Article

Development of trigger tools for surveillance of adverse events in ambulatory surgery

Department of Surgery, VA Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, Massachusetts 02132, USA.
Quality and Safety in Health Care (Impact Factor: 2.16). 10/2010; 19(5):425-9. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2008.031591
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The trigger tool methodology uses clinical algorithms applied electronically to 'flag' medical records where adverse events (AEs) have most likely occurred. The authors sought to create surgical triggers to detect AEs in the ambulatory care setting.
Four consecutive steps were used to develop ambulatory surgery triggers. First, the authors conducted a comprehensive literature review for surgical triggers. Second, a series of multidisciplinary focus groups (physicians, nurses, pharmacists and information technology specialists) provided user input on trigger selection. Third, a clinical advisory panel designed an initial set of 10 triggers. Finally, a three-phase Delphi process (surgical and trigger tool experts) evaluated and rated the suggested triggers.
The authors designed an initial set of 10 surgical triggers including five global triggers (flagging medical records for the suspicion of any AE) and five AE-specific triggers (flagging medical records for the suspicion of specific AEs). Based on the Delphi rating of the trigger's utility for system-level interventions, the final triggers were: (1) emergency room visit(s) within 21 days from surgery; (2) unscheduled readmission within 30 days from surgery; (3) unscheduled procedure (interventional radiological, urological, dental, cardiac or gastroenterological) or reoperation within 30 days from surgery; (4) unplanned initial hospital length of stay more than 24 h; and (5) lower-extremity Doppler ultrasound order entry and ICD code for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolus within 30 days from surgery.
The authors therefore propose a systematic methodology to develop trigger tools that takes into consideration previously published work, end-user preferences and expert opinion.

3 Followers
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Retrospective record review using trigger tools remains the most widely used method for measuring adverse events (AEs) to identify targets for improvement and measure temporal trends. However, medical records often contain limited information about factors contributing to AEs. We implemented an augmented trigger tool that supplemented record review with debriefing front-line staff to obtain details not included in the medical record. We hypothesised that this would foster the identification of factors contributing to AEs that could inform improvement initiatives.
    BMJ quality & safety 03/2015; 24(4). DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003432 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists regarding the characteristics of intraoperative adverse events (iAEs). METHODS: Administrative data, the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Project, and systematic review of operative reports were used to confirm iAEs in abdominal surgery patients. Standard American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data were supplemented with variables including injury type/organ, phase of operation, adhesions, repair type, and intraoperative consultations. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-seven iAEs (187 patients) were confirmed in 9,292 patients. Most common injuries were enterotomies during intestinal surgery (68%) and vessel injuries during hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery (61%); 108 iAEs (48%) specifically occurred during adhesiolysis. A third of the iAEs required organ/tissue resection or complex reconstruction. Because of iAEs, 20 intraoperative consults (11%) were requested and 9 of the 66 (16%) laparoscopic cases were converted to open. Thirty-day mortality and morbidity were 6% and 58%, respectively. The complications included perioperative transfusions (36%), surgical site infection (19%), systemic sepsis (13%), and failure to wean off the ventilator (12%). CONCLUSIONS: iAEs commonly occur in reoperative cases requiring lysis of adhesions and possibly lead to increased patient morbidity. Understanding iAEs is essential to prevent their occurrence and mitigate their adverse effects.
    The American Journal of Surgery 05/2014; 208(4). DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.02.014 · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim was to describe the strengths and weaknesses, from team member perspectives, of working with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) method of retrospective record review to identify adverse events causing patient harm. A qualitative, descriptive approach with focus group interviews using content analysis. 5 Swedish hospitals in 2011. 5 GTT teams, with 5 physicians and 11 registered nurses. 5 focus group interviews were carried out with the five teams. Interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim. 8 categories emerged relating to the strengths and weaknesses of the GTT method. The categories found were: Usefulness of the GTT, Application of the GTT, Triggers, Preventability of harm, Team composition, Team tasks, Team members' knowledge development and Documentation. Gradually, changes in the methodology were made by the teams, for example, the teams reported how the registered nurses divided up the charts into two sets, each being read respectively. The teams described the method as important and well functioning. Not only the most important, but also the most difficult, was the task of bringing the results back to the clinic. The teams found it easier to discuss findings at their own clinics. The GTT method functions well for identifying adverse events and is strengthened by its adaptability to different specialties. However, small, gradual methodological changes together with continuingly developed expertise and adaption to looking at harm from a patient's perspective may contribute to large differences in assessment over time.
    BMJ Open 09/2013; 3(9):e003131. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003131 · 2.06 Impact Factor