PMID- 32168280
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20220217
LR  - 20230930
IS  - 1549-8425 (Electronic)
IS  - 1549-8417 (Print)
IS  - 1549-8417 (Linking)
VI  - 17
IP  - 8
DP  - 2021 Dec 1
TI  - A Systematic Review of Methods for Medical Record Analysis to Detect Adverse 
      Events in Hospitalized Patients.
PG  - e1234-e1240
LID - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000670 [doi]
AB  - OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we evaluate 2 of the most used trigger 
      tools according to the criteria of the World Health Organization for evaluating 
      methods. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for studies 
      (2000-2017). Studies were included if medical record review (MRR) was performed 
      with either the Global Trigger Tool or the Harvard Medical Practice Study in a 
      hospital population. Quality assessment was performed in duplicate. Fifty studies 
      were included, and results were reported for every criterion separately. RESULTS: 
      Medical record review reveals more adverse events (AEs) than any other method. 
      However, at the same time, it detects different AEs. The costs of an AE were on 
      average euro4296. Considerable efforts have been made worldwide in health care to 
      improve safety and to reduce errors. These have resulted in some positive 
      effects. The literature showed that MRR is focused on several domains of quality 
      of care and seems suitable for both small and large cohorts. Furthermore, we 
      found a moderate to substantial agreement for the presence of a trigger and a 
      moderate to good agreement for the presence of an AE. CONCLUSIONS: Medical record 
      review with a trigger tool is a reasonably well-researched method for the 
      evaluation of the medical records for AEs. However, looking at the World Health 
      Organization criteria, much research is still lacking or of moderate quality. 
      Especially for the cost of detecting AEs, valuable information is missing. 
      Moreover, knowledge of how MRR changes quality and safety of care should be 
      evaluated.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
FAU - Klein, Dorthe O
AU  - Klein DO
AD  - From the Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment 
      (KEMTA).
FAU - Rennenberg, Roger J M W
AU  - Rennenberg RJMW
AD  - Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre.
FAU - Koopmans, Richard P
AU  - Koopmans RP
AD  - Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre.
FAU - Prins, Martin H
AU  - Prins MH
AD  - Department of Epidemiology, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht 
      University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Systematic Review
PL  - United States
TA  - J Patient Saf
JT  - Journal of patient safety
JID - 101233393
SB  - IM
MH  - Hospitals
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Medical Errors
MH  - Medical Records
MH  - *Patient Safety
MH  - Retrospective Studies
PMC - PMC8612912
COIS- The authors disclose no conflict of interest.
EDAT- 2020/03/14 06:00
MHDA- 2022/02/19 06:00
PMCR- 2021/11/25
CRDT- 2020/03/14 06:00
PHST- 2020/03/14 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2022/02/19 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2020/03/14 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2021/11/25 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - 01209203-202112000-00078 [pii]
AID - PTS50492 [pii]
AID - 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000670 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec 1;17(8):e1234-e1240. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000670.