Kristina Schildmeijer

Assessment of adverse events in medical care: lack of consistency between experienced teams using the global trigger tool

Background Many patients are harmed as the result of healthcare. A retrospective structured record review is one way to identify adverse events (AEs). One such review approach is the global trigger tool (GTT), a consistent and well-developed method used to detect AEs. The GTT was originally intended to be used for measuring data over time within a single organisation. However, as the method spreads, it is likely that comparisons of GTT safety outcomes between hospitals will occur. Objective To evaluate agreement in judgement of AEs between well-trained GTT teams from different hospitals. Methods Five teams from five hospitals of different sizes in the southeast of Sweden conducted a retrospective review of patient records from a random sample of 50 admissions between October 2009 and May 2010. Inter-rater reliability between teams was assessed using descriptive and κ statistics. Results The five teams identified 42 different AEs altogether. The number of identified AEs differed between the teams, corresponding to a level of AEs ranging from 27.2 to 99.7 per 1000 hospital days. Pair-wise agreement for detection of AEs ranged from 88% to 96%, with weighted κ values between 0.26 and 0.77. Of the AEs, 29 (69%) were identified by only one team and not by the other four groups. Most AEs resulted in minor and transient harm, the most common being healthcare-associated infections. The level of agreement regarding the potential for prevention showed a large variation between the teams. Conclusions The results do not encourage the use of the GTT for making comparisons between hospitals. The use of the GTT to this end would require substantial training to achieve better agreement across reviewer teams.

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

BackgroundThere 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAltogether, 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.ConclusionsMore 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.

Retrospective record review in proactive patient safety work – identification of no-harm incidents

BackgroundIn contrast to other safety critical industries, well-developed systems to monitor safety within the healthcare system remain limited. Retrospective record review is one way of identifying adverse events in healthcare. In proactive patient safety work, retrospective record review could be used to identify, analyze and gain information and knowledge about no-harm incidents and deficiencies in healthcare processes. The aim of the study was to evaluate retrospective record review for the detection and characterization of no-harm incidents, and compare findings with conventional incident-reporting systems.MethodsA two-stage structured retrospective record review of no-harm incidents was performed on a random sample of 350 admissions at a Swedish orthopedic department. Results were compared with those found in one local, and four national incident-reporting systems.ResultsWe identified 118 no-harm incidents in 91 (26.0%) of the 350 records by retrospective record review. Ninety-four (79.7%) no-harm incidents were classified as preventable. The five incident-reporting systems identified 16 no-harm incidents, of which ten were also found by retrospective record review. The most common no-harm incidents were related to drug therapy (n = 66), of which 87.9% were regarded as preventable.ConclusionsNo-harm incidents are common and often preventable. Retrospective record review seems to be a valuable tool for identifying and characterizing no-harm incidents. Both harm and no-harm incidents can be identified in parallel during the same record review. By adding a retrospective record review of randomly selected records to conventional incident-reporting, health care providers can gain a clearer and broader picture of commonly occurring, no-harm incidents in order to improve patient safety.

Preventable Adverse Events in Surgical Care in Sweden A Nationwide Review of Patient Notes

AbstractAdverse events (AEs) occur in health care and may result in harm to patients especially in the field of surgery. Our objective was to analyze AEs in surgical patient care from a nationwide perspective and to analyze the frequency of AEs that may be preventable.In total 19,141 randomly selected admissions in 63 Swedish hospitals were reviewed each month during 2013 using a 2-stage record review method based on the identification of predefined triggers. The subgroup of 3301 surgical admissions was analyzed. All AEs were categorized according to site, type, level of severity, and degree of preventability.We reviewed 3301 patients’ records and 507 (15.4%) were associated with AEs. A total of 62.5% of the AEs were considered probably preventable, over half contributed to prolonged hospital care or readmission, and 4.7% to permanent harm or death. Healthcare acquired infections composed of more than one third of AEs. The majority of the most serious AEs composed of healthcare acquired infections and surgical or other invasive AEs. The incidence of AEs was 13% in patients 18 to 64 years old and 17% in ≥65 years. Pressure sores and drug-related AEs were more common in patients being ≥65 years. Urinary retention and pressure sores showed the highest degree of preventability. Patients with probably preventable AEs had in median 7.1 days longer hospital stay.We conclude that AEs are common in surgical care and the majority are probably preventable.

Strengths and weaknesses of working with the Global Trigger Tool method for retrospective record review: focus group interviews with team members

Objectives 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. Design A qualitative, descriptive approach with focus group interviews using content analysis. Setting 5 Swedish hospitals in 2011. Participants 5 GTT teams, with 5 physicians and 11 registered nurses. Intervention 5 focus group interviews were carried out with the five teams. Interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim. Results 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. Conclusions 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 patients perspective may contribute to large differences in assessment over time.

