‘Global Trigger Tool’ Shows That Adverse Events In Hospitals May Be Ten Times Greater Than Previously Measured

Adverse event (AE) surveillance may be enhanced by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). A pilot study of the GTT was conducted in one Veterans Health Administration (VA) facility to assess the rates, types, and harm of AEs detected and to examine the overlap in AE detection between the GTT and existing surveillance mechanisms. GTT guidelines were followed and medical records were reviewed for 17 weeks of acute care hospitalizations. Investigators met monthly, first to adjudicate discordant reviewer categorizations of harm and later to categorize the AEs detected using standardized definitions. GTT-detected AEs were compared with incident reports, Patient Safety Indicators, and the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Medical records were reviewed for 273 of 1980 eligible cases. Using the GTT, a total of 109 AEs were identified. More than 1 of 5 hospitalizations (21%) were associated with an AE. The majority of AEs detected (60%) were minor harms; there were no deaths attributable to medical care. Ninety-six of the 109 AEs (88%) were not detected by other measures. The GTT identified previously undetected AEs at one VA. The GTT has the potential to track AEs and guide quality improvement efforts in conjunction with existing AE surveillance mechanisms.

No Harm, No Foul, and No Hospital Readmissions

There is a lack of research on adverse event (AE) detection in oncology patients, despite the propensity for iatrogenic harm. Two common methods include voluntary safety reporting (VSR) and chart review tools, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Our objective was to compare frequency and type of AEs detected by a modified GTT compared with VSR for identifying AEs in oncology patients in a larger clinical trial. Patients across 6 oncology units (from July 1, 2013, through May 29, 2015) were randomly selected. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted by a team of nurses and physicians to identify AEs using the GTT. The VSR system was queried by the department of quality and safety of the hospital. Adverse event frequencies, type, and harm code for both methods were compared. The modified GTT detected 0.90 AEs per patient (79 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.71-1.12] AEs per patient) that were predominantly medication AEs (53/79); more than half of the AEs caused harm to the patients (41/79, 52%), but only one quarter were preventable (21/79; 27%). The VSR detected 0.24 AEs per patient (21 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.15-0.37] AEs per patient), a large plurality of which were medication/intravenous related (8/21); more than half did not cause harm (70%). Only 2% of the AEs (2/100) were detected by both methods. Neither the modified GTT nor the VSR system alone is sufficient for detecting AEs in oncology patient populations. Further studies exploring methods such as automated AE detection from electronic health records and leveraging patient-reported AEs are needed.

The goal of this study was to measure an adverse event rate and determine the potential usefulness of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Besides using the GTT to measure the adverse event rate, a comparison was also made with the internal Voluntary Reporting Notification System (VRNS) to identify and compare the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches. Retrospective data were collected from reported patient safety incidents covering a one-year period at Duzce University Hospital, Turkey. Using a range of selection criteria, a total of 219 patient records were selected and then reviewed by a trained GTT team, to investigate the positive triggers in the content of the patient records. It was determined that adverse events per 1000 patient days totalled 80.72. Adverse events per 100 admissions were 29.39, and the rate of admissions with adverse events was 16.67%. The comparison between the GTT and the VRNS showed that the GTT is 19 times more sensitive than the VRNS in the adverse event evaluation process. This is the first published study of the rate of adverse events in a Turkish healthcare setting using the GTT. It was found that the GTT was applicable in this setting, yielding more accurate measurement of the adverse event rate. However, the content of the GTT should be adjusted regarding the standards and documentations used in the Turkish healthcare system to be more useful.

Does Skilled Nursing Facility Trigger Tool used with Global Trigger Tool increase its value for adverse events evaluation?

To determine any additional value in the evaluation of safety levels by adding an appended oncology module to the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Comparison of two independent retrospective chart reviews: one review team using the general GTT method and one using the general GTT method plus the appended oncology module on the same inpatient charts. The Department of Clinical Oncology at a Danish University Hospital (1000 beds). All inpatients admitted to the hospital in 2010, n = 3692, biweekly sample of 10 admission charts resulting in a double review of 240 charts. Total number of identified adverse events (AEs), distribution of identified AEs in the harm categories of the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP), AEs per 100 admissions and AEs per 1000 admission days. No significant (95% confidence interval) difference was found between review teams using the general GTT versus the general GTT plus the appended oncology module on the total number of identified AEs, AEs per 100 admissions, AEs per 1000 admission days or in the overall distribution of identified AEs in the five NCC MERP harm categories. The study showed that adding the appended oncology module to the GTT did not increase its value regarding the evaluation of safety levels. This finding could be due to the measurement error of the GTT. Further studies evaluating the measurement properties and the specific additional modules to the general GTT are needed.

