Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? an evaluation of the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool”

Patient Safety in Surgery

Karin Pukk Härenstam⁶  Lena Nilsson²  Olav Muren³  Urban Jürgensen⁴  Peter Henriksson⁵  Kristina Schildmeijer¹  Maria Unbeck³ 

[1] School of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health, Social Work and Behavioural Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden;Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Department of Anaesthesia, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden;Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Division of Orthopaedics, Stockholm, Sweden;Qulturum, Jönköping County Council, Jönköping, Sweden;Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden;Karolinska University Hospital, Division of Paediatrics, Astrid Lindgren’s Children’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

关键词: Orthopaedic care;    Retrospective record review;    Safety;    Adverse event;   

Others  :  790315
DOI  :  10.1186/1754-9493-7-10

 received in 2012-12-18, accepted in 2013-03-26,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

There has been a theoretical debate as to which retrospective record review method is the most valid, reliable, cost efficient and feasible for detecting adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and capability of two common retrospective record review methods, the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” in detecting adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients.

Methods

We performed a three-stage structured retrospective record review process in a random sample of 350 orthopaedic admissions during 2009 at a Swedish university hospital. Two teams comprised each of a registered nurse and two physicians were assigned, one to each method. All records were primarily reviewed by registered nurses. Records containing a potential adverse event were forwarded to physicians for review in stage 2. Physicians made an independent review regarding, for example, healthcare causation, preventability and severity. In the third review stage all adverse events that were found with the two methods together were compared and all discrepancies after review stage 2 were analysed. Events that had not been identified by one of the methods in the first two review stages were reviewed by the respective physicians.

Results

Altogether, 160 different adverse events were identified in 105 (30.0%) of the 350 records with both methods combined. The “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method identified 155 of the 160 (96.9%, 95% CI: 92.9-99.0) adverse events in 104 (29.7%) records compared with 137 (85.6%, 95% CI: 79.2-90.7) adverse events in 98 (28.0%) records using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Adverse events “causing harm without permanent disability” accounted for most of the observed difference. The overall positive predictive value for criteria and triggers using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” was 40.3% and 30.4%, respectively.

