F A Griffin1, D C Classen. 1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 20 University Road, 7th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. fgriffin@ihi.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies of healthcare complications identify surgery as a major contributor to the overall burden of complicated care that leads to injury or death. Indeed, surgical adverse events account for one-half to three-quarters of all adverse events in these studies. Despite the intensive current focus on improving medical quality and safety, only a minority of quality improvement efforts are focused on surgery. This study reports on the development and testing of a Trigger Tool to detect adverse events among patients undergoing inpatient surgery. METHODS: Rather than relying on traditional voluntary reporting for safety outcome measures such as incident reports, surgical peer review, or morbidity and mortality conferences, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has employed a new method for the detection of surgical adverse events (SAEs). This approach, commonly referred to as the "Trigger Tool", identifies adverse events using a form of retrospective record review that has been developed and implemented in many areas of care. RESULTS: During a 12-month IHI Perioperative Safety Collaborative, 11 hospitals voluntarily submitted data from surgical inpatient record reviews. In 854 patients, 138 SAEs were detected in 125 records for a rate of 16 SAEs per 100 patients or 14.6% of patients; 61 (44%) of these events contributed to increased length of stay or readmission and 12 (8.7%) events required life-saving intervention or resulted in permanent harm or death. Hospital review teams reported verbally that most of the events identified during the Trigger Tool review process had not been detected or reported via any other existing mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: The IHI Surgical Trigger Tool may offer a practical, easy-to-use approach to detecting safety problems in patients undergoing surgery; it can be the basis not only for estimating the frequency of adverse events in an organisation, but also determining the impact of interventions that focus on reducing adverse events in surgical patients.
BACKGROUND: Most studies of healthcare complications identify surgery as a major contributor to the overall burden of complicated care that leads to injury or death. Indeed, surgical adverse events account for one-half to three-quarters of all adverse events in these studies. Despite the intensive current focus on improving medical quality and safety, only a minority of quality improvement efforts are focused on surgery. This study reports on the development and testing of a Trigger Tool to detect adverse events among patients undergoing inpatient surgery. METHODS: Rather than relying on traditional voluntary reporting for safety outcome measures such as incident reports, surgical peer review, or morbidity and mortality conferences, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) has employed a new method for the detection of surgical adverse events (SAEs). This approach, commonly referred to as the "Trigger Tool", identifies adverse events using a form of retrospective record review that has been developed and implemented in many areas of care. RESULTS: During a 12-month IHI Perioperative Safety Collaborative, 11 hospitals voluntarily submitted data from surgical inpatient record reviews. In 854 patients, 138 SAEs were detected in 125 records for a rate of 16 SAEs per 100 patients or 14.6% of patients; 61 (44%) of these events contributed to increased length of stay or readmission and 12 (8.7%) events required life-saving intervention or resulted in permanent harm or death. Hospital review teams reported verbally that most of the events identified during the Trigger Tool review process had not been detected or reported via any other existing mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: The IHI Surgical Trigger Tool may offer a practical, easy-to-use approach to detecting safety problems in patients undergoing surgery; it can be the basis not only for estimating the frequency of adverse events in an organisation, but also determining the impact of interventions that focus on reducing adverse events in surgical patients.
Authors: Paul J Sharek; Gareth Parry; Donald Goldmann; Kate Bones; Andrew Hackbarth; Roger Resar; Frances A Griffin; Dale Rhoda; Cathy Murphy; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Jacqueline M Bos; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Wietske Kievit; Johan L W Pot; J Elsbeth Nagtegaal; André Wieringa; Monique M L van der Westerlaken; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Peter A G M de Smet; Cornelis Kramers Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Hillary J Mull; Kamal M F Itani; Steven D Pizer; Martin P Charns; Peter E Rivard; Nathalie McIntosh; Mary T Hawn; Amy K Rosen Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Maya A Ramrattan; Eveline B Boeker; Kim Ram; Desiree M T Burgers; Monica de Boer; Loraine Lie-A-Huen; Wilhelmina M C Mulder; Marja A Boermeester Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2014-04-20
Authors: Julie A Eckstrand; Ashraf S Habib; Monica M Horvath; Abbie Williamson; Katherine G Gattis; Heidi Cozart; Jeffrey Ferranti Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2009-08-11
Authors: Richard T Griffey; Ryan M Schneider; Brian R Sharp; Jeff Pothof; Marie C Vrablik; Nic Granzella; Alexandre A Todorov; Lee Adler Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.844