Using the Global Trigger Tool in surgical and neurosurgical patients: A feasibility study

Experiences of the development and use of a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool

BACKGROUND

Trigger tools are widely used for detecting adverse events. Within the multicentre study Patient Safety in Paediatric Oncology, a trigger tool was created to address the unique needs of paediatric oncology. Although trigger tools are highly valued for detecting adverse events, concerns about their usability and reliability persist. Understanding the perspectives of medical record reviewers using these tools may provide valuable insights for improving their usability and reliability. This study aimed to explore the experiences of medical record reviewers involved in the development and use of a Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative case study was conducted to investigate the experiences of medical record reviewers participating in the development and use of the Paediatric Oncology Trigger Tool. Data were collected through a semi-structured focus group interview conducted via Zoom, involving six reviewers with varying levels of experience in paediatric oncology and trigger tool methodology. The interview was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The written text was analysed in its entirety using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed an overarching theme of knowledge building with three themes: competencies, resources and usefulness. The findings highlight the importance of collaborative learning, expert support and adequate resources, while also noting challenges such as time consumption and the emotional impact of reviewing medical records of critically ill children.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers a comprehensive examination and clarity regarding the development and use of a patient safety instrument, a process marked by both challenges and facilitators from the perspective of medical record reviewers. The study underscores the need for resources, training and support during the review process to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the trigger tool.

Development of Automated Triggers in Ambulatory Settings in Brazil: Protocol for a Machine Learning-Based Design Thinking Study

BACKGROUND

The use of technologies has had a significant impact on patient safety and the quality of care and has increased globally. In the literature, it has been reported that people die annually due to adverse events (AEs), and various methods exist for investigating and measuring AEs. However, some methods have a limited scope, data extraction, and the need for data standardization. In Brazil, there are few studies on the application of trigger tools, and this study is the first to create automated triggers in ambulatory care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a machine learning (ML)-based automated trigger for outpatient health care settings in Brazil.

METHODS

A mixed methods research will be conducted within a design thinking framework and the principles will be applied in creating the automated triggers, following the stages of (1) empathize and define the problem, involving observations and inquiries to comprehend both the user and the challenge at hand; (2) ideation, where various solutions to the problem are generated; (3) prototyping, involving the construction of a minimal representation of the best solutions; (4) testing, where user feedback is obtained to refine the solution; and (5) implementation, where the refined solution is tested, changes are assessed, and scaling is considered. Furthermore, ML methods will be adopted to develop automated triggers, tailored to the local context in collaboration with an expert in the field.

RESULTS

This protocol describes a research study in its preliminary stages, prior to any data gathering and analysis. The study was approved by the members of the organizations within the institution in January 2024 and by the ethics board of the University of São Paulo and the institution where the study will take place. in May 2024. As of June 2024, stage 1 commenced with data gathering for qualitative research. A separate paper focused on explaining the method of ML will be considered after the outcomes of stages 1 and 2 in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

After the development of automated triggers in the outpatient setting, it will be possible to prevent and identify potential risks of AEs more promptly, providing valuable information. This technological innovation not only promotes advances in clinical practice but also contributes to the dissemination of techniques and knowledge related to patient safety. Additionally, health care professionals can adopt evidence-based preventive measures, reducing costs associated with AEs and hospital readmissions, enhancing productivity in outpatient care, and contributing to the safety, quality, and effectiveness of care provided. Additionally, in the future, if the outcome is successful, there is the potential to apply it in all units, as planned by the institutional organization.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/55466.

Application of trigger tools for detecting adverse drug events in older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify trigger tools applied to detect adverse drug events (ADEs) in older people and describe their utility and performance.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in the PubMed, Lilacs, and Scopus databases (January 2024). Studies that developed, applied, or validated trigger tools and evaluated their utility and/or performance for detecting ADEs in older people were considered. Direct proportion meta-analyses using the inverse-variance method were performed for prevalence of ADEs and positive predictive value (PPV).

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (25 publications) were included. Twelve trigger tools were identified, of which six were developed for detecting ADEs in older population, four developed for general population and modified for older people, and two developed for general population. No tools for detecting ADEs in older people receiving palliative care or hospitalized in intensive or surgical care units were found. The performance of triggers was presented through PPV (11.5-71%), negative predictive values (83.3%), and sensitivity (30-94.8%). The overall PPV was 33.3% (95%CI: 32.5-34.2%). Triggers with good performance were changes in plasma levels of digoxin, glucose, and potassium; changes in international normalized ratio; abrupt medication stop; hypotension; and constipation. The prevalence of ADEs ranged from 2.8 to 66%, with overall prevalence of ADEs of 20% (95%CI: 19.3-20.8%). Preventability ranged from 8.4 to 94.4%. Metabolic or electrolyte disturbances induced by diuretics, constipation induced by opioids, and falls and delirium induced by benzodiazepines were the most prevalent ADEs.

CONCLUSION

The trigger tools are flexible and easy to apply, and they can contribute to the detection of ADEs, their associated risk factors, the level of harm, and preventability in different health settings. However, there is no consensus on good or poor values of PPV, which indicate the performance of triggers. Furthermore, there is limited evidence regarding the evaluation of performance through negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity.

PROSPERO

CRD42022379893.

[Safety of patient care on an interprofessional training ward in visceral surgery]

BACKGROUND

Interprofessional training wards (ITW) are increasingly being integrated into teaching and training concepts in visceral surgery clinics.

OBJECTIVE

How safe is patient care on an ITW in visceral surgery?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data collection took place from November 2021 to December 2022. In this nonrandomized prospective evaluation study the frequency and severity of adverse events (AE) in 3 groups of 100 patients each in a tertiary referral center hospital for visceral surgery were investigated. The groups consisted of patients on the ITW and on the conventional ward before and after implementation of the ITW. The Global Trigger Tool (GTT) was used to search for AE. Simultaneously, a survey of the treatment was conducted according to the Picker method to measure patient reported outcome.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics and clinical outcome parameters of the patients in the three groups were comparable. The GTT analysis found 74 nonpreventable and 5 preventable AE in 63 (21%) of the patients and 12 AE occurred before the hospital stay. During the hospital stay 50 AE occurred in the operating theater and 17 on the conventional ward. None of the five preventable AE (in 1.7% of the patients) was caused by the treatment on the ITW. Patients rated the safety on the ITW better than in 90% of the hospitals included in the Picker benchmark cohort and as good as on the normal ward.

CONCLUSION

The GTT-based data as well as from the patients' point of view show that patient care on a carefully implemented ITW in visceral surgery is safe.