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

Author:

Hibbert Peter D123ORCID,Molloy Charlotte J123,Schultz Timothy J4ORCID,Carson-Stevens Andrew5,Braithwaite Jeffrey1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University , 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, New South Wales 2109, Australia

2. IIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia , GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia

3. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute , North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia

4. Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University , Sturt Rd, Bedford Park 5042, South Australia, Australia

5. PRIME Centre Wales & Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University , Heath Park, Cardiff, Wales CF14 4XN, United Kingdom

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

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

Reference48 articles.

1. Improving patient safety through the systematic evaluation of patient outcomes;Forster;Can J Surg,2012

2. Measuring errors and adverse events in health care;Thomas;J Gen Intern Med,2003

3. The problem with incident reporting;Macrae;BMJ Qual Saf,2016

4. Incident reporting systems: what will it take to make them less frustrating and achieve anything useful?;Shojania;Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf,2021

Cited by 3 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