1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            'Global trigger tool' shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured.

            Identification and measurement of adverse medical events is central to patient safety, forming a foundation for accountability, prioritizing problems to work on, generating ideas for safer care, and testing which interventions work. We compared three methods to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients, using the same patient sample set from three leading hospitals. We found that the adverse event detection methods commonly used to track patient safety in the United States today-voluntary reporting and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Indicators-fared very poorly compared to other methods and missed 90 percent of the adverse events. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool found at least ten times more confirmed, serious events than these other methods. Overall, adverse events occurred in one-third of hospital admissions. Reliance on voluntary reporting and the Patient Safety Indicators could produce misleading conclusions about the current safety of care in the US health care system and misdirect efforts to improve patient safety.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reviewing studies with diverse designs: the development and evaluation of a new tool.

              RATIONALE, AIMS & OBJECTIVE: Tools for the assessment of the quality of research studies tend to be specific to a particular research design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, or qualitative interviews). This makes it difficult to assess the quality of a body of research that addresses the same or a similar research question but using different approaches. The aim of this paper is to describe the development and preliminary evaluation of a quality assessment tool that can be applied to a methodologically diverse set of research articles. The 16-item quality assessment tool (QATSDD) was assessed to determine its reliability and validity when used by health services researchers in the disciplines of psychology, sociology and nursing. Qualitative feedback was also gathered from mixed-methods health researchers regarding the comprehension, content, perceived value and usability of the tool. Reference to existing widely used quality assessment tools and experts in systematic review confirmed that the components of the tool represented the construct of 'good research technique' being assessed. Face validity was subsequently established through feedback from a sample of nine health researchers. Inter-rater reliability was established through substantial agreement between three reviewers when applying the tool to a set of three research papers (κ = 71.5%), and good to substantial agreement between their scores at time 1 and after a 6-week interval at time 2 confirmed test-retest reliability. The QATSDD shows good reliability and validity for use in the quality assessment of a diversity of studies, and may be an extremely useful tool for reviewers to standardize and increase the rigour of their assessments in reviews of the published papers which include qualitative and quantitative work. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Qual Health Care
                Int J Qual Health Care
                intqhc
                International Journal for Quality in Health Care
                Oxford University Press (UK )
                1353-4505
                1464-3677
                July 2023
                13 July 2023
                13 July 2023
                : 35
                : 3
                : mzad056
                Affiliations
                departmentAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University , 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, New South Wales 2109, Australia
                departmentIIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia , GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia
                South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute , North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
                departmentAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University , 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, New South Wales 2109, Australia
                departmentIIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia , GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia
                South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute , North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
                departmentFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University , Sturt Rd, Bedford Park 5042, South Australia, Australia
                departmentPRIME Centre Wales & Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University , Heath Park, Cardiff, Wales CF14 4XN, United Kingdom
                departmentAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University , 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, New South Wales 2109, Australia
                Author notes
                *Corresponding author. Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney Macquarie Park, New South Wales 2109, Australia. E-mail: peter.hibbert@ 123456mq.edu.au

                Handling Editor: Dr Phillip Phan

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7865-343X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1419-3328
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0296-4957
                Article
                mzad056
                10.1093/intqhc/mzad056
                10367579
                37440353
                f7a7f227-dd27-42df-883c-3614a0368907
                © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 02 January 2023
                : 21 June 2023
                : 11 July 2023
                : 03 July 2023
                : 25 July 2023
                Page count
                Pages: 8
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                AcademicSubjects/MED00860

                Medicine
                patient safety,systematic review,quality of care,hospital incident reporting,adverse events,healthcare global trigger tool

                Comments

                Comment on this article