Does increasing the size of bi-weekly samples of records influence results when using the Global Trigger Tool? An observational study of retrospective record reviews of two different sample sizes

Measuring the overall development of patient safety in a new hospital using trigger tools

The new building of the Hospital in Lichtenfels (Germany) was put into operation in mid-July 2018. Neither the medical personnel nor medical departments have been changed. We want to evaluate how 'safe' or 'insecure' the new hospital or department in the beginning might have been. Our objective is to investigate if safety decreases at the beginning in a new hospital, despite modern environments and conditions. Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment were included to evaluate the total number of AEs resulting from medical care and medications. Patients' records had to be closed and completed, the length of stay had to be at least 24 h, and the patient had to have been formally admitted to the hospital [Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) 'Global Trigger Tool' (GTT) recommendation]. The identified AEs were grouped into 27 categories of the IHI 'GTT'. We randomly reviewed 40 patient records per month 6 months before and 6 months after moving to the new hospital. Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference in individual AEs. The sum of AEs was statistically higher after moving into a new hospital. A complete number of harms did reach statistical significance (χ2 = 6.62; df = 1; P < .05; Cramer's V = 0.12), indicating that new environments 'trigger' significantly more potential errors (50%) in comparison to the old environments (38.33%). According to our findings, the new hospital appears to be slightly insecure in the first 6 months after opening.

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.

Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a modified Global Trigger Tool (GTT) method with manual review of automatic triggered records to measure adverse events.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was performed using the original GTT method as gold standard compared to a modified GTT method.

SETTING

Medium size hospital trust in Northern Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

One thousand two hundred thirty-three records selected between March and December 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Records with triggers, adverse events and number of adverse events identified. Recall (sensitivity), precision (positive predictive value), specificity and Cohen's kappa with 95 % confidence interval were calculated.

RESULTS

Both methods identified 35 adverse events per 1000 patient days. The modified GTT method with manual review of 658 automatic triggered records identified adverse events (n = 214) in 189 records and the original GTT method identified adverse events (n = 216) in 186 records. One hundred and ten identical records were identified with adverse events by both methods. Recall, precision, specificity and reliability for records identified with adverse events were respectively 0.59, 0.58, 0.92 and 0.51 for the modified GTT method. The total manual review time in the modified GTT method was 23 h while the manual review time using the original GTT method was 411 h.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified GTT method is as good as the original GTT method that complies with the GTTs aim monitoring the rate of adverse events. Resources saved by using the modified GTT method enable for increasing the sample size. The automatic trigger identification system may be developed to assess triggers in real-time to mitigate risk of adverse events.

Accuracy of surgical complication rate estimation using ICD-10 codes

Background

The ICD‐10 codes are used globally for comparison of diagnoses and complications, and are an important tool for the development of patient safety, healthcare policies and the health economy. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of verified complication rates in surgical admissions identified by ICD‐10 codes and to validate these estimates against complications identified using the established Global Trigger Tool (GTT) methodology.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study of a sample of surgical admissions in two Norwegian hospitals. Complications were identified and classified by two expert GTT teams who reviewed patients' medical records. Three trained reviewers verified ICD‐10 codes indicating a complication present on admission or emerging in hospital.

Results

A total of 700 admissions were drawn randomly from 12 966 procedures. Some 519 possible complications were identified in 332 of 700 admissions (47·4 per cent) from ICD‐10 codes. Verification of the ICD‐10 codes against information from patients' medical records confirmed 298 as in‐hospital complications in 141 of 700 admissions (20·1 per cent). Using GTT methodology, 331 complications were found in 212 of 700 admissions (30·3 per cent). Agreement between the two methods reached 83·3 per cent after verification of ICD‐10 codes. The odds ratio for identifying complications using the GTT increased from 5·85 (95 per cent c.i. 4·06 to 8·44) to 25·38 (15·41 to 41·79) when ICD‐10 complication codes were verified against patients' medical records.

Conclusion

Verified ICD‐10 codes strengthen the accuracy of complication rates. Use of non‐verified complication codes from administrative systems significantly overestimates in‐hospital surgical complication rates.

Code correctly

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.