Development of a trigger tool to identify adverse events and no-harm incidents that affect patients admitted to home healthcare

Background Adverse events (AEs) and no-harm incidents are common and of great concern in healthcare. A common method for identification of AEs is retrospective record review (RRR) using predefined triggers. This method has been used frequently in inpatient care, but AEs in home healthcare have not been explored to the same extent. The aim of this study was to develop a trigger tool (TT) for the identification of both AEs and no-harm incidents affecting adult patients admitted to home healthcare in Sweden, and to describe the methodology used for this development. Methods The TT was developed and validated in a stepwise manner, in collaboration with experts with different skills, using (1) literature review and interviews, (2) a five-round modified Delphi process, and (3) two-stage RRRs. Ten trained teams from different sites in Sweden reviewed 600 randomly selected records. Results In all, triggers were found 4031 times in 518 (86.3%) records, with a mean of 6.7 (median 4, range 1–54) triggers per record with triggers. The positive predictive values (PPVs) for AEs and no-harm incidents were 25.4% and 16.3%, respectively, resulting in a PPV of 41.7% (range 0.0%–96.1% per trigger) for the total TT when using 38 triggers. The most common triggers were unplanned contact with physician and/or registered nurse, moderate/severe pain, moderate/severe worry, anxiety, suffering, existential pain and/or psychological pain. AEs were identified in 37.7% of the patients and no-harm incidents in 29.5%. Conclusion This study shows that adapted triggers with definitions and decision support, developed to identify AEs and no-harm incidents that affect patients admitted to home healthcare, may be a valid method for safety and quality improvement work in home healthcare.

Sensitivity and specificity of two different automated external defibrillators

AIM The aim was to investigate the clinical performance of two different types of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). METHODS Three investigators reviewed 2938 rhythm analyses performed by AEDs in 240 consecutive patients (median age 72, q1-q3=62-83) who had suffered cardiac arrest between January 2011 and March 2015. Two different AEDs were used (AED A n=105, AED B n=135) in-hospital (n=91) and out-of-hospital (n=149). RESULTS Among 194 shockable rhythms, 17 (8.8%) were not recognized by AED A, while AED B recognized 100% (n=135) of shockable episodes (sensitivity 91.2 vs 100%, p<0.01). In AED A, 8 (47.1%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors while 9 (52.9%) were caused by external artifacts. Among 1039 non-shockable rhythms, AED A recommended shock in 11 (1.0%), while AED B recommended shock in 63 (4.1%) of 1523 episodes (specificity 98.9 vs 95.9, p<0.001). In AED A, 2 (18.2%) of these episodes were judged to be algorithm errors (AED B, n=40, 63.5%), while 9 (81.8%) were caused by external artifacts (AED B, n=23, 36.5%). CONCLUSIONS There were significant differences in sensitivity and specificity between the two different AEDs. A higher sensitivity of AED B was associated with a lower specificity while a higher specificity of AED A was associated with a lower sensitivity. AED manufacturers should work to improve the algorithms. In addition, AED use should always be reviewed with a routine for giving feedback, and medical personnel should be aware of the specific strengths and shortcomings of the device they are using.

Quality of chest compressions by healthcare professionals using real-time audiovisual feedback during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation:

Introduction: A high quality of chest compressions, e.g. sufficient depth (5–6 cm) and rate (100–120 per min), has been associated with survival. The patient’s underlay affects chest compression depth. Depth and rate can be assessed by feedback systems to guide rescuers during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Aim: The purpose of this study was to describe the quality of chest compressions by healthcare professionals using real-time audiovisual feedback during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Method: An observational descriptive study was performed including 63 cardiac arrest events with a resuscitation attempt. Data files were recorded by Zoll AED Pro, and reviewed by RescueNet Code Review software. The events were analysed according to depth, rate, quality of chest compressions and underlay. Results: Across events, 12.7% (median) of the compressions had a depth of 5–6 cm. Compression depth of >6 cm was measured in 70.1% (median). The underlay could be identified from the electronic patient records in 54 events. The median compression depth was 4.5 cm (floor) and 6.7 cm (mattress). Across events, 57.5% (median) of the compressions were performed with a median frequency of 100–120 compressions/min and the most common problem was a compression rate of <100 (median=22.3%). Conclusions: Chest compression quality was poor according to the feedback system. However, the distribution of compression depth with regard to underlay points towards overestimation of depth when treating patients on a mattress. Audiovisual feedback devices ought to be further developed. Healthcare professionals need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their devices.

Reply to Deilkas letter: Imprecision concerning the Global Trigger Tool Reply

Dear Editor, We thank Ellen Deikas for her comments on our article ‘The assessment of adverse events in medical care; lack of consistency between experienced teams using the Global Trigger Tool’.1 In our article, five different GTT teams reviewed the same 50 records in order to identify harm. Before the study, all the teams had used the GTT method for safety work during at least 3 years, and were of the opinion that they used the method according to the Swedish manual. In the study, the teams were instructed to review the …The assessment of adverse events in medical care: lack of consistency between experienced teams using the Global Trigger Tool

What is palliative care? Perceptions of healthcare professionals

Background Despite increased attention and knowledge in palliative care, there is still confusion concerning how to interpret the concept of palliative care and implement it in practice. This can result in difficulties for healthcare professionals in identifying patients whom would benefit from palliative care, which, in turn, could lead to a delay in meeting patients’ needs. Aim To explore healthcare professionals’ perceptions of palliative care. Method Data were collected through twelve interprofessional focus group interviews in community care and hospital wards in south Sweden (n = 74). All interviews were analysed with latent content analysis. Results Three domains were revealed: first, a blurred conceptual understanding as participants described palliative care using synonyms, diagnoses, phases, natural care and holism; second, a challenge to communicate transitions concerned the importance of how and when the transition to palliative care was communicated and documented; finally, a need for interprofessional collaboration was described as well as the consequences for severely ill persons, relatives and healthcare professionals when it was not established. Conclusion The perceptions about how to interpret palliative care differed as well as when palliative care should be offered and decided, which might have practical consequences. How long a person has left to live is of great significance for decision‐making, caregiving and preparation in palliative care. The challenge is to use interprofessional communication to promote understanding and collaborate across varied care levels. Integrating palliative care across diverse care levels could be one way to reduce the ambiguity of palliative care.