Development of a trigger tool to identify harmful incidents, no harm incidents, and near misses in prehospital emergency care.
Journal
Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
ISSN: 1757-7241
Titre abrégé: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101477511
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Apr 2024
29 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
26
06
2023
accepted:
21
04
2024
medline:
30
4
2024
pubmed:
30
4
2024
entrez:
29
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are a unique setting because care for the chief complaint is given across all ages in a complex and high-risk environment that may pose a threat to patient safety. Traditionally, a reporting system is commonly used to raise awareness of adverse events (AEs); however, it could fail to detect an AE. Several methods are needed to evaluate patient safety in EMS. In this light, this study was conducted to (1) develop a national ambulance trigger tool (ATT) with a guide containing descriptions of triggers, examples of use, and categorization of near misses (NMs), no harm incidents (NHIs), and harmful incidents (HIs) and (2) use the ATT on randomly selected ambulance records. The ambulance trigger tool was developed in a stepwise manner through (1) a literature review; (2) three sessions of structured group discussions with an expert panel having knowledge of emergency medical service, patient safety, and development of trigger tools; (3) a retrospective record review of 900 randomly selected journals with three review teams from different geographical locations; and (4) inter-rater reliability testing between reviewers. From the literature review, 34 triggers were derived. After removing clinically irrelevant ones and combining others through three sessions of structured discussions, 19 remained. The most common triggers identified in the 900 randomly selected records were deviation from treatment guidelines (30.4%), the patient is non conveyed after EMS assessment (20.8%), and incomplete documentation (14.4%). The positive triggers were categorized as a near miss (40.9%), no harm (3.7%), and harmful incident (0.2%). Inter-rater reliability testing showed good agreement in both sessions. This study shows that a trigger tool together with a retrospective record review can be used as a method to measure the frequency of harmful incidents, no harm incidents, and near misses in the EMS, thus complementing the traditional reporting system to realize increased patient safety.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are a unique setting because care for the chief complaint is given across all ages in a complex and high-risk environment that may pose a threat to patient safety. Traditionally, a reporting system is commonly used to raise awareness of adverse events (AEs); however, it could fail to detect an AE. Several methods are needed to evaluate patient safety in EMS. In this light, this study was conducted to (1) develop a national ambulance trigger tool (ATT) with a guide containing descriptions of triggers, examples of use, and categorization of near misses (NMs), no harm incidents (NHIs), and harmful incidents (HIs) and (2) use the ATT on randomly selected ambulance records.
METHODS
METHODS
The ambulance trigger tool was developed in a stepwise manner through (1) a literature review; (2) three sessions of structured group discussions with an expert panel having knowledge of emergency medical service, patient safety, and development of trigger tools; (3) a retrospective record review of 900 randomly selected journals with three review teams from different geographical locations; and (4) inter-rater reliability testing between reviewers.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From the literature review, 34 triggers were derived. After removing clinically irrelevant ones and combining others through three sessions of structured discussions, 19 remained. The most common triggers identified in the 900 randomly selected records were deviation from treatment guidelines (30.4%), the patient is non conveyed after EMS assessment (20.8%), and incomplete documentation (14.4%). The positive triggers were categorized as a near miss (40.9%), no harm (3.7%), and harmful incident (0.2%). Inter-rater reliability testing showed good agreement in both sessions.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that a trigger tool together with a retrospective record review can be used as a method to measure the frequency of harmful incidents, no harm incidents, and near misses in the EMS, thus complementing the traditional reporting system to realize increased patient safety.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38685120
doi: 10.1186/s13049-024-01209-x
pii: 10.1186/s13049-024-01209-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
38Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Jul;27(7):502-511
pubmed: 28971884
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008 Oct-Dec;12(4):411-6
pubmed: 18924002
BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):299-302
pubmed: 7633241
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Apr;21(4):307-14
pubmed: 22362917
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014 Jul-Sep;18(3):350-8
pubmed: 24669906
Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 Aug;60:112-20
pubmed: 27297373
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41239
pubmed: 22844445
BMC Pediatr. 2020 Sep 29;20(1):454
pubmed: 32993580
Acta Orthop. 2008 Jun;79(3):396-403
pubmed: 18622845
N Engl J Med. 1991 Feb 7;324(6):377-84
pubmed: 1824793
Anaesthesist. 2011 Mar;60(3):221-9
pubmed: 20852833
World J Methodol. 2021 Jul 20;11(4):116-129
pubmed: 34322364
J Adv Nurs. 1987 Nov;12(6):729-34
pubmed: 3320139
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 15;14(1):e0210875
pubmed: 30645637
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Apr;13(2):145-51; discussion 151-2
pubmed: 15069223
Int J Qual Health Care. 2010 Aug;22(4):266-74
pubmed: 20534607
Int J Nurs Stud. 2001 Apr;38(2):195-200
pubmed: 11223060
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Dec 21;14:655
pubmed: 25527905
CJEM. 2011 Nov;13(6):372-7
pubmed: 22436474
Int J Qual Health Care. 2009 Feb;21(1):18-26
pubmed: 19147597
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Feb;210(2):220-7
pubmed: 20113943
Int J Gen Med. 2012;5:117-21
pubmed: 22319249
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007 Sep;16(9):1006-13
pubmed: 17523185
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Jul;15(7):633-40
pubmed: 19086213
BMC Emerg Med. 2020 Aug 10;20(1):61
pubmed: 32778074
BMC Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 24;19(1):14
pubmed: 30678636
BMC Emerg Med. 2020 Jan 30;20(1):7
pubmed: 32000684
J Adv Nurs. 1994 Jun;19(6):1221-5
pubmed: 7930104
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Feb 28;11:49
pubmed: 21356056
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2022 Jun 13;30(1):40
pubmed: 35698086
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476
pubmed: 21694759
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jul 22;13:282
pubmed: 23876023
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 May;46(5):423-9
pubmed: 8501467
Res Nurs Health. 2006 Oct;29(5):489-97
pubmed: 16977646
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Mar 03;24:21
pubmed: 26940235
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Jan;37(1):32-7
pubmed: 11145768
J Adv Nurs. 1989 Sep;14(9):762-75
pubmed: 2506261
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2005 Jan;77(1):49-56
pubmed: 15639709
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):581-9
pubmed: 21471476
Cureus. 2022 Feb 21;14(2):e22446
pubmed: 35345754
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014 Jan-Mar;18(1):9-14
pubmed: 24028608
N Engl J Med. 1991 Jul 25;325(4):245-51
pubmed: 2057025