The accuracy of the Global Trigger Tool is higher for the identification of adverse events of greater harm: a diagnostic test study

Author:

Moraes Sara Monteiro1ORCID,Ferrari Teresa Cristina Abreu1,Beleigoli Alline2

Affiliation:

1. Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais , Avenida Alfredo Balena, 190, Santa Efigênia, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais 30130100, Brazil

2. Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University , N306 Sturt North, Bedford Park, Adelaide, South Australia 5042, Australia

Abstract

Abstract Global Trigger Tool (GTT) of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has been used as a measurement strategy for patient safety by several institutions and national programs. Although the greater ability of the GTT to identify adverse events (AEs) compared to other methods has already been demonstrated, there are few data on its accuracy, and studies suggest lower sensitivity for minor AEs. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the GTT for identifying AEs in adult inpatients for all AEs and for the subgroup of AEs with greater harm to the patient, classified as F–I on the IHI-GTT adapted version of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) Index for Categorizing Errors. In this diagnostic test study, GTT is the index test and identification of AEs (yes/no) represents the condition of interest. Due to the lack of a gold standard test, a composite reference standard method was developed. Reference standard method combined real-time (during hospitalizations) and retrospective search of medical records and administrative data for screening criteria and AEs. Both tests were applied to a random sample of 211 hospitalizations of adult inpatients during October–November 2016 in a large public hospital in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The accuracy of the GTT was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, and global accuracy. A total of 176 AEs were identified in 67 admissions using reference standard method and 129 AEs in 76 admissions using GTT, resulting in rates of 126 and 93 AEs/1000 patient-days, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and global accuracy of the GTT for the identification of individual AEs were, respectively, 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34; 0.49), 0.68 (95% CI 0.60; 0.74), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.49; 0.60) for all AEs, regardless of the harm categorization, and 0.85 (95% CI 0.72; 0.93), 0.88 (95% CI 0.82; 0.92), and 0.87 (95% CI 0.82; 0.91) for the subgroup of AEs categorized as harm F–I. Among the main AEs missed by the GTT are AEs related to nursing care, such as those related to peripheral venous access and gastric/enteric catheters. GTT proved to be a valid method for identifying AEs in adult inpatients. Its accuracy increases when minor harm AEs are not counted. Among the main AEs missed by the GTT are those related to nursing care. Therefore, the GTT should be used in conjunction with other measurement strategies to achieve results that are representative of the quality profile of the care provided and, thus, guide the best improvement strategies.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,General Medicine

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3