Comparison of a Voluntary Safety Reporting System to a Global Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in an Oncology Population
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved..
OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of research on adverse event (AE) detection in oncology patients, despite the propensity for iatrogenic harm. Two common methods include voluntary safety reporting (VSR) and chart review tools, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Our objective was to compare frequency and type of AEs detected by a modified GTT compared with VSR for identifying AEs in oncology patients in a larger clinical trial.
METHODS: Patients across 6 oncology units (from July 1, 2013, through May 29, 2015) were randomly selected. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted by a team of nurses and physicians to identify AEs using the GTT. The VSR system was queried by the department of quality and safety of the hospital. Adverse event frequencies, type, and harm code for both methods were compared.
RESULTS: The modified GTT detected 0.90 AEs per patient (79 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.71-1.12] AEs per patient) that were predominantly medication AEs (53/79); more than half of the AEs caused harm to the patients (41/79, 52%), but only one quarter were preventable (21/79; 27%). The VSR detected 0.24 AEs per patient (21 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.15-0.37] AEs per patient), a large plurality of which were medication/intravenous related (8/21); more than half did not cause harm (70%). Only 2% of the AEs (2/100) were detected by both methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Neither the modified GTT nor the VSR system alone is sufficient for detecting AEs in oncology patient populations. Further studies exploring methods such as automated AE detection from electronic health records and leveraging patient-reported AEs are needed.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:18 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of patient safety - 18(2022), 6 vom: 01. Sept., Seite 611-616 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Samal, Lipika [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Comparative Study |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 23.08.2022 Date Revised 28.09.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1097/PTS.0000000000001050 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM343785382 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM343785382 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226021244.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001050 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1145.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM343785382 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)35858480 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Samal, Lipika |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of a Voluntary Safety Reporting System to a Global Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in an Oncology Population |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 23.08.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 28.09.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of research on adverse event (AE) detection in oncology patients, despite the propensity for iatrogenic harm. Two common methods include voluntary safety reporting (VSR) and chart review tools, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Our objective was to compare frequency and type of AEs detected by a modified GTT compared with VSR for identifying AEs in oncology patients in a larger clinical trial | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Patients across 6 oncology units (from July 1, 2013, through May 29, 2015) were randomly selected. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted by a team of nurses and physicians to identify AEs using the GTT. The VSR system was queried by the department of quality and safety of the hospital. Adverse event frequencies, type, and harm code for both methods were compared | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: The modified GTT detected 0.90 AEs per patient (79 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.71-1.12] AEs per patient) that were predominantly medication AEs (53/79); more than half of the AEs caused harm to the patients (41/79, 52%), but only one quarter were preventable (21/79; 27%). The VSR detected 0.24 AEs per patient (21 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.15-0.37] AEs per patient), a large plurality of which were medication/intravenous related (8/21); more than half did not cause harm (70%). Only 2% of the AEs (2/100) were detected by both methods | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Neither the modified GTT nor the VSR system alone is sufficient for detecting AEs in oncology patient populations. Further studies exploring methods such as automated AE detection from electronic health records and leveraging patient-reported AEs are needed | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Khasnabish, Srijesa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Foskett, Cathy |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zigmont, Katherine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Faxvaag, Arild |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chang, Frank |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Clements, Marsha |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rossetti, Sarah Collins |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dalal, Anuj K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Leone, Kathleen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lipsitz, Stuart |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Massaro, Anthony |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rozenblum, Ronen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schnock, Kumiko O |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yoon, Catherine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bates, David W |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dykes, Patricia C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of patient safety |d 2009 |g 18(2022), 6 vom: 01. Sept., Seite 611-616 |w (DE-627)NLM192894463 |x 1549-8425 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2022 |g number:6 |g day:01 |g month:09 |g pages:611-616 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001050 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2022 |e 6 |b 01 |c 09 |h 611-616 | ||