The approved treatment by the Food and Drug Administration for acute ischemic stroke is intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV tPA). After IV tPA administration, patients are monitored for adverse events using an American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guideline instituted in 1996. There is limited evidence describing the safest and most efficient method to monitor patients during the first 24 hours after tPA administration. Although the overall rates of adverse events have been reported, the time when patients may be at most risk for an event has not been studied. The purpose of this study was to identify the time of adverse event occurrences in the first 24 hours after IV tPA administration. This was a descriptive, retrospective chart review study of patients admitted to an integrated health system and treated with IV tPA for acute stroke between July 2010 and July 2012. Charts were reviewed for adverse events using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events. Possible chart indicators of adverse events or "triggers" included neurological decline, vital signs elevated above specified parameters, and emergent imaging. Adverse events included episodes of neurological decline, angioedema, allergic reactions, bleeding, and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The timing of each detected event was determined, and descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Fourteen adverse events (2.8%) were detected in a population of 498 patients. Reactions consisted of allergic reaction (n = 1), angioedema (n = 1), neurological decline without ICH (n = 1), gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 1), bleeding gums (n = 1), and high-risk ICH (n = 9). Thirteen of the 14 adverse events (92.9%) occurred within the first 12 hours after IV tPA administration. Close monitoring during the first 12 hours after IV tPA treatment may be essential. However, close monitoring after 12 hours may not contribute significantly to improved patient outcomes. Larger studies may provide evidence for the safest and most efficient monitoring protocol for patients treated with IV tPA for ischemic stroke.

To determine the inter-rater reliability of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT) in a practice setting, and explore the value of individual triggers. Prospective assessment of application of the GTT to monthly random samples of hospitalized patients at four hospitals across three regions in the USA. Mayo Clinic campuses are in Minnesota, Arizona and Florida. A total of 1138 non-pediatric inpatients from all units across the hospital. GTT was applied to randomly selected medical records with independent assessments of two registered nurses with a physician review for confirmation. The Cohen Kappa coefficient was used as a measure of inter-rater agreement. The positive predictive value was assessed for individual triggers. Good levels of reliability were obtained between independent nurse reviewers at the case-level for both the occurrence of any trigger and the identification of an adverse event. Nurse reviewer agreement for individual triggers was much more varied. Higher agreement appears to occur among triggers that are objective and consistently recorded in selected portions of the medical record. Individual triggers also varied on their yield to detect adverse events. Cases with adverse events had significantly more triggers identified (mean 4.7) than cases with no adverse events (mean 1.8). The trigger methodology appears to be a promising approach to the measurement of patient safety. However, automated processes could make the process more efficient in identifying adverse events and has a greater potential of improving care delivery and patient 'outcomes'.

To assess the reliability of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (IHI-GTT) between nurses and medical students as primary reviewers to measure adverse events (AEs). Interrater reliability study. A 500-bed general public hospital in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. A randomly selected sample of 220 hospital admissions of adults (≥18 years) from Oct-Nov, 2016. Two 4th-5th year-medical students and two experienced nurses applied a Portuguese-translated version of the IHI-GTT to medical records. The role of medical reviewer was performed by two senior physicians specialists in Internal Medicine. Ability to identify AEs was compared between pairs and against medical reviewer through percentage inter-examiner agreement and Kappa coefficient (K). Two outcomes -- "AE identification" and "category of harm" -- were evaluated according to two different denominators -- "admissions" (the total number of admissions evaluated in the sample; reflects the presence or not of at least one AE in each admission) and "all possibilities of agreement" (obtained by adding each identified AE to the admissions without events; allows agreement assessment to be performed for each AE individually). Were identified 199 adverse events in 90 hospitalizations, with rates of 40.9% of admissions with AEs, 76.1 AEs/1,000 patient-days and 90.5 AEs/100 admissions. Comparing student-pair and nurse-pair, we found K = 0.76 (95% IC 0.62-0.88) and K = 0.17 (95% IC 0.06-0.27) for "AE identification" outcome and K = 0.28 (95% IC 0.01-0.55) and K = 0.46 (95% IC 0.28-0.64) for "category of harm" outcome to denominators "admission" and "all possibilities of agreement", respectively. There was no significant difference between the performances of the different primary reviewers composed in any analyses. IHI-GTT reliability varies considerably depending on the denominator used to calculate agreement. As the purpose of the tool is, in addition to measuring, promoting opportunities for quality of care improvement, the individual analysis of the AEs seems more appropriate. Further studies are needed to assess the implications of the slight agreement reached between primary reviewers on the test's overall accuracy. Moreover, advanced medical students may be considered for primary review in settings where unavailability of staff is a barrier to IHI-GTT adoption.