Conclusions

More adverse events were identified using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method than using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Differences in review methodology, perception of less severe adverse events and context knowledge may explain the observed difference between two expert review teams in the detection of adverse events.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Unbeck et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH: 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.
• [2]Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD: The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995, 163:458-471.
• [3]Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M: Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001, 322:517-519.
• [4]Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, Ali W, Scott A, Schug S: Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals I: occurrence and impact. N Z Med J 2002, 115:U271.
• [5]Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, Blais R, Brown A, Cox J, Etchells E, Ghali WA, Hebert P, Majumdar SR, et al.: The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004, 170:1678-1686.
• [6]Soop M, Fryksmark U, Koster M, Haglund B: The incidence of adverse events in Swedish hospitals: a retrospective medical record review study. Int J Qual Health Care 2009, 21:285-291.
• [7]Griffin F, Resar R: IHI Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events (Second Edition). 2nd edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2009.
• [8]Classen DC, Lloyd RC, Provost L, Griffin FA, Resar R: Development and Evaluation of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool. J Patient Saf 2008, 4:169-177.
• [9]Naessens JM, Campbell CR, Huddleston JM, Berg BP, Lefante JJ, Williams AR, Culbertson RA: A comparison of hospital adverse events identified by three widely used detection methods. Int J Qual Health Care 2009, 21:301-307.
• [10]Naessens JM, O'Byrne TJ, Johnson MG, Vansuch MB, McGlone CM, Huddleston JM: Measuring hospital adverse events: assessing inter-rater reliability and trigger performance of the Global Trigger Tool. Int J Qual Health Care 2010, 22:266-274.
• [11]Sharek PJ, Parry G, Goldmann D, Bones K, Hackbarth A, Resar R, Griffin FA, Rhoda D, Murphy C, Landrigan CP: Performance Characteristics of a Methodology to Quantify Adverse Events over Time in Hospitalized Patients. Health Serv Res 2010, 46:654-678.
• [12]Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, Hackbarth AD, Goldmann DA, Sharek PJ: Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med 2010, 363:2124-2134.
• [13]Good VS, Saldana M, Gilder R, Nicewander D, Kennerly DA: Large-scale deployment of the Global Trigger Tool across a large hospital system: refinements for the characterisation of adverse events to support patient safety learning opportunities. Qual Saf Health Care 2011, 20:25-30.
• [14]Classen DC, Resar R, Griffin F, Federico F, Frankel T, Kimmel N, Whittington JC, Frankel A, Seger A, James BC: Global trigger tool' shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011, 30:581-589.
• [15]Olsen S: Detection of adverse events in surgery by record review. University of London: Thesis for doctoral degree (Ph.D); 2006.
• [16]Hiatt HH, Barnes BA, Brennan TA, Laird NM, Lawthers AG, Leape LL, Localio AR, Newhouse JP, Peterson LM, Thorpe KE, et al.: A study of medical injury and medical malpractice. N Engl J Med 1989, 321:480-484.
• [17]Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA, Hebert L, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt H: The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991, 324:377-384.
• [18]Schioler T, Lipczak H, Pedersen BL, Mogensen TS, Bech KB, Stockmarr A, Svenning AR, Frolich A: Incidence of adverse events in hospitals. A retrospective study of medical records. Ugeskr Laeger 2001, 163:5370-5378.
• [19]Forster AJ, Asmis TR, Clark HD, Al Saied G, Code CC, Caughey SC, Baker K, Watters J, Worthington J, Van Walraven C: Ottawa Hospital Patient Safety Study: incidence and timing of adverse events in patients admitted to a Canadian teaching hospital. CMAJ 2004, 170:1235-1240.
• [20]Structured record review to identify and measure occurrence of harm in healthcare according to the method Global Trigger Tool (in Swedish). Stockholm: Kommentus förlag; 2008.
• [21]National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP). NCC MERP Index for Categorizing Medication Errors. http://www.nccmerp.org/medErrorCatIndex.html webcite
• [22]Neale G, Woloshynowych M, Vincent C: Exploring the causes of adverse events in NHS hospital practice. J R Soc Med 2001, 94:322-330.
• [23]Kable A, Gibberd R, Spigelman A: Predictors of adverse events in surgical admissions in Australia. Int J Qual Health Care 2008, 20:406-411.
• [24]Unbeck M, Muren O, Lillkrona U: Identification of adverse events at an orthopedics department in Sweden. Acta Orthop 2008, 79:396-403.
• [25]Sari AB, Sheldon TA, Cracknell A, Turnbull A, Dobson Y, Grant C, Gray W, Richardson A: 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.
• [26]Vincent C: Patient safety. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
• [27]Silver MP, Hougland P, Elder S, Haug J, Pritchett T, Donnelly S, Link CL, Xu W: Statewide identification of adverse events using retrospective nurse review: methods and outcomes. J Nurs Meas 2007, 15:220-232.
• [28]Wolff AM: Limited adverse occurrence screening: an effective and efficient method of medical quality control. J Qual Clin Pract 1995, 15:221-233.
• [29]Sharek PJ, Horbar JD, Mason W, Bisarya H, Thurm CW, Suresh G, Gray JE, Edwards WH, Goldmann D, Classen D: 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.
• [30]Schildmeijer K, Nilsson L, Arestedt K, Perk J: Assessment of adverse events in medical care: lack of consistency between experienced teams using the global trigger tool. BMJ Qual Saf 2012, 21:307-314.
• [31]Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA: The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 1999, 126:66-75.
• [32]Kable AK, Gibberd RW, Spigelman AD: Adverse events in surgical patients in Australia. Int J Qual Health Care 2002, 14:269-276.
• [33]Zegers M, de Bruijne MC, de Keizer B, Merten H, Groenewegen PP, van der Wal G, Wagner C: The incidence, root-causes, and outcomes of adverse events in surgical units: implication for potential prevention strategies. Patient Saf Surg 2011, 5:13. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Zegers M, De Bruijne MC, Spreeuwenberg P, Wagner C, Van Der Wal G, Groenewegen PP: Variation in the rates of adverse events between hospitals and hospital departments. Int J Qual Health Care 2011, 23:126-133.