Background Adverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely. Objective This study aimed: (1) to synthesize available evidence on AE incidence in acute care inpatient settings using Trigger Tool methodology; and (2) to explore whether study characteristics and study quality explain variations in reported AE incidence. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods To identify relevant studies, we queried PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and three journals in the patient safety field (last update search 25.05.2022). Eligible publications fulfilled the following criteria: adult inpatient samples; acute care hospital settings; Trigger Tool methodology; focus on specialty of internal medicine, surgery or oncology; published in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. Systematic reviews and studies addressing adverse drug events or exclusively deceased patients were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Our main outcome of interest was AEs per 100 admissions. We assessed nine study characteristics plus study quality as potential sources of variation using random regression models. We received no funding and did not register this review. Results Screening 6,685 publications yielded 54 eligible studies covering 194,470 admissions. The cumulative AE incidence was 30.0 per 100 admissions (95% CI 23.9–37.5; I2 = 99.7%) and between study heterogeneity was high with a prediction interval of 5.4–164.7. Overall studies’ risk of bias and applicability-related concerns were rated as low. Eight out of nine methodological study characteristics did explain some variation of reported AE rates, such as patient age and type of hospital. Also, study quality did explain variation. Conclusion Estimates of AE studies using trigger tool methodology vary while explaining variation is seriously hampered by the low standards of reporting such as the timeframe of AE detection. Specific reporting guidelines for studies using retrospective medical record review methodology are necessary to strengthen the current evidence base and to help explain between study variation.

/pdf/variation-in-detected-adverse-events-using-trigger-tools-a-3w1n8523.pdf

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

El conocimiento de los eventos adversos (EA) en los hospitales de agudos es un aspecto de especial relevancia en la seguridad del paciente. Su incidencia oscila entre un 3-17% y la cirugía se relaciona con la aparición de entre un 46-65% de todos los EA. Se realiza un estudio observacional, descriptivo, retrospectivo y multicéntrico, con la participación de 31 hospitales de agudos españoles, para la determinación y análisis de los EA en los servicios de cirugía general. La prevalencia de EA fue del 31,53%. Los tipos de EA más frecuentes fueron de tipo infeccioso (35%). Los pacientes con mayores grados de ASA, mayor complejidad y un tipo de ingreso urgente son factores asociados a la presencia de EA. A la mayoría de los pacientes se les atribuyó una categoría de daño F (daño temporal al paciente que requiera iniciar o prolongar la hospitalización) (58,42%). El 14,69% de los EA son considerados graves. El 34,22% de los EA se consideraron evitables. La prevalencia de EA en los pacientes de cirugía general y del aparato digestivo (CGAD) es elevada. La mayor parte de los EA fueron de tipo infeccioso. El EA más frecuente fue la infección de herida o sitio quirúrgico. Los pacientes con mayores grados de ASA, mayor complejidad y un tipo de ingreso urgente son factores asociados a la presencia de EA. La mayoría de los EA detectados han supuesto un daño leve o moderado sobre los pacientes. Alrededor de un tercio de EA fueron evitables. Knowledge of adverse events (AE) in acute care hospitals is a particularly relevant aspect of patient safety. Its incidence ranges from 3% to 17%, and surgery is related to the occurrence of 46%-65% of all AE. An observational, descriptive, retrospective, multicenter study was conducted with the participation of 31 Spanish acute-care hospitals to determine and analyze AE in general surgery services. The prevalence of AE was 31.53%. The most frequent types of AE were infectious (35%). Higher ASA grades, greater complexity and urgent-type admission are factors associated with the presence of AE. The majority of patients (58.42%) were attributed a category F event (temporary harm to the patient requiring initial or prolonged hospitalization); 14.69% of AE were considered severe, while 34.22% of AE were considered preventable. The prevalence of AE in General and GI Surgery (GGIS) patients is high. Most AE were infectious, and the most frequent AE was surgical site infection. Higher ASA grades, greater complexity and urgent-type admission are factors associated with the presence of AE. Most detected AE resulted in mild or moderate harm to the patients. About one-third of AE were preventable. 

Análisis de eventos adversos en los servicios de cirugía general y aparato digestivo. Estudio multicéntrico

Analyse- und Reportingwerkzeuge

Analysis of adverse events in general surgery. Multicenter study.

In spite of the global implementation of standardized surgical safety checklists and evidence-based practices, general surgery remains associated with a high residual risk of preventable perioperative complications and adverse events. This study was designed to validate the hypothesis that a new "Trigger Tool" represents a sensitive predictor of adverse events in general surgery.An observational multicenter validation study was performed among 31 hospitals in Spain. The previously described "Trigger Tool" based on 40 specific triggers was applied to validate the predictive power of predicting adverse events in the perioperative care of surgical patients. A prediction model was used by means of a binary logistic regression analysis.The prevalence of adverse events among a total of 1,132 surgical cases included in this study was 31.53%. The "Trigger Tool" had a sensitivity and specificity of 86.27% and 79.55% respectively for predicting these adverse events. A total of 12 selected triggers of overall 40 triggers were identified for optimizing the predictive power of the "Trigger Tool".The "Trigger Tool" has a high predictive capacity for predicting adverse events in surgical procedures. We recommend a revision of the original 40 triggers to 12 selected triggers to optimize the predictive power of this tool, which will have to be validated in future studies. 

/pdf/predictive-power-of-the-trigger-tool-for-the-detection-of-2fz2audn.pdf

Predictive Power of the "Trigger Tool" for the detection of adverse events in general surgery: a multicenter observational validation study

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

We encountered an error while loading the panel. Please try refreshing the page.

Something went wrong

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

Anyone with the link can view this chat. You can switch it back to private anytime.

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

C. Vallejo Bernad

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Predictive Power of the "Trigger Tool" for the detection of adverse events in general surgery: a multicenter observational validation study