Andrei Karpov1, Catherine Parcero2, Catherine P Y Mok1, Chandima Panditha2, Eugenia Yu3, Linda Dempster2, Corinne M Hohl4,5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9. 2. Quality & Patient Safety, Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9. 3. Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9. chohl@mail.ubc.ca. 5. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9, Canada. chohl@mail.ubc.ca.
Abstract
AIMS: Trigger tools are retrospective surveillance methods that can be used to identify adverse drug events (ADEs), unintended and harmful effects of medications, in medical records. Trigger tools are used in quality improvement, public health surveillance and research activities. The objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of trigger tools in identifying ADEs. METHODS: This study was a sub-study of a prospective cohort study which enrolled adults presenting to one tertiary care emergency department. Clinical pharmacists evaluated patients for ADEs at the point-of-care. Twelve months after the prospective study's completion, the patients' medical records were reviewed using eight different trigger tools. ADEs identified using each trigger tool were compared with events identified at the point-of-care. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of each trigger tool for ADEs. RESULTS: Among 1151 patients, 152 (13.2%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 11.4, 15.3%) were diagnosed with one or more ADEs at the point-of-care. The sensitivity of the trigger tools for detecting ADEs ranged from 2.6% (95% CI 0.7, 6.6%) to 15.8% (95% CI 10.6, 22.8%). Their specificity varied from 99.3% (95% CI 98.6, 99.7) to 100% (95% CI 99.6, 100%). CONCLUSION: The trigger tools examined had poor sensitivity for identifying ADEs in emergency department patients, when applied manually and in retrospect. Reliance on these methods to detect ADEs for quality improvement, surveillance, and research activities is likely to underestimate their occurrence, and may lead to biased estimates.
AIMS: Trigger tools are retrospective surveillance methods that can be used to identify adverse drug events (ADEs), unintended and harmful effects of medications, in medical records. Trigger tools are used in quality improvement, public health surveillance and research activities. The objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of trigger tools in identifying ADEs. METHODS: This study was a sub-study of a prospective cohort study which enrolled adults presenting to one tertiary care emergency department. Clinical pharmacists evaluated patients for ADEs at the point-of-care. Twelve months after the prospective study's completion, the patients' medical records were reviewed using eight different trigger tools. ADEs identified using each trigger tool were compared with events identified at the point-of-care. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of each trigger tool for ADEs. RESULTS: Among 1151 patients, 152 (13.2%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 11.4, 15.3%) were diagnosed with one or more ADEs at the point-of-care. The sensitivity of the trigger tools for detecting ADEs ranged from 2.6% (95% CI 0.7, 6.6%) to 15.8% (95% CI 10.6, 22.8%). Their specificity varied from 99.3% (95% CI 98.6, 99.7) to 100% (95% CI 99.6, 100%). CONCLUSION: The trigger tools examined had poor sensitivity for identifying ADEs in emergency department patients, when applied manually and in retrospect. Reliance on these methods to detect ADEs for quality improvement, surveillance, and research activities is likely to underestimate their occurrence, and may lead to biased estimates.
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: Corinne M Hohl; Bohdan Nosyk; Lisa Kuramoto; Peter J Zed; Jeffrey R Brubacher; Riyad B Abu-Laban; Samuel B Sheps; Boris Sobolev Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-02-26 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Corinne M Hohl; Lisa Kuramoto; Eugenia Yu; Basia Rogula; Jürgen Stausberg; Boris Sobolev Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Maria das Dores Graciano Silva; Maria Auxiliadora Parreiras Martins; Luciana de Gouvêa Viana; Luiz Guilherme Passaglia; Renata Rezende de Menezes; João Antonio de Queiroz Oliveira; Jose Luiz Padilha da Silva; Antonio Luiz Pinho Ribeiro Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-07-08 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: David Peddie; Serena S Small; Katherin Badke; Maeve E Wickham; Chantelle Bailey; Adam Chruscicki; Christine Ackerley; Ellen Balka; Corinne M Hohl Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2016-08-18
Authors: Widya N Insani; Cate Whittlesea; Hassan Alwafi; Kenneth K C Man; Sarah Chapman; Li Wei Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Corinne M Hohl; Serena S Small; David Peddie; Katherin Badke; Ellen Balka; Chantelle Bailey Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2018-02-27