IntroductionA high-quality health system should deliver care that is free from harm. Few large-scale studies of adverse events have been undertaken in children's healthcare internationally, and none in Australia. The...

In the 10 years since publication of the Institute of Medicine's report To Err Is Human, extensive efforts have been undertaken to improve patient safety. The success of these efforts remains unclear. We conducted a retrospective study of a stratified random sample of 10 hospitals in North Carolina. A total of 100 admissions per quarter from January 2002 through December 2007 were reviewed in random order by teams of nurse reviewers both within the hospitals (internal reviewers) and outside the hospitals (external reviewers) with the use of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events. Suspected harms that were identified on initial review were evaluated by two independent physician reviewers. We evaluated changes in the rates of harm, using a random-effects Poisson regression model with adjustment for hospital-level clustering, demographic characteristics of patients, hospital service, and high-risk conditions. Among 2341 admissions, internal reviewers identified 588 harms (25.1 harms per 100 admissions; 95% confidence interval [CI], 23.1 to 27.2) [corrected]. Multivariate analyses of harms identified by internal reviewers showed no significant changes in the overall rate of harms per 1000 patient-days (reduction factor, 0.99 per year; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.04; P=0.61) or the rate of preventable harms. There was a reduction in preventable harms identified by external reviewers that did not reach statistical significance (reduction factor, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.00; P=0.06), with no significant change in the overall rate of harms (reduction factor, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.04; P=0.47). In a study of 10 North Carolina hospitals, we found that harms remain common, with little evidence of widespread improvement. Further efforts are needed to translate effective safety interventions into routine practice and to monitor health care safety over time. (Funded by the Rx Foundation.).

Millennial Health Care: Change You Can Believe in

Introduction. In the past two decades, among the various international initiatives aimed at enhancing the quality of medical care, the greatest number of them is aimed at improving the patient's safety situation. Scientific sources suggest that severe evadable adverse events complicate up to 15% of all hospitalizations, of which approximately 0.7-0.9% of cases can lead to death. It is considered that in perinatal practice, mistakes less frequently lead to adverse events and harm, due to a healthier contingent of patients and the modern paradigm of support for normal and physiological processes, instead of diseases. However, according to scientific literature, up to 1-4% of births are complicated by adverse events, of which up to 2/3 can be considered as preventative.The aim of the research is to determine the content of the major modern organizational tools for identification and registration of adverse events and medical errors in perinatal medicine.Materials and methods. We conducted the content analysis of scientific medical and methodological literature, aimed at identifying the key characteristics and content of organizational instruments for identification and registration of medical errors in perinatal medicine.Research results. Content analysis of printed materials and electronic Internet resources allowed us to determine the main requirements for incident reporting system. The subject of analysis can be any incident of patient safety: a medical error and an adverse event. The review of literature allowed us to reveal the evolution of organizational instruments for registration of adverse events in perinatal medicine. At the lower level, there is the analysis of all cases of deaths of mothers, fetuses and newborns, at the second level – registration of all adverse events with causing harm to the patient; at the third level –registration of near-misses events, the list of which can be personally developed by the department / institution management, adapting the already known tools to their own conditions and to the level of the existing patient safety culture; at the fourth level – registration of the so-called triggers, identification of which in the medical documentation is the basis for its detailed analysis in order to identify the adverse event that occurred during the treatment of patient, and, finally, the fifth level – voluntary reporting of medical errors, occurring at the department. The next, higher level of registration of adverse events and medical errors in perinatal medicine is identification and registration of the so-called uncompleted, timely prevented adverse events. The literature review has shown that most countries have implemented the WHO Maternal Near Miss Tool at the national level. However, it is noted that the main disadvantage of this tool is the lack of registration of uncompleted adverse events associated with the newborn. The standard for detecting adverse medical events was a voluntary incident-reporting system. Yet, these systems in a large number of cases do not reveal the actual frequency of adverse events. Public health researchers found that medical staff volunteered to report only 10-20% of errors, of which from 90 to 95% did not cause any harm to patients. Therefore, hospitals need a more effective way of detecting events that harm patients in order to quantify their degree and severity, as well as determine the effectiveness of the measures taken to improve the patient's safety during the treatment and diagnostic process. In this aspect, the Global Trigger Tool, developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (USA), could be the most effective in assessing the safety of in-patient care provision. This methodology represents a list of triggers (prompts) that are defined for their purpose-oriented search in medical paper / electronic documentation. Perinatal trigger tool includes 8 indicators that may indicate an adverse event associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Currently, the global trigger methodology provides for prospective monitoring of clearly defined indicators online in the application of electronic medical documentation, and retrospective monitoring – in the analysis of medical records after the patient's discharge from the hospital.Conclusions. The latest global trends in the provision of medical care, namely the emphasis on patient safety, require new approaches to address the problem of medical errors and adverse events in perinatal medicine. Incident-reporting systems and the culture of patient safety, essential for their successful operation, should be the key elements of patient safety systems, which are implemented at the hospital, regional and national levels.

