4.4 Article

Performance Characteristics of a Methodology to Quantify Adverse Events over Time in Hospitalized Patients

期刊

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 654-678

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01156.x

关键词

Patient safety; adverse event assessment; global trigger tool

资金

  1. Rx Foundation (Walnut, CA)
  2. Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI)
  3. Rx Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess the performance characteristics of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool (GTT) to determine its reliability for tracking local and national adverse event rates. Data Sources Primary data from 2008 chart reviews. Study Design A retrospective study in a stratified random sample of 10 North Carolina hospitals. Hospital-based (internal) and contract research organization-hired (external) reviewers used the GTT to identify adverse events in the same 10 randomly selected medical records per hospital in each quarter from January 2002 through December 2007. Data Collection/Extraction Interrater and intrarater reliability was assessed using kappa statistics on 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively, of selected medical records. Additionally, experienced GTT users reviewed 10 percent of records to calculate internal and external teams' sensitivity and specificity. Principal Findings Eighty-eight to 98 percent of the targeted 2,400 medical records were reviewed. The reliability of the GTT to detect the presence, number, and severity of adverse events varied from kappa=0.40 to 0.60. When compared with a team of experienced reviewers, the internal teams' sensitivity (49 percent) and specificity (94 percent) exceeded the external teams' (34 and 93 percent), as did their performance on all other metrics. Conclusions The high specificity, moderate sensitivity, and favorable interrater and intrarater reliability of the GTT make it appropriate for tracking local and national adverse event rates. The strong performance of hospital-based reviewers supports their use in future studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据