PMID- 38345987
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20240214
LR  - 20240214
IS  - 1433-6510 (Print)
IS  - 1433-6510 (Linking)
VI  - 70
IP  - 2
DP  - 2024 Feb 1
TI  - Application of Global Trigger Tools in University Hospital and Comparison to 
      Volunteer Adverse Events Reporting System.
LID - 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2023.230641 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: A voluntary reporting system (VRS) is still used to detect adverse 
      events (AEs) in health-care services in many countries. We attempted to apply the 
      Global Trigger Tool (GTT) for the first time in our country and searched for an 
      answer to the question of whether there could be new triggers. METHODS: Two 
      hundred and forty inpatient records were selected from total of 1,807 inpatient 
      files in the university obstetrics and gynecology clinic between 2018 and 2020. 
      Twenty files per month were reviewed retrospectively using GTT, an approach 
      developed by the American Institute for Health Development. VRS records of the 
      same period were examined. The data were evaluated according to the National 
      Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention scale and 
      those in the E, F, G, H, I categories were included. RESULTS: The number of AEs 
      per 1,000 patient days was 47.81, AEs per 1,000 patient hospitalizations was 
      95.83, and hospitalizations with AEs was 9.58%. In the VRS data, 10 of 85 
      reporting cases were listed in the E category (Damage is temporary and requires 
      intervention), 6 of them were related to fall of the patient, and 4 of them were 
      related to medical device and material safety. By applying GTT, 45 cases in 
      category E and 35 cases in category F (Damage is temporary and requires 
      hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization) AEs were detected in 23 patients 
      (9.58%). The number of AEs reported was 8.3 times higher in the GTT than with 
      VRS. Healthcare related infection, development of complications from any 
      procedure, APTT>100 Seconds, INR>6, Organ Injury - Repair or Removal, All Kinds 
      of Operative Complications were found to be the most sensitive triggers (PPV = 
      100). There was no difference between the patients with and without AEs in terms 
      of age and number of hospitalization days (p: 0.707, p: 0.618). The sensitivity 
      rate of vaginal dinoprostone use and CRP elevation (30% and 22%, respectively) 
      was higher than the mean sensitivity rate of GTT triggers (15.6%). CONCLUSIONS: 
      The GTT is more effective than VRS in detecting AEs. Using vaginal dinoprostone 
      (propess) and high CRP levels could be used as a trigger. The GTT is a credible 
      and fruitful instrument for determining AEs when adapted to the departmental 
      practices.
FAU - Ekici, Zeynep
AU  - Ekici Z
FAU - Kurutkan, Mehmet N
AU  - Kurutkan MN
FAU - Ekici, Mustafa A
AU  - Ekici MA
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - Germany
TA  - Clin Lab
JT  - Clinical laboratory
JID - 9705611
RN  - K7Q1JQR04M (Dinoprostone)
SB  - IM
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - *Patient Safety
MH  - *Medical Errors/prevention & control
MH  - Retrospective Studies
MH  - Dinoprostone
MH  - Hospitals, University
MH  - Volunteers
EDAT- 2024/02/12 18:43
MHDA- 2024/02/12 18:44
CRDT- 2024/02/12 13:16
PHST- 2024/02/12 18:44 [medline]
PHST- 2024/02/12 18:43 [pubmed]
PHST- 2024/02/12 13:16 [entrez]
AID - 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2023.230641 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Clin Lab. 2024 Feb 1;70(2). doi: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2023.230641.