inpatient episodes were screened for AEs by research nurses. Records that were highly suggestive of AEs were further assessed by physicians. NHS-led teams undertook GTT reviews on the same case notes.

Results

At least one AE was determined in 10.3% of episodes of care [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.4% to 11.2%] and 51.5% were preventable (95% CI 46.9% to 56.1%). The percentage of patients identified with AEs using the GTT methodology was lower, at 9.0% (95% CI 8.82% to 9.18%). Differences in AEs were evident across study sites. Methods were developed to profile the risk of AEs in individual organisations by producing signatures of harm for each NHS site. Analysis indicated that neither the GTT nor the two-stage process was a candidate tool for routine surveillance, and a hybrid one-stage tool (Harm2), based on phase 1 findings, was developed for ongoing AE monitoring. Using the Harm2 tool, AEs were identified in 371 out of 3352 randomly selected discharge reviews (11.3%, 95% CI 10.2% to 12.4%), and 59.6% (95% CI 55.3 to 63.9) of these were preventable. In a cohort of randomly selected deceased patient reviews, at least one AE was determined in 315 out of 1018 admissions (30.1%, 95% CI 28.1% to 33.8%), and 61.7% (95% CI 57.5% to 65.9%) of these were preventable. Factors associated with AEs in the randomly selected discharge reviews included having peripheral vascular disease [odds ratio (OR) 2.52], hemiplegia (OR 2.27) or dementia (OR 2.27). No association with chronic disease was identified in the deceased episodes of care.

Limitations

The dependence on our health service partners in identifying notes to be reviewed, along with the small sample examined each month, limits the generalisability of these findings and rates were not standardised for hospital and size and level of services provided. We cannot rule out the possibility that the rates we report may be underestimated.

Conclusion

The extent of harm detected across NHS Wales using both the two-stage retrospective review process and the new Harm2 tool conforms to the findings in the literature, but this is the first longitudinal study using these methods. With training and using a structured review process, non-physician reviewers can undertake case note review efficiently and effectively, and the rates of AEs and of the preventability and the breakdown of problems in care conform to those reported in studies in which physicians undertake these classifications. Whether the patient died or was discharged alive significantly influences the rate and composition of AEs. The Harm2 tool performed with moderate reliability in the determination of AEs.

Future work

Future large-scale studies should attempt to specify types of AEs, such as hospital-acquired infections and surgical complications, to enable the surveillance of the specific types of harm as well as the overall level of AEs. In the longer term, we need to automate harm surveillance and set measures of harm alongside measures of the beneficial effects of health care.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Priming Patient Safety Through Nursing Handoff Communication: A Simulation Pilot Study

Understanding how safety culture mechanisms affect nursing safety-oriented behavior and thus patient outcomes is critical to developing hospital safety programs. Safety priming refers to communicating safety values intended to activate patient safety goals. Safety priming through nursing handoff communication was tested as a means by which cultural safety values may affect nursing practice. The mixed-methods pilot study setting was an academic medical center’s high-fidelity simulation lab. Twenty nurses were randomized into intervention and control groups. The intervention group received a safety priming intervention; all participants were observed for completing appropriate actions in response to patient safety risks embedded in a scenario. Stimulated recall interviews were conducted following simulation completion. Nurses receiving the safety priming intervention performed slightly but non-significantly more safety actions than nurses who did not (60.5% vs. 57.9% of 43 actions). Implications for both research and practice are discussed for interventions targeting routine versus safety goal-directed nursing actions.

Hospitalizations Due to Adverse Drug Events in the Elderly-A Retrospective Register Study

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are more likely to affect geriatric patients due to physiological changes occurring with aging. Even though this is an internationally recognized problem, similar research data in Finland is still lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the number of geriatric medication-related hospitalizations in the Finnish patient population and to discover the potential means of recognizing patients particularly at risk of ADEs. The study was conducted retrospectively from the 2014 emergency department patient records in Oulu University Hospital. A total number of 290 admissions were screened for ADEs, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) by a multi-disciplinary research team. Customized Naranjo scale was used as a control method. All admissions were categorized into “probable,” “possible,” or “doubtful” by both assessment methods. In total, 23.1% of admissions were categorized as “probably” or “possibly” medication-related. Vertigo, falling, and fractures formed the largest group of ADEs. The most common ADEs were related to medicines from N class of the ATC-code system. Age, sex, residence, or specialty did not increase the risk for medication-related admission significantly (min p = 0.077). Polypharmacy was, however, found to increase the risk (OR 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5–6.9; p = 0.01). In conclusion, screening patients for specific demographics or symptoms would not significantly improve the recognition of ADEs. In addition, as ADE detection today is largely based on voluntary reporting systems and retrospective manual tracking of errors, it is evident that more effective methods for ADE detection are needed in the future.