Accurate detection of adverse events (AEs) and patient harm is fundamental for improving patient safety in hospitals. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) in detecting adverse events compared with the Assurance of Quality in Surgery (AQC) surgical database and the voluntary Critical Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in a Swiss hospital setting. Specifically, we aim to quantify the detection gap between these 3 systems. A retrospective review was conducted over a 12-month period between January 1st and December 31st, 2024. Analyzing data from 3 distinct surveillance methods: (1) Voluntarily submitted reports via the Critical Incident Reporting System (CIRS) were reviewed for all reported incidents; (2) For the GTT, 20 monthly randomly selected medical records of surgical inpatients (aged 18+, minimum 24-h stay, excluding orthopedics) were reviewed monthly; (3) Assurance of Quality in Surgery (AQC) data was manually entered for all operated surgical inpatients (excluding orthopedics), with rigorous quality checks performed by the authors. The findings from these systems were then compared. An evaluation of CIRS for 2024 revealed only one reported case within the surgical department. Concurrently, AQC statistics indicated 283 completed surgical inpatient procedures, with 17 (6.01%) resulting in complications (surgical and nonsurgical). Furthermore, among 596 stationary patients treated in 2024, the GTT identified 58 patients (9.73%) with at least one AE. Number of overlapping cases between the GTT and the AQC reporting systems was 14. AQC is a particularly valuable tool, especially for operated patients. The Global Trigger Tool (GTT) boasts a wider range of applicability. Its strength lies in its ability to systematically identify potential adverse events through the review of patient records of operated and not operated patients. Sole reliance on voluntary reporting is insufficient for comprehensive adverse event detection. We advise the hospitals to adopt an additional system to complement the voluntary reporting CIRS system.

The new building of the Hospital in Lichtenfels (Germany) was put into operation in mid-July 2018. Neither the medical personnel nor medical departments have been changed. We want to evaluate how 'safe' or 'insecure' the new hospital or department in the beginning might have been. Our objective is to investigate if safety decreases at the beginning in a new hospital, despite modern environments and conditions. Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment were included to evaluate the total number of AEs resulting from medical care and medications. Patients' records had to be closed and completed, the length of stay had to be at least 24 h, and the patient had to have been formally admitted to the hospital [Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) 'Global Trigger Tool' (GTT) recommendation]. The identified AEs were grouped into 27 categories of the IHI 'GTT'. We randomly reviewed 40 patient records per month 6 months before and 6 months after moving to the new hospital. Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference in individual AEs. The sum of AEs was statistically higher after moving into a new hospital. A complete number of harms did reach statistical significance (χ2 = 6.62; df = 1; P < .05; Cramer's V = 0.12), indicating that new environments 'trigger' significantly more potential errors (50%) in comparison to the old environments (38.33%). According to our findings, the new hospital appears to be slightly insecure in the first 6 months after opening.