Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events?
Abstract 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...
Published in: | International Journal for Quality in Health Care |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Oxford University Press (OUP)
2018
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy210 http://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article-pdf/31/7/535/30989421/mzy210.pdf |
id |
croxfordunivpr:10.1093/intqhc/mzy210 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
croxfordunivpr:10.1093/intqhc/mzy210 2024-09-15T18:25:53+00:00 Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events? Mevik, Kjersti Hansen, Tonje E Deilkås, Ellen C Ringdal, Alexander M Vonen, Barthold The Northern Norway Regional Health Authority 2018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy210 http://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article-pdf/31/7/535/30989421/mzy210.pdf en eng Oxford University Press (OUP) https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model International Journal for Quality in Health Care volume 31, issue 7, page 535-540 ISSN 1353-4505 1464-3677 journal-article 2018 croxfordunivpr https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy210 2024-08-27T04:18:40Z Abstract 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. Article in Journal/Newspaper Northern Norway Oxford University Press International Journal for Quality in Health Care 31 7 535 540 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Oxford University Press |
op_collection_id |
croxfordunivpr |
language |
English |
description |
Abstract 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. |
author2 |
The Northern Norway Regional Health Authority |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Mevik, Kjersti Hansen, Tonje E Deilkås, Ellen C Ringdal, Alexander M Vonen, Barthold |
spellingShingle |
Mevik, Kjersti Hansen, Tonje E Deilkås, Ellen C Ringdal, Alexander M Vonen, Barthold Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events? |
author_facet |
Mevik, Kjersti Hansen, Tonje E Deilkås, Ellen C Ringdal, Alexander M Vonen, Barthold |
author_sort |
Mevik, Kjersti |
title |
Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events? |
title_short |
Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events? |
title_full |
Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events? |
title_fullStr |
Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Is a modified Global Trigger Tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events? |
title_sort |
is a modified global trigger tool method using automatic trigger identification valid when measuring adverse events? |
publisher |
Oxford University Press (OUP) |
publishDate |
2018 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy210 http://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article-pdf/31/7/535/30989421/mzy210.pdf |
genre |
Northern Norway |
genre_facet |
Northern Norway |
op_source |
International Journal for Quality in Health Care volume 31, issue 7, page 535-540 ISSN 1353-4505 1464-3677 |
op_rights |
https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy210 |
container_title |
International Journal for Quality in Health Care |
container_volume |
31 |
container_issue |
7 |
container_start_page |
535 |
op_container_end_page |
540 |
_version_ |
1810466353842225152 |