Adverse Events at Baseline in a Chinese General Hospital: A Pilot Study of the Global Trigger Tool

OBJECTIVE

To investigate adverse events (AEs) at baseline in a Chinese general hospital using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Global Trigger Tool (GTT) and discuss the feasibility of this tool to detect AEs in China.

METHODS

A total of 10 inpatient records from the hospital were sampled randomly half a month in 2014. The records were reviewed to identify AEs according to the second edition of the IHI GTT for measuring AEs. Triggers and AEs were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2007. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS software, version 19.0.

RESULTS

A review of 240 patient records identified 51.0% (26/51) triggers in the worksheet, and 33.3% (17/51) were associated with AEs. A total of 70 AEs were identified in 54 patients, including 65.7% (46/70) category E AEs, which represent temporary harm requiring intervention, and 34.3% (24/70) category F AEs, which represent temporary harm requiring initial or prolonged hospitalization. The average rate of AEs per 1000 patient-days was 32.1 ± 20.9. The average rate of AEs per 100 admissions was 29.2 ± 16.1. The average rate of admissions with an AE was 22.5% ± 13.9%. The most significant characteristic of patients with AEs was longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one fifth of adult inpatients in the current study experienced at least one AE resulting in temporary harm, most commonly caused by surgical operations and medication. With some modifications, the IHI GTT is a feasible and effective tool for detecting the overall status of AEs in a Chinese hospital.

Measurement of patient safety: a systematic review of the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review

OBJECTIVES

Record review is the most used method to quantify patient safety. We systematically reviewed the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library and from their inception through February 2015. We included all studies that aimed to describe the reliability and/or validity of record review. Two reviewers conducted data extraction. We pooled κ values (κ) and analysed the differences in subgroups according to number of reviewers, reviewer experience and training level, adjusted for the prevalence of adverse events.

RESULTS

In 25 studies, the psychometric data of the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) and the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) were reported and 24 studies were included for statistical pooling. The inter-rater reliability of the GTT and HMPS showed a pooled κ of 0.65 and 0.55, respectively. The inter-rater agreement was statistically significantly higher when the group of reviewers within a study consisted of a maximum five reviewers. We found no studies reporting on the validity of the GTT and HMPS.

CONCLUSIONS

The reliability of record review is moderate to substantial and improved when a small group of reviewers carried out record review. The validity of the record review method has never been evaluated, while clinical data registries, autopsy or direct observations of patient care are potential reference methods that can be used to test concurrent validity.

The role of the anesthesiologist in perioperative patient safety

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the benefits of rapidly advancing therapeutic and diagnostic possibilities, the perioperative setting still exposes patients to significant risks of adverse events and harm. Anesthesiologists are in midstream of perioperative care and can make significant contributions to patient safety and patient outcomes. This article reviews recent research results outlining the current trends of perioperative patient harm and summarizes the evidence in favor of patient safety practices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adverse events and patient harm continue to be frequent in the perioperative period. Adverse events occur in about 30% of hospital admissions, are associated with higher mortality, and may be preventable in more than 50%. Evidence-based recommendations are available for many patient safety issues. No magic bullet practices exist, but promising targets include the prevention and limitation of perioperative infections and of complications of airway and respiratory management, the maintenance of achieved safety standards, the use of checklists, and others.

SUMMARY

Current research provides growing evidence for the effectiveness of several patient safety practices designed to prevent or diminish perioperative adverse events and patient harm. Future investigations will hopefully fill the numerous persisting knowledge gaps.

Characterisations of adverse events detected in a university hospital: a 4-year study using the Global Trigger Tool method

OBJECTIVES

To 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.

DESIGN

Two-stage retrospective record review.

SETTING

650-bed university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

20 randomly selected medical records were reviewed every month from 2009 to 2012.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

AE/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.

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Record 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.