Development of an Emergency Department Trigger Tool Using a Systematic Search and Modified Delphi Process.
Journal
Journal of patient safety
ISSN: 1549-8425
Titre abrégé: J Patient Saf
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101233393
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
18
6
2016
medline:
23
9
2020
entrez:
18
6
2016
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to develop an emergency department (ED) trigger tool to improve the identification of adverse events in the ED and that can be used to direct patient safety and quality improvement. This work describes the first step toward the development of an ED all-cause harm measurement tool by experts in the field. We identified a multidisciplinary group of emergency medicine safety experts from whom we solicited candidate triggers. We then conducted a modified Delphi process consisting of 4 stages as follows: (1) a systematic literature search and review, including an independent oversampling of review for inclusion, (2) solicitation of empiric triggers from participants, (3) a Web-based survey ranking triggers on specific performance constructs, and (4) a final in-person meeting to arrive at consensus triggers for testing. Results of each step were shared with participants between each stage. Among an initial 804 unique articles found using our search criteria, we identified 94 that were suitable for further review. Interrater reliability was high (κ = 0.80). Review of these articles yielded 56 candidate triggers. These were supplemented by 58 participant-submitted triggers yielding a total of 114 candidate triggers that were shared with team members electronically along with their definitions. Team members then voted on each measure via a Web-based survey, ranking triggers on their face validity, utility for quality improvement, and fidelity (sensitivity/specificity). Participants were also provided the ability to flag any trigger about which they had questions or they felt merited further discussion at the in-person meeting. Triggers were ranked by combining the first 2 categories (face validity and utility), and information on fidelity was reviewed for decision making at the in-person meeting. Seven redundant triggers were eliminated. At an in-person meeting including representatives from all facilities, we presented the 50 top-ranked triggers as well as those that were flagged on the survey by 2 or more participants. We reviewed each trigger individually, identifying 41 triggers about which there was a clear agreement for inclusion. Of the seven additional triggers that required subsequent voting via e-mail, 5 were adopted, arriving at a total of 46 consensus-derived triggers. Our modified Delphi process resulted in the identification of 46 final triggers for the detection of adverse events among ED patients. These triggers should be pilot field tested to quantify their individual and collective performance in detecting all-cause harm to ED patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 27314201
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000243
pii: 01209203-202003000-00021
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e11-e17Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : KL2 TR001080
Pays : United States
Références
Fordyce J, Blank FS, Pekow P, et al. Errors in a busy emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;42:324–333.
Stang AS, Wingert AS, Hartling L, et al. Adverse events related to emergency department care: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e74214.
Calder LA, Forster A, Nelson M, et al. Adverse events among patients registered in high-acuity areas of the emergency department: a prospective cohort study. CJEM. 2010;12:421–430.
Camargo CA Jr, Tsai CL, Sullivan AF, et al. Safety climate and medical errors in 62 US emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:555–563 e20.
Hafner JW Jr, Belknap SM, Squillante MD, et al. Adverse drug events in emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;39:258–267.
Liu SW, Thomas SH, Gordon JA, et al. A pilot study examining undesirable events among emergency department-boarded patients awaiting inpatient beds. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54:381–385.
Rising KL, Victor TW, Hollander JE, et al. Patient returns to the emergency department: the time-to-return curve. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21:864–871.
Pham JC, Kirsch TD, Hill PM, et al. Seventy-two-hour returns may not be a good indicator of safety in the emergency department: a national study. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18:390–397.
Griffey RT, Bohan JS. Healthcare provider complaints to the emergency department: a preliminary report on a new quality improvement instrument. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:344–346.
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:370–376.
Resar RK, Rozich JD, Classen D. Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(suppl 2):ii39–ii45.
Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK. Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:194–200.
Classen DC, Resar R, Griffin F, et al. ‘Global trigger tool’ shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:581–589.
Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, et al. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2124–2134.
Griffin FA, Resar RK. IHI Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2009.
Suarez C, Menendez MD, Alonso J, et al. Detection of adverse events in an acute geriatric hospital over a 6-year period using the Global Trigger Tool. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62:896–900.
Sharek PJ, Horbar JD, Mason W, et al. Adverse events in the neonatal intensive care unit: development, testing, and findings of an NICU-focused trigger tool to identify harm in North American NICUs. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1332–1340.
Najjar S, Hamdan M, Euwema MC, et al. The Global Trigger Tool shows that one out of seven patients suffers harm in Palestinian hospitals: challenges for launching a strategic safety plan. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25:640–647.
Mattsson TO, Knudsen JL, Brixen K, et al. Does adding an appended oncology module to the Global Trigger Tool increase its value? Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26:553–560.
Kalenderian E, Walji MF, Tavares A, et al. An adverse event trigger tool in dentistry: a new methodology for measuring harm in the dental office. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144:808–814.
Carnevali L, Krug B, Amant F, et al. Performance of the adverse drug event trigger tool and the global trigger tool for identifying adverse drug events: experience in a Belgian hospital. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47:1414–1419.
Szekendi MK, Sullivan C, Bobb A, et al. Active surveillance using electronic triggers to detect adverse events in hospitalized patients. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:184–190.
Resar RK, Rozich JD, Simmonds T, et al. A trigger tool to identify adverse events in the intensive care unit. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006;32:585–590.
Dalkey NC, Brown BB, Cochran S. The Delphi Method. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp; 1969.
Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, et al. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20476.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.
Stockwell DC, Bisarya H, Classen DC, et al. Development of an electronic pediatric all-cause harm measurement tool using a modified Delphi method. J Patient Saf. 2014[Epub ahead of print].
Unbeck M, Lindemalm S, Nydert P, et al. Validation of triggers and development of a pediatric trigger tool to identify adverse events. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:655.
Institute of Medicine, (IOM). To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999.
Cullen DJ, Bates DW, Small SD, et al. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1995;21:541–548.
Sari AB, Sheldon TA, Cracknell A, et al. Extent, nature and consequences of adverse events: results of a retrospective casenote review in a large NHS hospital. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:434–439.
Vincent C. Incident reporting and patient safety. BMJ. 2007;334:51.
Olsen S, Neale G, Schwab K, et al. Hospital staff should use more than one method to detect adverse events and potential adverse events: incident reporting, pharmacist surveillance and local real-time record review may all have a place. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:40–44.
Stanhope N, Crowley-Murphy M, Vincent C, et al. An evaluation of adverse incident reporting. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999;5:5–12.
Levinson DR. Hospital Incident Reporting Systems Do Not Capture Most Patient Harm: DHHS, OIG; 2012. Report No.: OEI-06-09-00091.
James JT. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf. 2013;9:122–128.
Kennerly DA, Kudyakov R, da Graca B, et al. Characterization of adverse events detected in a large health care delivery system using an enhanced global trigger tool over a five-year interval. Health Serv Res. 2014;49:1407–1425.